OK, start worrying: IPCC asks scientists to assess geo-engineering climate solutions (without rules

Last week, it came to light that the IPCC is now asking major countries and origanizations to begin assessing implementation of geoengineering programs, without laws or regulations in place, in lieu of a more general agreement on emissions!

Leaked documents ahead of key Lima meeting suggest UN body is looking to slow emissions with technological fixes rather than talks

In a move that suggests the UN and rich countries are despairing of reaching agreement by consensus at global climate talks, the US, British and other western scientists will outline a series of ideas to manipulate the world's climate to reduce carbon emissions. But they accept that even though the ideas could theoretically work, they might equally have unintended and even irreversible consequences.

The papers, leaked from inside the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ahead of a geo-engineering expert group meeting in Lima in Peru next week, show that around 60 scientists will propose or try to assess a range of radical measures, including:
• blasting sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight into space;
• depositing massive quantities of iron filings into the oceans;
• bio-engineering crops to be a lighter colour to reflect sunlight; and
• suppressing cirrus clouds.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Now, I don't generally give The Guardian a whole lot of credit for good journalism (more like none), this has the appearance of a true "scoop;" it names sources, cites records and even names names who are willing to talk.

So, are the IPCC, US, UK ready to start manipulating the climate?
Given that the Obama administration has in place people like Scince advise Holdren, who advocates "de-industrialization," and Energy Secretary Henry Ch, who endorses "European gasoline prices" and to whom coal gives nightmares, this could be the real thing. Obama himself warned during his campaign that he would see that energy costs would be substantilally higher. EPA Secretary Lisa Jackson is already preparing regulations to decimate coal-generated power, as well.

What could come next?

This week, more than 125 environment, development and human rights groups from 40 countries published a letter sent to Rajendra Pachauri, the Nobel prize-winning head of the IPCC, warning that the body had no mandate to consider the legality or political suitability of using geo-engineering.
...
In a letter to the Guardian this week, Georgina Mace, professor of conservation science at Imperial College, London and Catherine Redgwell, professor of international law at UCL, said that investment in geo-engineering research had already begun and, "without international governance structures, schemes could soon be implemented unencumbered by the safeguards needed".

But according to abstracts of the papers, Redgwell will advise the IPCC in Peru next week that no new laws should be adopted. "A multilateral geo-engineering treaty is not likely or desirable. The appetite for climate change law-making is low."

This doesn't bode well for trhe public, since we will have no input to the entrepreneurs and agencies who have their agendas and studies in place to go forward.

Geo-engineering is not a public good but could be a giant international scandal with devastating consequences on the poor," said Diana Bronson, researcher with international NGO the ETC Group.


In the papers, many of the scientists accept there are that major uncertainties around the technologies. However, the scientific steering group of the meeting, which will assess the technologies, includes many well-known geo-engineering advocates who have called for public funds to conduct large-scale experiments as well as scientists who have patents on geo-engineering technologies or financial interests in the technologies.

Although I had assumed that cooler heads would prevail, I can see Obama acting now, rather than later, and moving forward woth this as a"green jobs" program.

Others here on ATS saw this coming almost a year ago, and our friend Burntheships posted an excellent summary of what was then only speculation and planning:
The Powerful Coalition That Wants To Engineer The World's Climate

Here's the Guardian snippet she based this upon:

Now, a powerful coalition of forces is quietly constellating around the idea of transforming the Earth's atmosphere by simulating volcanic eruptions to counter the warming effects...Engineering the planet's climate system is attracting the attention of scientists, scientific societies, venture capitalists...think tanks. Despite the enormity of what is being proposed nothing less than taking control of Earth's climate system the public has been almost entirely excluded from the planning.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Now, this has NOTHING to do with chemtrails.
It is about implementing what had only previously been discussed, studied, and considered.

Are we ready?
Do we really want this?
Do we really need this at this point of uncertainty about the scope and direction of climate change?

