back to article Blocking out the Sun won't fix climate change – but it could buy us time

The Paris climate talks hope to set out how we can reduce the amount of carbon we’re pumping into the atmosphere. But emissions cuts alone may not be enough. Atmospheric CO2 is the blanket that keeps our planet warm and any further emissions will mean more global warming. Observations in recent years show that warming is …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Mr Burns

    So... Mr Burns was right then??

    1. Zippy's Sausage Factory

      You beat me to it...

      Although I was going to ask whether this strategy was put together by the Ice Warriors out of Dr Who, but whatever. 'S all good, man.

    2. Sgt_Oddball Silver badge

      Re: Mr Burns

      I was thinking more that the spice must flow....

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Mr Burns

      Or Highlander 2. (There should have been only one!)

    4. Faux Science Slayer

      INSANE....there is NO Carbon climate forcing....

      "Four Knowen Scientific Ways Carbon Dioxide Cools Earth's Climate" by Dr Pierre Latour, PhD Chemical Engineering, posted at Principia Scientific International.

      "Greenhouse Gas Ptolemaic Model" posted at PSI and at FauxScienceSlayer

      http://geothermal-global-warming.myfreesites.net/ by Dr Arthur Viterito

      coasttocoastam.com/show/2015/03/18 > Climate Change & Thermodynamics,

      this 2 hour interview on 615 radios stations to 2 million listeners.

      1. TheVogon Silver badge

        Re: INSANE....there is NO Carbon climate forcing....

        "Four Knowen Scientific Ways Carbon Dioxide Cools Earth's Climate"

        It's called a greenhouse gas for a reason.

        "http://geothermal-global-warming.myfreesites.net/ by Dr Arthur Viterito"

        More utter bollocks that is easily refuted - for example solar radiation can be measured, the graph attributed early on to satellite measurements doesn't match the actual satellite measurements shown later, it uses a cherry picked temperature range from the 1998 El Nino year, it has pages of nonsense implying causation by geothermal flux, etc, etc.

        "Dr Pierre Latour, PhD Chemical Engineering"

        So not a climate scientist then.

        "this 2 hour interview on 615 radios stations to 2 million listeners"

        Ignorance is not limited by audience figures.

        1. FreemonSandlewould

          Re: INSANE....there is NO Carbon climate forcing....

          There is no man made "Glo-bull" warming. It is crank science for the sake of money and power.

          I know you fanbois believe in this crazy chicken little story because it makes you feel like you are part of technology that you don't really understand nor have the power to ever understand it.

          Those of us with high technical abilities wrote off glo-bull warming as a huge political scam long ago.

        2. MrNatural

          Re: INSANE....there is NO Carbon climate forcing....

          "Dr Pierre Latour, PhD Chemical Engineering"

          So not a climate scientist then.

          Because the atmosphere is obviously made of something other than chemicals...

          ... sheesh what a maroon.

  2. Mark Fenton

    Refreeze the poles?

    You do realise that polar ice is at a maximum right now - compared to many years previous.

    1. TheVogon Silver badge

      Re: Refreeze the poles?

      "You do realise that polar ice is at a maximum right now - compared to many years previous."

      No - no it's not. Seasonal sea ice extent is currently increasing, but Arctic sea ice extent for October 2015 averaged 7.72 million square kilometers (2.98 million square miles), the sixth lowest October in the satellite record. This is 1.19 million square kilometers (460,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average extent, but 950,000 square kilometers (367,000 square miles) above the record low monthly average for October that occurred in 2007. From 1979 through 2015, the October sea ice extent has declined an average of 6.9% per decade over the satellite record. Some of the major ice sheets themselves also continue to melt. This decline in ice is evidenced by the year on year continual rise in sea levels.

      1. 9Rune5

        Re: Refreeze the poles?

        "This decline in ice is evidenced by the year on year continual rise in sea levels."

        The same rise that has gone on for as long as we have been measuring sea levels..?

        1. TheVogon Silver badge

          Re: Refreeze the poles?

          "The same rise that has gone on for as long as we have been measuring sea levels..?"

          Well no - it's has accelerated from near zero rise at the start of the industrial revolution to a few mm a year now. See for instance http://www.skepticalscience.com/Past-150000-Years-of-Sea-Level-History-Suggests-High-Rates-of-Future-Sea-Level-Rise.html

          "Remind me - what proportion of the current interglacial does the satellite record cover?"

          See the 150,000 years of sea levels versus polar temperature data referenced above if the recent satellite record isn't enough for you.

          1. you are idiots
            Facepalm

            Re: Refreeze the poles?

            So you post from that website, that actually shows nothing unusual is happening.

            look at the peak at about 135ky, compare to 15ky to now, looks like its not unusual.

            I thought your point was that what is happening now is a problem? from that graph it's happened before so what?

            1. TheVogon Silver badge

              Re: Refreeze the poles?

              "So you post from that website, that actually shows nothing unusual is happening."

