I love this. As a geologist I have stated my thoughts on this before. By all means put it on Greenland. Greenland ce core data does not go back past the last interglacial so maybe it all melted 120,000 years ago without man made CO2. Maybe we can preserve some interglacial data for the generation 120,000 years from now.
I read all the nice comments below and no one states the obvious.
We have no clue what the climate is doing today, we have very little understanding of all the variables affecting it (anyone that says they do is a fraud), and so any serious attempt at geoengineering has to be looked at as the potential for genocide several magnitudes worse than Hitler.
I think we the non-insane need to make it abundantly clear that we will find these people and they will get the full William Wallace treatment. Please revisit his ending if you are unclear what I’m suggesting happen to them.
Academic papers like Roger’s are nice, basically intellectual wanking, but any large scale attempt to enact geoengineering will have likely horrific unintended outcomes for all life on earth not just humans, destroying the planet to save it.
This needs to be publicly discussed as part of the future climate change POLICY crimes against humanity trials.
We should all be collecting data on what the current attacks on cheap energy and fertilizer are going cause mostly in the developing word.
As others have alluded to, using sea water as an input to snow making may be problematic. Even if snowmakers could be engineered to use sea water rather than fresh water, the ecological impacts of depositing thousands of cubic kilometers of salt laden water cannot be overlooked.
Roger, you will undoubtedly get a visiting professorship at the Academy at Lagado. LOL
Sea level has been rising independent of CO2 emissions since the end of the last ice age. That is unstoppable. The big question is whether increased CO2 is accelerating the rate of sea level rise above that from the end of the ice age. So far, the answer seems to be maybe, but not huge. The problem is that sea level is difficult to measure and varies around the globe. The estimates of future sea level rise made by catastophic-oriented agencies (see Max More comment below) are even more absurd than the 8.5 emission scenario you have lambasted. Judith Curry wrote an excellent report on sea level at:
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency projects global sea level rise of about 150 cm by 2100." That's 1500 mm in 76 years = 19.73 mm/year. The recent rise, which is keeping with historical rates, is about 3 mm/year. So the EPA is projecting an increase of 600% to 700%. On the basis of what absurd scenario? If you use tide gauges, the historical number is less than 3 mm/year, so the exaggeration would be worse.
3.1mm/year is the number derived from satellites since 1993, satellites with an accuracy at least 1 magnitude worse than that which it’s measuring.
2.1mm is the long term average from sea level gages around the world.
“Acceleration” fear porn is a function of a variation of Piltdown Mann’s “nature trick”, splicing the satellite record onto the gage record at 1993, then ignoring the gage record after that.
The very finest in decision-based evidence making.
Willis E over at WUWT has a graph that shows the acceleration anomaly over last 100years from tide gages which shows periods of positive and negative acceleration, meaning it’s complicated and you can show what you want when cherries are in season.
Sea level changes continuously over time, but it seems to average to 2.1mm over time.
Another nothing burger, perfect for weight loss programs but not much else.
So, let me see if I have this straight - because of inadvertent anthropogenic perturbation of the climate system that is in no way apocalyptic or catastrophic, we must remedy the situation via deliberate anthropogenic perturbation of the climate system.
Gee, what could possibly go wrong with that?
Calls to mind that old adage, which begins, "if stupidity got us into this mess ......"
The above is an articled from Science journal reporting on a period of drought in the southern hemisphere from roughly 70000 to 20000 years ago when dust blown off the southern continents may have been the primary cause of atmospheric CO2 levels from some 40ppm. Hence my description of iron fertilisation as being natural and effective. Since I have come across no reports of adverse environmental impacts from this 50000 years of enhanced dust levels, it therefore also seems to be safe.
That's a different goal, in that the link between sea level rise and CO2 is uncertain and not quantified with sufficient accuracy. But theoretically if they could get their climate models to work, then you could evaluate sea level rise mitigation in the standard metric $ per tonne of CO2 removed or avoided. Then you could accurately compare the various methods for cost effectiveness.
One thing is certain, the lowest cost method is as always, replacing coal power plants with nuclear power plants, as they reach end-of-life. That is actually a negative cost. Of course iron fertilization could have a negative cost as well if it increases fish stocks significantly.