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
Last week, it came to light that the IPCC is now asking major countries and origanizations to begin assessing implementation of geoengineering programs, without laws or regulations in place, in lieu of a more general agreement on emissions!

Not really. They are having a conference in Lima to discuss the potential role of geoengineering in climate change. This is just what scientist do - meet to discuss science.

Are we ready?
Do we really want this?
Do we really need this at this point of uncertainty about the scope and direction of climate change?

Yes, we absolutely need to. It is the uncertainty that is the point. We need MORE certainty as to the need for, and effects of, geoengineering.

And they are not saying "there should be no laws", just that an international treaty would be A) impossible to get, and B) not practical because we don't actually know what is viable and what it not, and a blanket ban would be legally unenforceable as it would overlap too many areas (many human activities affect the climate - when do they move from unintentional (like contrails) to deliberate (artificial carbon sequestering trees).

The meeting is a good thing, because the more we know about geoengineering, the more we know about how the climate works, and the less likely we are to mess it up.

Discussions of geoengineering proposals have been going on for a long time, nothing new there. The claim that

But according to abstracts of the papers, Redgwell will advise the IPCC in Peru next week that no new laws should be adopted. "A multilateral geo-engineering treaty is not likely or desirable. The appetite for climate change law-making is low."

Does not seem to be supported by any evidence. Where are these "leaked" abstracts? It would be nice to see the full context.

Found the abstracts.
www.scribd.com...

As expected, the quote is out of context. Redgewell does not say regulation is unlikely or undesireable, she says that a "bespoke" treaty is. Such a treaty is unlikely because, as Copenhagen and Cancun demonstrated, there is little international impetus for any such treaty. She says that it is undesirable because of the potential for conflict with existing international agreements and that a single treaty would not be able to cover all possible aspects of geoengineering. Such a treaty would of necessity be too rigid for practical application. She recommends the approach suggested at the 2010 Asilomar Conference, a set of "guiding principles" be adopted.

There is no recommendation in any of the abstracts that any of the geoengineering proposal be implemented at this time.

reply to post by Phage


Funny you keep looking for documents to prove that geo-engineering is not going on at this time.... Get off your computer and go outside your cubicle and look at the sky. Those airplanes are spraying stuff all the time. It is funny how NASA just posted a new cloud poster defining 14 new types of clouds and the orginal scientest who studied clouds only identified a handful. Clouds have been clouds for thousands of years.

So you are telling me with than last 200 years 14 new clouds were created? Created by who? Wait maybe geo-engineering like we geo-engineer crops.....

spaceplace.nasa.gov...

In 1803 Luke Howard used Latin terms to classify four main cloud types. •Cumulus means pile and describes heaped, lumpy clouds. •Cirrus, meaning hair, describes high level clouds that look wispy, like locks of hair. •Featureless clouds that form sheets are called Stratus, meaning layer. •The term Nimbus, which means “precipitating cloud”, refers to low, grey rain clouds. •Alto is used to describe mid level clouds. •Finally, convective clouds have a vertical development extending through large portions of the atmosphere.

reply to post by Phage


Yes, she says:

Geoengineering should have rules

This presentation explores the regulation of geoengineering and the principles which should guide the
establishment of the governance structure necessary to guide research in the short term and to ensure that any
decisions ultimately taken with respect to deployment occur within an appropriate governance framework.

There already are some rules, based on regulating existing technologies

Indeed, absent from the current legal landscape is a single treaty or institution addressing ail aspects of
geoengineering; rather, the regulatory picture is a diverse and fragmented one both at the international and
national levels (Bracmort et al. 2010; Hester 2011). Thus a major strand in the sparse legal literature addressed
to geoengineering is an assessment of the extent to which existing rules may be adapted to regulate
geoengineering actors and activities

There are a number of alternatives, but a multilateral treaty is probably not a good one:

There are a number of alternatives for geoengineering governance. The first would be the conclusion of a
"bespoke" legal instrument or instruments to address geoengineering. However, a multilateral geoengineering
treaty is neither likely nor desirable.

