It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Geoengineering, The IPCC and our Global Future

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+58 more 
posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 10:41 AM
** Thread Note - I've been really slow on this one, and my apologies to all I'd mentioned this to in advance. That was a mistake on my part for any sense of time given. As it happens, there may just be other threads at some distant future point to discuss separately, what had bogged this down so badly in trying to mesh together as one. I hope what I have is enjoyable and interesting for folks. Thanks.

Good Morning fellow Earthlings! Our planet has a fever! yes. It has a fever of a certain madness and the madness is brought about by fluctuations in our planetary climate. Now before I begin I want to note a couple things.

*-* First, I'm not making a thread here about Global Warming's causes. That isn't the point and there are many many good rolling threads with activity today which anyone can join into for that aspect of the discussion.

*-* Second, this isn't the 'all wrapped up' type of thread which I usually try and present for things I put work into. This one is a work in progress, you may say. This not an end point for conclusion, but a starting point for awareness of what is happening and what is being worked on, to make happen.

*-* Finally, I don't bring this as an automatic condemnation of all ideas proposed. Some ideas are actually good ones! Most in this material are catastrophically bad ones, in my view. The problem isn't with 'my view' and what I think of it. The problem is, amid a world of perpetual artificial crisis to dominate news cycles and force everything but what is chosen, off the air and away from public awareness? What is being proposed here is not even getting the general public discourse and attention it VERY MUCH DEMANDS.

As you will see in what I have been able to cobble together from a small mountain of material accumulated, this is by no means 'minor measures' or things which can be done without dramatic and "profound global societal impact beyond the year 2100" as the main report simply states clearly in one spot. Some of these ideas are.....sci-fi level of bad, in one Rabbit's thinking. It's the need for millions of fellow rabbits to have their say, I think is missing here. It's the public feedback of ..."YOU PROPOSE TO DO WHAT?!?!?!" we have missing at the moment.

** So without further ado..Let me dig right in and just layout what I have for all to look at and consider.

(I DO request..and know not all will manage this....that people read material I'm presenting before making judgements to it's veracity, credibility or viability. I'll do my best to extract and summarize what requires effort to find in it all.)

Part 1 -

- - - - -

What is the IPCC?

If some of this material came from any private group, I'd literally ignore it and write it off as kooks and cranks with far too much free time to imagine bad scenarios and worse solutions. However, this isn't a private blog or think tank. Establishing who this IS, is paramount to viewing the material in it's proper context. So I'll begin here.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC.

As we can see, the IPCC is official in origin, international in nature and scientific in declared focus for intent. This next bit clarifies their purpose.

The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.

It is not their place then, to act on their ideas. Conversely, it is not in their control to LIMIT actions on their ideas, either. Much like the scientists of Los Alamos in another time and place, they have little actual control for the end result their conclusions and assessments are put to. Their purpose is to evaluate, assess and give intelligent policy input and/or suggestion for addressing climatic changes across our planet. Pretty simple for scope and concept.

Who forms the IPCC?

Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise. The Secretariat coordinates all the IPCC work and liaises with Governments. It is supported by WMO and UNEP and hosted at WMO headquarters in Geneva.
Source: IPCC Home Page

To summarize...The IPCC is no slouch for authority and credibility in their findings as well as recommendations for action to Governments around the world. If they have a brain fart, it may well color odors half a world away for the reach of their words. This is all absolutely critical to what comes next, as base credibility or questions of influence over authority make or break everything which follows as something to take notice or something to ignore.

How does the IPCC Work?

The IPCC is broken into sub groupings for focus of effort. These are called Working Groups. I'll quickly summarize below how this breaks down in real world practice, as the term Working Group is important to context within the material.

The organization has membership from 195 principals around the world, and it's planning seminars are attended by Government officials representing those member states from all levels. They are broken down for easy working as follows...

Working Group I = The Physical Science Basis

Working Group II = Climate Change Impacts / Adaptation and Vulnerabilities

Working Group III = Mitigation of Climate Change

..and the organization chart shows a 4th designation for a task force on National Greenhouse gas inventories.

The following page goes into more detail and structural basics for those who want to spend any additional time on this aspect.