Here is another thought. The Ogallala Aquifer is roughy 90% depleted. We could replenish it and other aquifers -- provided -- energy costs to pump and purify the water were within reason.
Another application for Nuclear power. Nuclear desalination using waste reactor heat and nuclear electricity to pump the water. You could use surplus baseload nighttime energy.
In fact a very efficient method of (effectively) desalination has been devised by recovering water vapor off the surface of the ocean and condensing it.
Limitless Fresh Water Lies Right OVER The Ocean - Without Desalination!
The 3.4 mm are based on satellite measurements which were initially calibrated to achieve the 3 foot ocean rise by 2100. (Morner). The well-established annual ocean level rise from tide guages world-wide, but not where known subsidence is occurring, is only 1-2mm per yr or about a foot by 2100. AND no acceleration in rise. in past 100years Forget this stuff. If you want to worry, Consider the 90 plus sleeping volcanos under the Antarcttic ice shelf.
Yes, we have no idea what black swan events will happen. My vote is for volcanos, Carrington level sunspot events, asteroid impacts and population collapse. This climate panic is all a ridiculous grift.
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change AR5 projected that the worlds coasts "could" experience sea level rise of 30 to 80 cm by 2100, "and higher values cannot be ruled out""
With all the discussion around the flawed models that underpin these IPCC projections, why waste a brain cell even thinking about this. It comes across as if someone is deliberately trying to accelerate the next ice age, which is probably more of a concern then some moderate warming and sea level rise over the next few centuries. These manipulated IPCC projections are just feeding the climatist alarmism trope. We have been adapting to temperature and sea level changes for centuries. If they could deal with it centuries ago what reason to think modern civilization can't deal with it? It probably would be an issue if we continue wasting trillions on windmills and solar panels instead of just adapting and using the reliable energy sources we have.
As a geologist it always surprises me that the glacial record is never discussed. The earth has been in a cycle of glacial cold periods and interglacial warm periods for over 2 million years. We are currently in an interglacial period.
Continuous Ice core data from Antarctica shows that several past interglacials have had peak temperatures higher than today. The last, 125,000 years ago, was 1.5 to 2 degrees C warmer and sea levels peaked approximately 6 meters higher than today.
I would really like tail risk assessments of the costs of some kind of warming tipping point to be balanced against the tail benefit of potentially preventing or delaying the next ice age
As the world economy may be about $300 trillion in 2100 this might imply a maximum tail benefit of $3 quadrillion per decade at that time
Yes, the greatest ecological disaster we could achieve would be to allow another ice age to occur. These greenie morons figure because "it's natural" it's OK.
Like if a "natural" kilonova occurred 100 light years away and fried the Earth, it would be OK because "its natural".
The #1 subject in all of climate change should be that we must be damn sure we don't allow another Ice age or even significant global cooling to occur. And also make damn sure we don't let a sizeable asteroid smack the Earth. Funny how the Climate Change Alarmists could care less about those much more important possibilities. They either have a Malthusian DeGrowth Agenda or they are anti-Humanist. Misanthropes.
As the "Population Bomb" cultists demonstrate, when it comes to Malthusian vs misnrhrope, the answer is, "all the above"...as they seem to say anytime they are challenged, "we are the science"...
Why make snow in Greenland when we could desalinate ocean water w/solar energy and transport it via aqueduct to rain-starved farms? Let's see the analysis, Mr. Swift!
Why use an aqueduct, use a solar powered tractor beam from outer space to lift ice from Greenland and drop it on rain-starved farms? Mark Jacobson could come up with a plan, almost as funny as his 100% renewable copper plate grid plan for US energy supply.
Make that Greenland ice core not ce core
I love this. As a geologist I have stated my thoughts on this before. By all means put it on Greenland. Greenland ce core data does not go back past the last interglacial so maybe it all melted 120,000 years ago without man made CO2. Maybe we can preserve some interglacial data for the generation 120,000 years from now.
Roger, please discuss the reasons you were attacked by congress and/or your university.
When you are a voice in the wilderness, the denizens often hear and attack you for no reason other than fear.
I read all the nice comments below and no one states the obvious.
We have no clue what the climate is doing today, we have very little understanding of all the variables affecting it (anyone that says they do is a fraud), and so any serious attempt at geoengineering has to be looked at as the potential for genocide several magnitudes worse than Hitler.