Because you won't get one:

It is unlikely because the appetite for law-making, particularly in the
climate change context as evidenced by the Copenhagen and Cancun meetings, is low. It seems inconceivable that the political will
would be generated for law-making on this scale and where such a degree of controversy exists. Achieving
consensus on all but the lowest common denominator - if that - seems very unlikely.

And you can't really get specific enough to be useful, nor do such general treaties carry much practical weight.

Such a route is also undesirable, for two reasons. The first is that international law hardly presents a blank slate,
with a plethora of potentially applicable instruments where "regime legitimacy" has been established over time.
The swift response to carbon capture and storage by the parties to the global LC/LP and regional OSPAR
regime is an illustration of what can be done when there is clear consensus regarding the need for international
regulation, the political will to do so, and appropriate instruments to adapt. Existing instruments can, and likely
will, regulate aspects of geoengineering which fall within their treaty mandate. By the same token, there are
gaps, most obviously with respect to the regulation in areas beyond national jurisdiction of SRM methods. A
single treaty on geoengineering is also undesirable owing to the range of methods, where they may be carried
out, and by whom. There can be no "one size fits all" approach to geoengineering regulation beyond the
identification of key guiding principles or concerns of general application. Amongst other things, these could
inform the interpretation and application of existing instruments.

But we could establish some general guidelines, and perhaps a make deployment contingent upon international approval at the UN.

One step forward could be the adoption of guiding principles for geoengineering governance, not as a template
for an international treaty instrument but as an example of potential guidance, which could be embedded in soft
or hard law and used by the key geoengineering stakeholders to guide decision-making on geoengineering
research in particular. These might comprise the following (Rayner et al. 2009; Asimolar Conference
Recommendations 2010):

Principle 1: Geoengineering to be regulated as a public good
Principle 2: Public participation in geoengineering decision-making
Principle 3: Disclosure of geoengineering research and open publication of results
Principle 4: Independent assessment of impacts
Principle 5: Governance before deployment

Such guiding principles could sit well against the backdrop of a moratorium on deployment pursuant to
ENMOD or a General Assembly resolution, for example. Unlike a binding legal instrument, such guidance can
be adopted "instantly" through endorsement by relevant actors (UNGA resolution; UNEP guidelines;
endorsement by national legislatures; professional bodies etc).

So not at all what the OP or the linked story have suggested.

Originally posted by afw2121
reply to post by Phage

 

Funny you keep looking for documents to prove that geo-engineering is not going on at this time.... Get off your computer and go outside your cubicle and look at the sky. Those airplanes are spraying stuff all the time. It is funny how NASA just posted a new cloud poster defining 14 new types of clouds and the orginal scientest who studied clouds only identified a handful. Clouds have been clouds for thousands of years.

So you are telling me with than last 200 years 14 new clouds were created? Created by who? Wait maybe geo-engineering like we geo-engineer crops.....

spaceplace.nasa.gov...

In 1803 Luke Howard used Latin terms to classify four main cloud types. •Cumulus means pile and describes heaped, lumpy clouds. •Cirrus, meaning hair, describes high level clouds that look wispy, like locks of hair. •Featureless clouds that form sheets are called Stratus, meaning layer. •The term Nimbus, which means “precipitating cloud”, refers to low, grey rain clouds. •Alto is used to describe mid level clouds. •Finally, convective clouds have a vertical development extending through large portions of the atmosphere.

So you think clouds did not exist before 1803?

Howard just came up with a naming scheme. That scheme has been improved over the years. They are not new clouds, they are new names for subsets of existing clouds.

reply to post by afw2121

Get off your computer and go outside your cubicle and look at the sky.

I do, often. But I actually prefer to be in the sky instead of just looking at it. This is me.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/44b0575c5e38.png[/atsimg]

So you are telling me with than last 200 years 14 new clouds were created? Created by who? Wait maybe geo-engineering like we geo-engineer crops.....