The IPCC's Functional Structure

Finally, the working groups meet on a pre-planned schedule of events around the world. Each meeting usually has a specific focus and specific goals they seek to achieve. These aren't major goals of accomplishment, but simply what understandings or recommendations they want to have established by a meeting or seminar's end point. It was one such meeting's paperwork I first came across to inspire this thread ..and that is where I'll turn to focus for my next part.

+1 more 
posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 10:41 AM

Part 2 -

- - - - -

Report and Terms

IPCC Expert Meeting On Geoengineering ( Full 108 Page Meeting Report in PDF Form / Large! )

The IPCC organizes a number of meetings with different objectives and level of participation. They include Plenary sessions of the IPCC and IPCC Working Groups which are attended by representatives from governments and participating organizations, sessions of the IPCC Bureau, the Task Force Bureau and any task group set up by the Panel, as well as workshops, scoping and other expert meetings, and meetings of lead authors involved in preparing an IPCC report. The IPCC co-sponsors also meetings to support the assessment process, to disseminate its results and enhance interaction with scientists and users.

Source: IPCC Working Group II Meetings 2008 - 2014

This is where I came across an interesting meeting/report and it had actually been linked from a fairly extreme site that I was simply running links out from. I wasn't expecting to find credible source material with anything very disturbing. Not like this anyway. The June meeting on 20-22 is what caught my eye to look at for the obvious curiosity of the title.

Geoengineering, or the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment, is increasingly being discussed as a potential strategy to counteract anthropogenic climate change. Prevailing uncertainty in the sensitivity of the climate system to anthropogenic forcing, inertia in both the coupled climate-carbon cycle and social systems, and the potential for irreversibilities and abrupt, nonlinear changes in the Earth system with possible significant impacts on human and natural systems suggest that research is needed into geoengineering options as a possible complement to climate change mitigation efforts.

Source: WGI / WGII / WGIII Expert Meeting on Geoengineering – Lima, Peru

The above link opens to the page with a description and summary of the meetings purpose.

I said on the first page that not all ideas are bad here. They aren't. There are different kinds of Geoengineering. In fact, there are very different approaches to this, from the very logical and probably reasonable to be considering, to the absolutely insane in terms of hubris. We need to start with clarifying terminology being used, and how it's being used in this context.

The two types being looked at here are Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR).

Terms (Page 11)

Geoengineering refers to a broad set of methods and technologies that aim to deliberately alter the climate system in order to alleviate the impacts of climate change. Most, but not all, methods seek to either (a) reduce the amount of absorbed solar energy in the climate system (Solar Radiation Management) or (b) increase net carbon sinks from the atmosphere at a scale sufficiently large to alter climate (Carbon Dioxide Removal). Scale and intent are of central importance.

Solar Radiation Management(SRM) refers to the intentional modification of the Earth’s shortwave radiative budget with the aim to reduce climate change according to a given metric (e.g., surface temperature, precipitation, regional impacts, etc). Artificial injection of stratospheric aerosols and cloud brightening are two examples of SRM techniques.

Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) methods refer to a set of techniques that aim to remove CO2 directly from the atmosphere by either (1) increasing natural sinks for carbon or (2) using chemical engineering to remove the CO2, with the intent of reducing the atmospheric CO2 concentration. CDR methods involve the ocean, land, and technical systems, including such methods as iron fertilization, large-scale afforestation, and direct capture of CO2 from the atmosphere using engineered chemical means.

(These are partial quotes and anything cited by page number is from the report linked at the top here. That's the easiest way of sharing this without absurdly breaking fair use quoting standards. I'll paraphrase and summarize, with page number citation to specify where the original language is. Additional sources are linked and quoted normally.)

edit on 16-1-2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

+2 more 
posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 10:41 AM

Part 3 -



Suggested SRM Strategies

  1. Reflective Particles into Stratosphere
  2. Clouds added to lower atmosphere
  3. Space based reflectors/defractors
  4. Changing land area from darker absorbing material (trees) to lighter material (grasses)
  5. Change Soil Alkalinity

The majority of the Keynote speeches here are focused on adding fine reflective particles to the stratosphere and that is due to it being considered the cheapest and most effective. (This is stated in the paper)

*** The second to last paragraph of page 29 doesn't simply speak of methods similar to chemtrails, it's directly and literally describing it. It also notes that, to the speaker's knowledge, no current methods exist to achieve it by airplanes, Balloons or artillery. At the bottom of the text, there is a reference to another study. I found that carried on the NASA Goddard Institute Website and is simulations of the injection of carbon particles at different altitudes of the atmosphere. That study determined the downsides were too high, but not that the technique or method wasn't viable.