I think we the non-insane need to make it abundantly clear that we will find these people and they will get the full William Wallace treatment. Please revisit his ending if you are unclear what I’m suggesting happen to them.
Academic papers like Roger’s are nice, basically intellectual wanking, but any large scale attempt to enact geoengineering will have likely horrific unintended outcomes for all life on earth not just humans, destroying the planet to save it.
This needs to be publicly discussed as part of the future climate change POLICY crimes against humanity trials.
We should all be collecting data on what the current attacks on cheap energy and fertilizer are going cause mostly in the developing word.
As others have alluded to, using sea water as an input to snow making may be problematic. Even if snowmakers could be engineered to use sea water rather than fresh water, the ecological impacts of depositing thousands of cubic kilometers of salt laden water cannot be overlooked.
Roger, you will undoubtedly get a visiting professorship at the Academy at Lagado. LOL
Sea level has been rising independent of CO2 emissions since the end of the last ice age. That is unstoppable. The big question is whether increased CO2 is accelerating the rate of sea level rise above that from the end of the ice age. So far, the answer seems to be maybe, but not huge. The problem is that sea level is difficult to measure and varies around the globe. The estimates of future sea level rise made by catastophic-oriented agencies (see Max More comment below) are even more absurd than the 8.5 emission scenario you have lambasted. Judith Curry wrote an excellent report on sea level at:
https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/27/special-report-on-sea-level-rise/
Another useful reference is:
https://www.amazon.com/Assessing-Climate-Change-Temperatures-Radiation/dp/3319004549/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3AYJRFI0OGIG2&keywords=rapp+climate+change&qid=1697813013&s=books&sprefix=rapp+climate+change%2Cstripbooks%2C132&sr=1-1&ufe=app_do%3Aamzn1.fos.f5122f16-c3e8-4386-bf32-63e904010ad0
Will salt water produce snow like fresh water?
Good Q!
Freezes at 28.4F
But I can’t imagine that snow makers have much experience with sea water
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency projects global sea level rise of about 150 cm by 2100." That's 1500 mm in 76 years = 19.73 mm/year. The recent rise, which is keeping with historical rates, is about 3 mm/year. So the EPA is projecting an increase of 600% to 700%. On the basis of what absurd scenario? If you use tide gauges, the historical number is less than 3 mm/year, so the exaggeration would be worse.
3.1mm/year is the number derived from satellites since 1993, satellites with an accuracy at least 1 magnitude worse than that which it’s measuring.
2.1mm is the long term average from sea level gages around the world.
“Acceleration” fear porn is a function of a variation of Piltdown Mann’s “nature trick”, splicing the satellite record onto the gage record at 1993, then ignoring the gage record after that.
The very finest in decision-based evidence making.
Willis E over at WUWT has a graph that shows the acceleration anomaly over last 100years from tide gages which shows periods of positive and negative acceleration, meaning it’s complicated and you can show what you want when cherries are in season.
Sea level changes continuously over time, but it seems to average to 2.1mm over time.
Another nothing burger, perfect for weight loss programs but not much else.
Yes. I was being generous to the panickers.
If you have to ask
😎😉
So, let me see if I have this straight - because of inadvertent anthropogenic perturbation of the climate system that is in no way apocalyptic or catastrophic, we must remedy the situation via deliberate anthropogenic perturbation of the climate system.
Gee, what could possibly go wrong with that?
Calls to mind that old adage, which begins, "if stupidity got us into this mess ......"
Far better and cheaper is iron fertilisation of the oceans to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Natural, safe and effective.
Natural, safe and effective?? Please elaborate.
www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 343 21 MARCH 2014 pages 1347-1350
The above is an articled from Science journal reporting on a period of drought in the southern hemisphere from roughly 70000 to 20000 years ago when dust blown off the southern continents may have been the primary cause of atmospheric CO2 levels from some 40ppm. Hence my description of iron fertilisation as being natural and effective. Since I have come across no reports of adverse environmental impacts from this 50000 years of enhanced dust levels, it therefore also seems to be safe.
There's also an interest video on how whales change the global climate - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NOduTiEIAs - again, safe, natural and seemingly effective.
