Paris (AFP) – Far from offering a simple fix, sci-fi solutions to global warming may in fact make the problem worse, a probe of “geo-engineering” options said on Tuesday. Once mocked as unscientific, geo-engineering proposals are gaining traction as carbon emissions soar, placing Earth on track for warming of maybe four degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100[...]
Reporting in the journal Nature Communications, the team devised a computer model to project the impact of five geo-engineering proposals under a scenario of continuing high carbon emissions.
The five schemes entail:
– planting large forests to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and store it,
– fertilising the oceans with iron to stimulate the growth of plankton, which would absorb more CO2 from the sea surface through photosynthesis,
– using long pipes to pump deep, cold, nutrient-rich water to the surface to fertilise plankton,
– “alkalising” the ocean with limestone to cause a chemical reaction to absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere, and
– using solar radiation management (SRM): placing reflective particles in the atmosphere or mirrors in space to reflect the Sun’s rays.
Even with the technologies combined and applied to the widest extent possible, these options would not prevent mean surface temperatures from rising beyond 2C target if CO2 emissions continue as they are, the simulation found.
The side effects “could be as bad as the climate change effects that they are trying to prevent,” Keller warned.
The study found that SRM was the only method with the potential to swiftly reduce warming.
But it also had some of the largest potential side effects, such as changing rain patterns — and could never be stopped without instantly warming the planet[...]
Their simulation was based on the so-called RCP8.5 emissions scenario, the highest used by the UN’s climate panel, which expects average warming of 3.7 C by 2100.
Commenting on the new study, University of Bristol natural hazards lecturer Matt Watson said it was clear no single method or technology would solve the climate change problem.
While more research was needed, “the paper sounds a timely warning about the abject stupidity of relying upon climate engineering[...]
Faulty modeling predicted the warming of the planet and our imminent demise as a species, if we didn’t immediately agree to soul-crushing, commerce destroying, social experimentation and expansive inter-government control of our daily lives.
Predictions, as recent as 2007, suggested that we would see 0.3 degree increase from 2004-2014. Those predictions were wrong.
There would be 0.3°C warming over the decade 2004-2014
At least half of the years after 2009 would be warmer than the record year of 1998.
From 2000-2010, the winters have been the snowiest mankind has seen in nearly a century. Global temperatures have not risen since 1998, but the Chicken Liberal tyrants of AGW won’t let that stop them:
Note that at that time, 2007, the warmest year was thought to be 1998; subsequent adjustments to the method made 2005 warmer than 1998.
When the predictive models don’t meet the expected result, reality is obviously to blame. Just like government reporting in the U.S. – if you don’t like the outcomes, change the metrics until the numbers suit the agenda. I really hate these people.