Now it's especially important to note here, how it's being said no known method exists to do this. It's said in two different paragraphs, in fact. This is important because it's very careful in wording to be true.

I say that because stratospheric injection may not have happened (or, now, I really do wonder). However, we absolutely know lower atmosphere injection HAS happened and been treated as a routine matter prior to 2011, when the IPCC meeting and report were generated.

FRAGRANT HILLS, China — When he's not tending cherry orchards outside Beijing, Yu Yonggang can be found behind the twin barrels of a 37mm anti-aircraft gun, blasting shells at passing clouds.

Yu is one of 37,000 peasants enlisted by the Chinese government to help produce rain in parched areas. The 45-year-old farmer works with China's other trigger-happy rain men to water the crops, break up damaging hailstorms and put out forest fires. After a sandstorm blew through the capital in May, he lobbed shells and rockets skyward to coax rains that washed sand and grit from city streets.
Source: USA Today - 2006

It makes me wonder how trusting we can be about the statement of no known physical method for the other two, which is said in a more broad way within the study linked at the NASA site. Then, I discovered this....

The DRI Cloud Seeding Program is operated by the Division of Atmospheric Sciences, located in the Northern Nevada Science Center (NNSC), Reno, Nevada. The DRI cloud seeding program originated as an outgrowth of DRI weather modification research programs funded through USBR and NOAA.

Current DRI research is focused on the quantitative evaluation of winter storm cloud seeding using ultra trace chemical analysis of snow samples, atmospheric model simulations of seeding plume transport, and hydrologic modeling to estimate the additional runoff due to cloud seeding.
DRI Cloud Seeding Program

and this...

Funke's job entails firing chemicals into clouds in an ambitious attempt to modify the weather. He is, quite literally, a rain maker.

Texas is suffering from the largest drought in a half century, causing rising food prices and record wildfires. The drought is also suspected to be the cause for the recent surge in cases of West Nile virus.

Cloud Seeders Help Make It Rain Over Drought-Stricken Texas - ABC

Of course, I'm sure, the currently used and openly visible methods carry no unintended consequences...right? No flooding along the general latitude line east of where that's been going on ....right?

I even located a company that has claimed to be offering weather modification services for 60 years. Who knew? Or...

NAWC has conducted weather modification projects and provided consulting services in many countries outside the United States, including Europe, South America, Central America, Asia, and the Middle East.

Source: North American Weather Consultants


Now Cloud seeding isn't injection of carbon particles, or sulphate particulate, as mentioned in another area. However, it's injecting chemicals just the same, to artificially modify weather patterns. People focus on HAARP...and miss how long it's been happening on smaller scales.

The IPCC indicates the consideration is now much broader, and to true global scales. That is probably the largest thing to take away from this area for awareness. The very serious consideration, at the least, by very serious and influential world bodies is occurring.
edit on 16-1-2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

+1 more 
posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 10:41 AM

Part 4

- - - - -

Methods -

(From Keynote Abstracts Pg 35-38)
Suggested CDR Strategies

  1. Afforestation / Reforestation
  2. No Till Farming
  3. BioMass Fuel
  4. Ocean Fertilization (Recall This Term)
  5. Change Soil Alkilinity
  6. Air Scrubbing

Ocean Fertilization is the key one I think bears consideration and it refers to changing the balance of the ocean by injection of CO2 or changing the oceans chemical balance to increase it's own absorption ability. Change would come by injection of other 'macronutrients' such as phosphorous and more. This area is difficult to paraphrase because of the complexity of the topic. The oceans are thought of by many as simply giant lakes with tides and BIG BIG currents...when it couldn't be further from the truth. The oceans are infinitely more complex than that...and meddling with their balance, in my opinion, is worse than the problem it would be set to address.

