It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
and while cause is something I very strongly disagree with for most of what's being talked about (and the IPCC were specifically restricted to consider as factors in their ongoing work)
I still just don't see this (GW) as a runaway freight train about to run off the cliff, in fact, there are enough sources still pointing to a return to cooling, or the beginning of a trend at least.
Biomass Burial is an alternative which involves burying wood in anoxic environments (e.g. deep in the soil,
Zeng, 2008) where decomposition would be much slower. Estimates of the size of the sink are disputed but are
likely to be limited by the cost of burial and competition for biomass with other approaches (e.g. Biochar and
BECCS). Lenton (2010) estimates a potential carbon sink of less than 1 GtC/yr, and warns of the possibility of
counter-productive emissions of methane from anaerobic decomposition.
Carbon dioxide is not
the only long-lived greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and air removal can also be envisaged for methane (Boucher and
Folberth, 2009) or other gases
Recognizing that global scale climate engineering is also likely to have some noticeable unintended consequences, the
proposed justification has primarily focused on its use in response to a climate emergency; that is, to invoke climate
engineering only when there is clear evidence of an impending or immediately past exceedance of a threshold that would
lead to runaway warming or other very significant consequence. The most discussed of the possible emergencies have been
a methane burst as a result of the rapid thawing of permafrost and/or clathrates trapped in the sediments of the
continental shelves, the rapid loss of ice mass from the Greenland and/or Antarctic ice sheets, collapse of the Amazon
rainforest, or greatly accelerated, runaway warming. The proposed invocation of climate engineering would be rapid and
strong, taking the global average temperature, for example, back to much lower levels. It seems to me there are several
problems with this formulation of, essentially, holding back climate engineering until it may be too late to reverse the
disastrous changes. An implicit assumption in this approach is that climate is reversible, and this is not at all clear. In
addition, adaptation is likely to have spread out the range of optimal temperatures for various societal and environmental
systems, such that a sudden, sharp cooling might be very disruptive.
The potential of
other unintended consequences -- such as the generation of nitrous oxide from organic matter degradation at depth, the
generation of dimethyl sulfide and methane or the growth of phytoplankton which has the capability of releasing harmful
toxins -- has much larger uncertainty at present. Some of these consequences are undesirable and on a large scale may be
You can't add a significant amount of any molecule to the atmosphere without it having an effect regardless of the catalyst. At this point all we have to left to hope for is that climate sensitivity is over estimated and/or we figure out how to negate the causes without creating a whole new slew of problems.
You'll pardon my optimism to retain a little more hope than that..especially on the Carbon issue as a very specific one.
We can go into how it's been higher before....and it has.
We can go into historic ice core records showing carbon may or may not be a causative factor in climate change vs. a result of it.
These are the points where debate exists...the science is anything but settled and there is much left to determine and be certain of.
the science is anything but settled and there is much left to determine and be certain of.
The problem is..to a large segment in this topic, there is not now ..nor has there EVER really been ANY room for question outside the Official line of crap
and the fact that, according to that line, nothing OUTSIDE that consideration can be or will be allowed as a factor of measurable significance.
So many I debate with seem physically incapable of reversing even an inch, on even the most side line of issues ...as if giving an inch (even when called for) would be giving away the whole debate...
Source: National Geographic
Most predictions say the warming of the planet will continue and likely will accelerate. Oceans will likely continue to rise as well, but predicting the amount is an inexact science. A recent study says we can expect the oceans to rise between 2.5 and 6.5 feet (0.8 and 2 meters) by 2100, enough to swamp many of the cities along the U.S. East Coast. More dire estimates, including a complete meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet, push sea level rise to 23 feet (7 meters), enough to submerge London and Los Angeles.
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
these people openly admit to doing it, you can go to their web site and check them out they are doing it world wide!!! weathermodification.com...
Awesome sources for reference.
I see plenty people on these boards however still seem to deny that governments or private interests are actively modifying the weather.
Why in light of the factual documents represented here do people decry that weather modification is fantasy?
Also it may worth be looking at the impact of Japanese whaling vessels and how this is potentialy leading to an increase in plankton through the population depletion of whales. Plankton makes clouds you see and whales eat em so I imagine maintaining that synergy could be pretty important.