No. Why would I tell you that? But like the article says, clouds have only been classified for 200 years. Are you telling me that there were no clouds before 1803?

reply to post by Phage


I doubt you para glide for fun. This would mean you would be an outdoor person who does not sit on the computer on a Saturday posting stuff. Nice try, Just step outside your cubicle and look at the sky for those chemtrail airplanes.

Second, I was stating that the original scientist of clouds (which have not changed for thousands of years) identified a handful of them. Recently NASA has created over 14 new cloud formations. By who? By what? Chemtrail airplaines and geo-engineering like we geo-engineer crops.

reply to post by afw2121


By the way I thought you worked in the aircraft industry like a pilot or something. Or maybe a mechanical.

Man I'm just chock-full of opinion lately.

Trying to engineer our climate is like boiling water with a freaking nuclear reactor built next to a sea known to be susceptible to periodic inundations; also known as tsunamis. And despite this fact, they place their back-up generators where they predict it would be "safe."

I have an idea! Let's boil water an let it ooze into the atmosphere! It sure beats the crap out of radiation we don't need what-so-ever!

How about we devise a way to power our vehicles with hydrogen! I'll expect the next few generations won't have to experience chemo in the numbers we're seeing today.

I get it. That's the plan. If we can make clouds more dense- they can contain the radiation?

reply to post by afw2121

I doubt you para glide for fun.

You're right. I don't paraglide. I'm a hang glider pilot. Have been since 1973. No good today, wind is out of the east and too strong.

The "new" clouds are subclassifications of the "originals". They have always existed (except for Cirrus aviaticus) it's just that they acquired new names.

No, I don't work in aviation. I fly for fun. But I'm not really the topic of the thread and neither are clouds or "chemtrails".

Originally posted by Phage
Discussions of geoengineering proposals have been going on for a long time, nothing new there. The claim that

But according to abstracts of the papers, Redgwell will advise the IPCC in Peru next week that no new laws should be adopted. "A multilateral geo-engineering treaty is not likely or desirable. The appetite for climate change law-making is low."

Does not seem to be supported by any evidence. Where are these "leaked" abstracts? It would be nice to see the full context.

Somehow I agree in this one. It actually seems like every certain amount of time they talk about it. In my opinion, most of the times it's just to make the people believe they care. It is more easy to present evidence that shows how are destroying our planet.

Regardless it can be biased or not, this one is from 1995 :

Peru: Emissions Inventory for Energy and Nonenergy Sectors
Jorge Ponce Urquiza
Cesar Pizarro Castro
Juan Avila Lopez
Ivan Llamas Montoya
Elizabeth Culqui Diaz
Universidad Nacional de Ingenieria (UNI)), (Facultad de Ingenieria Ambiental) and Instituto Peruano de Energia Nuclear (IPEN), Servicio Nacional de Meteorologia e Hidrologia (SENAMHI)

SUMMARY: To carry out the greenhouse gas emissions inventory in Peru, the emission system was divided into two major sectors: Energy and Nonenergy. The basic IPCC methodology was used in preparing the inventory. Due to the lack of national emission factors, this generally included the use of the IPCC emission factors (default values). Some local emission factors were available and used in the Nonenergy Sector. Emissions in the Energy Sector were as follows: CO2, from all sources totalled 35,174 Gg (16,246 Gg from biomass) using the IPCC "top-down" approach; CH4, from biomass, coal production, and oil and gas systems totalled 69.59 Gg; NOx from biomass totalled 622.71 Gg; CO from biomass totalled 0.464 Gg; and N2O from biomass totalled 10.94 Gg. Emissions in the Nonenergy Sector were as follows: CO2, 58,313 Gg; CH4 1,204 Gg; N2O, 6.19 Gg; NOx, 121.53 Gg; and CO 10,849 Gg.

INTRODUCTION
The quantification of Peru's Greenhouse Gas National Inventory is a complex task carried out by professionals and students of several institutions and universities in the country. To carry the work out in a systematic and methodological manner, work groups were formed with the participation of professional national staff and researchers of the National University of Engineering (UNI), the Peruvian Institute of Nuclear Energy (IPEN), and the National Service of Meteorology and Hydrology (SENAMHI).