Take a few moments..and see the oceans for the true complexity they hold:

This next link is a very lengthy article for additional understanding of the ocean carbon balance issue, the level of knowledge and methods used to get there. A good start, I'd say but quite short of my humble opinion.

The Ocean's Carbon Balance - NASA Earth's Observatory

In terms of land based CDR methods, I include some material from outside the IPCC report, but no less reliable for a source. The Environmental Protection Agency.

Where can captured carbon dioxide be stored?

After capture, carbon dioxide (CO2) is compressed and then transported to a site where it is injected underground for permanent storage (also known as “sequestration”). CO2 is commonly transported by pipeline, but it can also be transported by train, truck, or ship. Geologic formations suitable for sequestration include depleted oil and gas fields, deep coal seams, and saline formations. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that anywhere from 1,800 to 20,000 billion metric tons of CO2 could be stored underground in the United States. [2] That is equivalent to 600 to 6,700 years of current level emissions from large stationary sources in the United States. [3]
Source: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Sequestration

That does mean using Frak'ed gas fields for dumping CO2 into. Anyone wonder why Uncle Sam seemed to warm up so suddenly to gas production on never before seen levels...and seemingly all favoring Hydraulic Fracturing? Well...It's a dual use situation and for what it's worth, I was reading about this in newspapers from truck stops many years ago as being done then.

Hydraulically fractured shale formations are being developed widely for oil and gas production. They could also represent an attractive repository for permanent geologic carbon sequestration. Shales have a low permeability, but they can adsorb an appreciable amount of CO2 on fracture surfaces. Here, a computational method is proposed for estimating the CO2 sequestration capacity of a fractured shale formation and it is applied to the Marcellus shale in the eastern United States. The model is based on historical and projected CH4 production along with published data and models for CH4/CO2 sorption equilibria and kinetics. The results suggest that the Marcellus shale alone could store between 10.4 and 18.4 Gt of CO2 between now and 2030, which represents more than 50% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from stationary sources over the same period.
Source: Estimating the carbon sequestration capacity of shale formations using methane production rates.

I'm not sure...are we really comfortable with Government and overall leadership becoming outright dependent on hydraulic fracturing to make ugly realities of today disappear? ...and will they remain gone? There are other articles pointing out flaws to this from ..ahem..Volcanos as the most obvious break to the 'impermeable layer' to leaky Sea Floors leaching it back out over time and presumably, some migration after injection.

Again, these aren't passive measures or necessarily correctable methods, if ever found to have been a mistake. A myriad of pollution control systems are passive. Smoke Stack mitigation and scrubbing is passive by comparison. Changing or meddling with ocean balance by deliberate design or cracking the earth to pack it with bad gas just doesn't strike me as wise. It's very likely permanent for damage, but not necessarily a solution to last as long.

It would appear it's either happening or being seriously considered as something to do. I'd certainly like to see more public discourse over this in serious ways, before it's so advanced that finding mistakes being made will be too far along to mitigate.
edit on 16-1-2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

+1 more 
posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 10:48 AM


Well, as I noted way back up there, where this starts? This isn't one for steadfast conclusions or drawing outcomes from. This is a story far from having an end and what is presented by the working groups of the IPCC as well as others around the world are not blueprints to plans, set to start immediately.

I also have to note in pure honest disclosure here....I ran across related but very different material that made me very strongly rethink some of my own positions in this topic. It's what nearly turned this into a messy "many topics into one" omnibus thread which wouldn't have done well...but I mention it here for a bit of context in how this doesn't end like most do for me.

What I hope I've done here is simply present the state of planning and brainstorming sessions for what is being considered at global levels. Some of it is, as noted in the above material, already happening on much smaller scales and in different context. So it appears to come down to a question of will and desire to upscale and refine existing methods to a new purpose....assuming this is truly all still theory at this point.

So, as my final word for this effort, I'll simply say this.