That's a different goal, in that the link between sea level rise and CO2 is uncertain and not quantified with sufficient accuracy. But theoretically if they could get their climate models to work, then you could evaluate sea level rise mitigation in the standard metric $ per tonne of CO2 removed or avoided. Then you could accurately compare the various methods for cost effectiveness.
One thing is certain, the lowest cost method is as always, replacing coal power plants with nuclear power plants, as they reach end-of-life. That is actually a negative cost. Of course iron fertilization could have a negative cost as well if it increases fish stocks significantly.
Clearly there are people with too much time (or grant money) on their hands to be contemplating such goofy ideas.
Here is another thought. The Ogallala Aquifer is roughy 90% depleted. We could replenish it and other aquifers -- provided -- energy costs to pump and purify the water were within reason.
Another application for Nuclear power. Nuclear desalination using waste reactor heat and nuclear electricity to pump the water. You could use surplus baseload nighttime energy.
In fact a very efficient method of (effectively) desalination has been devised by recovering water vapor off the surface of the ocean and condensing it.
Limitless Fresh Water Lies Right OVER The Ocean - Without Desalination!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt5xAcmfaYo
The 3.4 mm are based on satellite measurements which were initially calibrated to achieve the 3 foot ocean rise by 2100. (Morner). The well-established annual ocean level rise from tide guages world-wide, but not where known subsidence is occurring, is only 1-2mm per yr or about a foot by 2100. AND no acceleration in rise. in past 100years Forget this stuff. If you want to worry, Consider the 90 plus sleeping volcanos under the Antarcttic ice shelf.
Yes, we have no idea what black swan events will happen. My vote is for volcanos, Carrington level sunspot events, asteroid impacts and population collapse. This climate panic is all a ridiculous grift.
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change AR5 projected that the worlds coasts "could" experience sea level rise of 30 to 80 cm by 2100, "and higher values cannot be ruled out""
With all the discussion around the flawed models that underpin these IPCC projections, why waste a brain cell even thinking about this. It comes across as if someone is deliberately trying to accelerate the next ice age, which is probably more of a concern then some moderate warming and sea level rise over the next few centuries. These manipulated IPCC projections are just feeding the climatist alarmism trope. We have been adapting to temperature and sea level changes for centuries. If they could deal with it centuries ago what reason to think modern civilization can't deal with it? It probably would be an issue if we continue wasting trillions on windmills and solar panels instead of just adapting and using the reliable energy sources we have.
The climatocracy is imperialistic and reactionary and will continue even long after the money, and faux moral rationalizations, fade away.
Please stay on topic, thanks!
As a geologist it always surprises me that the glacial record is never discussed. The earth has been in a cycle of glacial cold periods and interglacial warm periods for over 2 million years. We are currently in an interglacial period.
Continuous Ice core data from Antarctica shows that several past interglacials have had peak temperatures higher than today. The last, 125,000 years ago, was 1.5 to 2 degrees C warmer and sea levels peaked approximately 6 meters higher than today.
I would really like tail risk assessments of the costs of some kind of warming tipping point to be balanced against the tail benefit of potentially preventing or delaying the next ice age
As the world economy may be about $300 trillion in 2100 this might imply a maximum tail benefit of $3 quadrillion per decade at that time
Yes, the greatest ecological disaster we could achieve would be to allow another ice age to occur. These greenie morons figure because "it's natural" it's OK.
Like if a "natural" kilonova occurred 100 light years away and fried the Earth, it would be OK because "its natural".
The #1 subject in all of climate change should be that we must be damn sure we don't allow another Ice age or even significant global cooling to occur. And also make damn sure we don't let a sizeable asteroid smack the Earth. Funny how the Climate Change Alarmists could care less about those much more important possibilities. They either have a Malthusian DeGrowth Agenda or they are anti-Humanist. Misanthropes.
As the "Population Bomb" cultists demonstrate, when it comes to Malthusian vs misnrhrope, the answer is, "all the above"...as they seem to say anytime they are challenged, "we are the science"...
Why make snow in Greenland when we could desalinate ocean water w/solar energy and transport it via aqueduct to rain-starved farms? Let's see the analysis, Mr. Swift!
Why use an aqueduct, use a solar powered tractor beam from outer space to lift ice from Greenland and drop it on rain-starved farms? Mark Jacobson could come up with a plan, almost as funny as his 100% renewable copper plate grid plan for US energy supply.
Jacobson is a cartoon character