METHODOLOGY
The National Greenhouse Inventory was carried out in accordance with the methodology developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The guidelines and software (MINERG) provided by these institutions facilitated the planning and implementation of the National Inventory of Greenhouse Gases for l990.
Development of the national inventory included the following tasks:
Collecting and validating source data
Research on technical parameters such as emissions factors, carbon storage rates, the fraction of fuels not oxidized
Application of the tables and worksheets established in the IPCC methodology
Processing and analysis of information
Use of the IPCC software (MINERG) to check the results obtained
Preparation of quarterly reports
RESULTS‹ ENERGY SECTOR
Using the methodology mentioned above, Peru's inventory for the energy sector is summarized in Tables 1‹ 7.
Results for emissions of CO2 from energy sources for specific fuels using the IPCC (top-down) methodology are given in Table 1.

For comparative purposes and to lay the groundwork for future identification of mitigation policies, energy consumption and emissions were also estimated by sector. The results of the CO2 emissions from energy sources for specific fuels using this "bottom-up" approach are given in Table 2.

DISCUSSION
Energy Sector
In order to obtain information on fuel consumption in each economic sector, it was necessary to recalculate the National Energy Balance for 1990, using information from qualified institutions and organizations, and consolidating these data in a main information source called Actualized Energy Balance‹ 1990. Using the Actualized Energy Balance, there is a 2 percent of difference between the calculations of CO2 from energy sources obtained in the "top-down" and "bottom-up" approach. This difference is due to "adjustments" (statistical tools used to make compatible the data corresponding to different information sources such as the National Council of Energy of the Ministry of Energy and Mines and the enterprise Petroleos del Peru S.A.).
CO2 emissions from fossil fuels were estimated to be 19,300 Gg. However, if we consider the CO2 generation by biomass consumption in the residential and commercial sectors, the emissions will be increased by 14,919 Gg. The contribution of other GHG's were moderate (See Table 3‹ 6).

Non-Energy Sector
Information in this sector was gathered from government agencies such as the Ministry of Agriculture, Universities, the Statistical National Institute (INEI), the Agrarian Research Institute (INIAA), and others. Research articles, theses, and the bibliography of special publications (FAO, IVITA) were also reviewed. 98.1 percent of CO2 emissions are from activities associated with land-use change and forestry, especially forest clearing. N2O is generated in minor amounts (6.19 Gg). 51 percent of this comes from fertilizer use, the burning of agricultural crop wastes, and savanna burning. The other 49 percent is generated from the burning of cleared forests .
NOx emissions (121.53 Gg) result from activities associated with agriculture, livestock, and land-use change. 41.2 percent of total NOx emissions come from the burning of agricultural crop waste and savanna burning; the other 58.8 percent is generated from the burning of cleared forests. The main source of CO emissions is forest clearing (59.2 percent), followed by the burning of agricultural wastes and savannas (40.5 percent), then industrial processes, with 0.2 percent of CO emissions resulting from lead manufacturing. Table 7 shows GHG emissions for the nonenergy sector.

CONCLUSIONS
The main greenhouse gases from energy activities in the country are CO2 (19,300 Gg), followed by CO (622.712 Gg) and CH4 (82.96 Gg), with minor emissions of nitrogen oxides. The transportation sector is the economic sector with the highest contribution of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, with gasoline as the major source of CO2. Other important sectors are residential, commercial, mining, metallurgy, fishing, public services, agriculture, and livestock. Energy conversion processes, particularly generating plants, also emit considerable quantities of CO2. The industry sector has smaller emissions.
The main greenhouse gases from nonenergy activities in the country are CO2 (58,313.94 Gg), followed by CO (10,850.32 Gg), CH4 (1,204.91 Gg), NOx (121.53 Gg), and N2O (6.19 Gg). The source that generates highest CO2 emissions is land-use change due to the burning of cleared forest and the conversion of pastures to agriculture fields. On the other hand, the abandonment of cultivated lands and managed forests reabsorb CO2 emissions and reduce the total CO2 in the atmosphere.