This is not the place to end debate. It's absolutely not the place to declare any form of victory by either side of the discussion. In fact, the very reality which has ideas like this being looked at pretty well says we've already suffered collective defeat in some way already. (logic or real world of the two)

What I think this is the end of the beginning, in so far as seeing that grand plans are considered and these global changes are being talked about as deliberate action.

So, if not here? Elsewhere to be sure..but let some wider discussion commence on Geoengineering as a real, honest and viable means being looked at seriously, as it's not pure conspiracy anymore. Apparently, even the extremes of it haven't been for a number of years now, at least.

What so you, ATS?
edit on 16-1-2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 10:51 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I realize you are still putting this together, so please forgive this early intrusion. I think if someone could put this graph in context and explain why it either is a good description of why some people think what we are experiencing is normal and dare I say "expected", as opposed to "we just don't understand , it's different this time."

Based on this, my limited understanding says that we should expect to see exactly what we have seen and while probably not in our lifetime, should expect the climate to swing back to a much, much cooler trend.

Again, sorry for the early intrusion.
edit on 16-1-2014 by network dude because: added larger picture

posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 11:14 AM
reply to post by network dude

Oh heck, no intrusion. I very much welcome your input and addition to what I have together here. Especially given that it's a presentation of concepts and general thinking on planning vs. trying to stake a position or prove a point, I think your input with your time in this topic is quite valuable.

Feel free to add more if you'd like!

posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 11:31 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I'd say based on what I have seen, public opinion has swayed away from AGW (mainly the "A" part).
I agree that looking at a cold spell is in no way a factor that global warming is not happening, but before we as inhabitants of Earth start trying to "fix" something, I feel as if everyone should be on the same page. (just opinion)

When talking about SRM and the methods needed to make it happen, I cannot help but think about that graph I posted. From my un-educated view point, it looks as if C02 has a relationship to temperature. Which is what the IPCC is saying as well. De-forestation was an early devil in this debate and I believe rightly so. So what I cannot understand is why we are looking at ways to do the impossibility of blocking the sun, when perhaps a massive re-forestation project might help?

I feel as if the AGW/Climate change business was less political, less melodramatic, and perhaps more realistic to the average person, we could come up with some very easy, common sense ways to, at the very least, reduce pollution and plant more trees.

I don't think anyone on Earth likes pollution. But until the topic becomes less polarized, I feel like there will always be this divide that keeps anything productive from happening, and that might lead to some idiot doing something drastic that ends up hurting us all. (like a world leader adopting the 'it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission' with regards to SRM and the like)

posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 11:42 AM
reply to post by network dude

I couldn't possibly agree more on the politics of it. The IPCC, among other things, has very strict outlines of what to look at and what NOT to look at for climate change planning and consideration. That, alone, signals a giant political complication to effective research and problem solving. How can anything be limited in scope to be inclusive for solutions?

I found the same thing in starting my Environmental Science class. Chapter 1 alone had 3 factual inaccuracies (and a couple BIG ones) with a very heavy emphasis on Environmental Science being about the identification of, mitigation of and eventual solution to MAN contributed global environmental damage and accidental change to the ecosystems.

Err... Science got lost in the politics somewhere, no question on that.

I'm with you on reforesting and similar common sense "fix what we broke" solutions. We stripped this planet of it's forests in many areas. Nations like Haiti, by necessity brought on through grinding poverty have all but totally stripped things to bare dirt. No blame ...not the point, of course. It's a real situation, demanding real solutions ..and like you say, blocking sunlight & reducing it's thermal load....doesn't replace millions of C02 'sinks' that have been cut down and cleared. It just treats symptoms...

Perhaps with some wider discussion, solutions and not reactions may be more heavily looked at for the path forward?
edit on 16-1-2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 12:19 PM

network dude
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I realize you are still putting this together, so please forgive this early intrusion. I think if someone could put this graph in context and explain why it either is a good description of why some people think what we are experiencing is normal and dare I say "expected", as opposed to "we just don't understand , it's different this time."

Based on this, my limited understanding says that we should expect to see exactly what we have seen and while probably not in our lifetime, should expect the climate to swing back to a much, much cooler trend.

Again, sorry for the early intrusion.
edit on 16-1-2014 by network dude because: added larger picture

It's interesting that CO2 increases FOLLOW temperature increases, not the other way around. Carbon dioxide is NOT driving temperature increases it appears, but rather temperature is driving the release of carbon dioxide. This should promote an accelerated growth cycle for plants and of course ocean living carbon dioxide consumers (oceans are the largest absorbers). It is a shame that political agenda can so easily subvert rational science.

In addition, the UN drives the IPCC, which drives ECLEI, which in turn drives organizations like the AMO, which in turn drives municipal councils. This is a two pronged approach at world control using both top down and bottom up methodologies that incorporate "audience" targeted propaganda. Unfortunately, although the IPCC may be trying to develop programs to subvert a natural cycle of the earth, there is too much political agenda attached to it and therefore a reduction in credibility as to the motive of the IPCC. I am not saying all their data is wrong, it's just very hard to trust the "henchman" (IPCC) of a criminal and thief (UN, politicians in general) to tell you the truth or for them to develop a program that isn't 100% self-serving.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 1/16.2014 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 12:53 PM
We don't even understand 10% of how the planet really works and we are going to try to "enhance" it for us, the destructive human civilization.

And they are even talking about using Bio-Fuel...this will only further our problems.

Why do we always try to find a solution INSTEAD of stopping it at the source?
...Ah yeah, because some people out there love money more than everything else.

They created the problems and now, well, they will find ways to profit from it.

posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 03:28 PM

They created the problems and now, well, they will find ways to profit from it.

there is no "they" - every person here on their computer is part of the problem - every person in "the west" is a major direct contributor, and every other person in the world is at least a minor contributor.

Trying to say "it" is the fault of some ill defined shadowy group is a smokescreen - the way we live, the numbers of us, our wastefulness and our lethargy are what has created the problem.

we ALL seek to "profit" from the world around us - down to het poorest of us!

posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 03:30 PM
reply to post by theMediator

A quick note on this and quick, only because I don't want to get deep into cause of the issues, personally.

However, we can't 'go to the source' on some of the issues here, and it's why I said not all the IPCC or other suggestions are bad. There is a serious problem and actually, a series of them, as I've come to see in clear and real terms. Not in slogans and sound bytes.

The problem is, for origins and much of the problem which CAN be looked at as man's doing, was done over the previous decades. There is an issue here referred to as 'Time Shift' or 'Time Delay'. (Colorfully known as the Butterfly effect in some variations). It's not relevant in most ways I hear it used, but in some ways? I think it's the core of what we're looking at. The 40's and 50's..on into the 60's..formed the worst of our Industrial Revolution for both the peak of production ability coinciding with the bottom of pollution controls and concerns. Some of that has been coming to be felt in recent years ...some, still hasn't fully been felt yet.

That is a source no one can address..and only now mitigate the impacts as best it can be done. Add to this, India and China are the same as 1950's America in their stages of development ...and have much more of it, with no interest in curbing anything. I don't look down on they feel they have the right to advance like we did and they DO have a point. It's all part of the issue though, eh?

The OTHER half is sourcing which is natural or may as well be at this point...and beyond reach as well. This includes the sun's cycles, Earth's own long term cycling, geologic events that can and do change everything in a region or more without notice and other gasses now set to generate from sources we couldn't stop anymore if we wanted to with all our being.

So.. in this way, it's why I left sourcing alone. To be fair to that subject, it's far too complex to mix in with something else which then does no justice to either topic. In many ways, the feel good measures today are chasing problems which we're feeling impact from but no longer exist in ways to stop.

So it boils down to Mitigation and, my personal feeling for the more critical, adaptation for whatever the future holds.

posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 05:16 PM

Aloysius the Gaul

They created the problems and now, well, they will find ways to profit from it.

there is no "they" - every person here on their computer is part of the problem - every person in "the west" is a major direct contributor, and every other person in the world is at least a minor contributor.

Trying to say "it" is the fault of some ill defined shadowy group is a smokescreen - the way we live, the numbers of us, our wastefulness and our lethargy are what has created the problem.

we ALL seek to "profit" from the world around us - down to het poorest of us!