Agriculture and livestock activities are the main sources of methane emissions with 56.5 percent of the total emissions. The main activities that contribute to high methane emissions are breeding of animals, savanna burning, and rice cultivation.

REFERENCES
National Council of Energy (CONERG), Ministry of Energy and Mines, Lima 1990. Energy Balance 1990.

IPCC Draft Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, December 1993. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Workbook, Vol. 2.

Ministry of Transport, Communications, Housing and Construction, Lima, December 1993. [The most important statistic series of transport and communications 1985‹ 1992]

Petroleos del Peru S.A., Public Relations Department, Annual Memory 1990.

Petroleos del Peru, Estatistics of the Exploration/Production Operations, 1990.

National Enterprise of Electricity ELECTROPERU S.A. Production and Energy Power Balance 1990.

Instituto Nacional de Estadistica e Informatica, Anuario Estadistico 1990.

Ministerio de Agricultura. Boletin de la Producció n Pecuaria (1985‹ 1992).

Ministerio de Agricultura. Compendio Estadistico (1950‹ 1991). DANCE C.J. 1992. Potencial Forestal de la Amazona Peruana: con Especial Referencia a la Selva Alta. UNALM.

FAO 1990. Forest Resources Assessment Tropical Countries. Forestry paper #112, 86pp. Rodriguez, L. 1986. La Agricultura Migratoria y Problemas de la Conservació n, Politicas y Acciones 1986 a 1990 a cargo de la direccion general de flora y fauna de las regiones agraria. Lima-Peru, 149p.

Malleux, J., 1975 Mapa Forestal del Peru. Memoria Explicativa. Lima-Peru. UNA . Departamento de Manejo Forestal.

Brown, S. and Lugo, E. 1984. Biomass of Tropical Forests: A New Estimate Based on Forest Volumes.

Fearnside, P. 1987. Biomass of Brazil's Amazon forest. An Improved Estimate for Assessing the Green House Impact of Deforestation.

Instituto Nacional de Estadistica e Informatica (INEI), Censos Nacionales 1993, IX de Població n, IV Vivienda, Resultados Definitivos.

Empresa de Servicios Municipales de Limpieza de Lima (ESMLL). Boletin 1990

INTERIM REPORT ON CLIMATE CHANGE COUNTRY STUDIES
March 1995

www.gcrio.org...

Click here for more information.

reply to post by afw2121

I'm not the topic of discussion. Nor are "chemtrails". The topic is the international regulation of geoengineering.

Why do you insist on going off topic?

reply to post by Phage


Do not take this thread off topic. Geo-engineering uses methods such as chemtrails to modify the weather.

I thought you were such an expert....

You are not going outside and getting off the computer?

reply to post by afw2121

The topic is geoengineering regulation. There is more than one form of geoegineering. Didn't you read the OP?
Who said I was going anywhere?

reply to post by afw2121

I doubt you para glide for fun. This would mean you would be an outdoor person who does not sit on the computer on a Saturday posting stuff. Nice try, Just step outside your cubicle and look at the sky for those chemtrail airplanes.

Oh, wow......that was not prudent.

Originally posted by afw2121

Everyone here knows who you really are.

I don't, can you tell us who is him?

Originally posted by afw2121
reply to post by Phage

 

Second, I was stating that the original scientist of clouds (which have not changed for thousands of years) identified a handful of them. Recently NASA has created over 14 new cloud formations. By who? By what? Chemtrail airplaines and geo-engineering like we geo-engineer crops.

No. Just as we have discovered new varieties of lightning we could not see or prove before doesn't establish that we created these new types. We just couldn't see them before or tell the difference.

Same with clouds. No one "invented" new clouds, we have become better able to measure, quantify and describe varieties aming the more established classifications.

There is nothing in this thread about "chemtrails" except your imagination or paranoia.

jw