Many people in the UK would love to be able to live and work in the same city, but various government initiatives have prevented this from happening. First we have high migration across Europe and across the UK. That means that houses have been converted into flats and bachelor pads, making them unusable for families. Then there's the buy-to-let market who buy up large room apartments and rent them out to students. Finally, there is a green-belt policy which prevents new homes from being built on the outskirts of cities where there are bus routes and other public transport. Instead these homes have to be built miles away beyond the green belt, and every adult has to drive a car to get around, even if they don't want to.

Then the government turns around and say "wait, you're using too much of the Earth's resources, we're going to have to tax you for that", when it was they who created this situation, and profit from the oil industry revenue.

posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 09:55 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

A Very Informative and Very Well Laid Out Post!!! Thanx for the details!
The Vid on the Oceans Systems was Kool! What a Totally Complex System. The fact that 'They' want to even Think about Fu-kin' with that Is Appalling ! Messing with ANY of the Earths Natural Systems is asking for a Bad OutCome! Wow, People Really are Stupid.
Using Fracked Earth for Gas storage is also Bull S--t! Fracking resulting in Weakening the Underlaying layers of rock is a Big Disaster waiting to happen.
I had heard of and looked into Geo Engineering a little while back and did not like what I saw then, and after Your Post, am now even more infuriated!
I am usually a bit lazy and at times don't read all pages of Comms from people before commenting for the reason of just not wanting to spend the time, but took time to read ALL of your Presentation. I am as glad to have done so as much as I am more upset over this B-S.
But upset in a way that I am thankful to You for. It is KickStarting me to spread the info and I am going to forward this to a All of my Friends, and Family!
Thanx again for taking the time to put this all together! Syx.

posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 10:00 AM
reply to post by network dude

Look down like 4 Posts under Yours. Your question is answered nicely . Syx.

posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 10:33 AM
The OP does not make the effort to clear up one vital aspect of the discussion held by Working Groups of the IPCC. What vital aspect? The fact that they don't endorse geoengineering... what-so-ever, the fact that they state repeatedly that risks are too great to attempt any such thing as engineering the climate whether SRM or CDR.

posted on Jan, 24 2014 @ 05:30 AM
reply to post by stormcell

Then the government turns around and say "wait, you're using too much of the Earth's resources, we're going to have to tax you for that", when it was they who created this situation, and profit from the oil industry revenue.

BINGO....very astute. Its always the middle class who ends up footing the bill. If we stopped using junk their tax base would shrink. Govts are always looking for new ways to tax the masses. Like a monopoly that swallows its competitors and then jacks up prices, govts spend beyond their means and once some utility or essential service is ripe for the picking, they privatise it cheaply and the taxpayer is screwed again

posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 09:23 AM
reply to post by Kali74

Kali, you totally and absolutely missed the point of the thread here. What you'd say I missed? Was never the point I was fact, simply bringing it for consideration and as it sits to see noted at the start of my first part ..was my intent. Not to draw conclusions of what it means necessarily, or guide people toward any predetermined point to be made.

Indeed... I noted more than once, not every idea being looked at, discussed and considered by the UN IPCC is even a bad one. Just a few there that go clear out where the buses don't run. I also tended to show the IPCC weren't the only ones on Earth to have looked at viability or actually done some of this as routine matter already.

Thanks for stopping by though.

posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 09:29 AM
An added note here for thread context...

Following my general exploration of the above and related material as well as what avenues of research that went and led to, my whole attitude toward climate change has..well, changed. Dramatically, as it happens.

I really don't have much doubt that it is happening at this point...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've absolutely come to see, almost by accident for the chain of things to understand, how it's happening and how damned easily it's progressing with almost no stop it. Perhaps, it's starting to understand the Governments fatalist attitudes of building shelters and not solutions ... I dunno..

The shift in where I've traditionally been on this overall topic is worth noting though, and I still, despite the above note, figure some of what the IPCC working groups consider is flat Bonkers with a big B. Worse to see some tactics have been real world practice by some others already.

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in