              It shows the ice is melting and that the melting is accelerating. Calling that "nothing unusual" might be true if you consider it in context of thousands of years of history, but it's likely going to mean several metres of sea rise by the end of the century...and a lot more over the next few hundred years...which is unusual in documented human experience - unless you count Noah!

              "I thought the polar ice was like an ice cube"

              Only the sea ice that floats. The ice sheets covering land do add to sea levels when they melt.

              1. Primus Secundus Tertius Silver badge

                Re: Refreeze the poles?

                @TheVogon

                The sea has risen by 200 feet or more since the peak of the last ice age about 20,000 years ago. Our remote ancestors could walk from France to Britain and Ireland with no more than a few river crossings, though perhaps they moved along coastline by boat. All that evidence is now deep under the sea, of course.

                There have been four ice ages in the last two million years. The first three came and went long before we were burning coal and oil on an industrial scale.

                How do the climate warmers explain that? They don't, of course, and they deserve to be utterly discredited.

                1. NomNomNom

                  Re: Refreeze the poles?

                  "How do the climate warmers explain that? They don't, of course, and they deserve to be utterly discredited."

                  yeah you tell them. Just like how scientists can't explain fossils or gravity.

                2. TheVogon Silver badge

                  Re: Refreeze the poles?

                  "There have been four ice ages in the last two million years."

                  So that's 1 every 500,000 years or so....versus decades for AGW

                  "The first three came and went long before we were burning coal and oil on an industrial scale."

                  I wasn't aware we managed to squeeze in an Ice Age in the last 150 years or so...

                  "How do the climate warmers explain that? "

                  Milankovich cycles.

          2. lone_wolf

            Re: Refreeze the poles?

            "Well no - it's has accelerated from near zero rise at the start of the industrial revolution to a few mm a year now"

            So at the maximum extent of the ice sheet prior to the end of the ice age when the continental shelf was exposed until the start of the industrial revolution there at some point a cessation of sea level rise, because the earth was in some kind of perfect balance that ever existed before? What exactly is the measure here, when did the sea level supposedly stop rising, whom decides what the "normal" level supposedly is for the sea. I was taught that prior to the ICE we did not have ice cap's at all and the majority of the world was tropical.

      2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Refreeze the poles?

        "the sixth lowest October in the satellite record."

        Remind me - what proportion of the current interglacial does the satellite record cover?

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Refreeze the poles?

        I thought the polar ice was like an ice cube - ie the sea levels will not rise as the water displacement is equal to the volume of ice frozen, simple physics.

        1. sisk Silver badge

          Re: Refreeze the poles?

          I thought the polar ice was like an ice cube - ie the sea levels will not rise as the water displacement is equal to the volume of ice frozen, simple physics.

          Except that the ice is being held up out of the water by the land underneath it.

          1. h4rm0ny

            Re: Refreeze the poles?

            Well, all I can say is that I'm glad that we didn't have this technological capability back when we thought we were heading towards another ice age instead of today, when all the science is settled.

            Imagine the harm we could have done.

        2. Indolent Wretch

          Re: Refreeze the poles?

          Yes that is mostly true, Greenland and Antartica not so much. Artic melting is easier to measure and must surely be accepted as indicative of what's going on elsewhere.

        3. GeorgeRoberts

          Re: Refreeze the poles?

          North Pole - yes. South Pole, no. Greenland ice, no.

        4. Asterix the Gaul

          Re: Refreeze the poles?

          "ie the sea levels will not rise as the water displacement is equal to the volume of ice frozen, simple physics".

          Except for the polar ice that is resting upon terra firma.

          Aerial images by sattelite or other aircraft, give only a single dimensional picture of ice coverage,a 3 dimensional model would be more accurate in general of ice volume at the poles.

          Not sure whether there are any complete radar data covering the poles in which to create such a model.

          In the early-mid 1960's I was a deep sea trawlerman fishing the arctic, small bergs were called 'polar mints', penguins are called, 'waiters-in-tail-coats'.

          1. Guus Leeuw
            Headmaster

            Re: Refreeze the poles?

            Dear Sir,

            "In the early-mid 1960's I was a deep sea trawlerman fishing the arctic, small bergs were called 'polar mints', penguins are called, 'waiters-in-tail-coats'."

            I doubt, somehow, very much that you've seen a lot of waiters-in-tail-coats, somehow.

            Regards,

            Guus

    2. Rich 11 Silver badge

      Re: Refreeze the poles?

      Here are the satellite measurements of annual Arctic minima:

      http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2015/11/Figure3.png

    3. Leslie Graham

      Re: Refreeze the poles?

      You know I am sometimes genuinely curious as to where on Earth deniers get these ridiculous myths and memes from? Is it from some sordid little denier-p0rn blog or do you just make them up yourselves?

      They bear not the faintest relationship to reality - and it' a reality that can be accessed in seconds, free of charge, 24/7.

      For example you could just visit the NSIDC site where you could read the following:

      "Arctic sea ice extent for October 2015 averaged 7.72 million square kilometers (2.98 million square miles), the sixth lowest October in the satellite record. This is 1.19 million square kilometers (460,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average extent"

      And: "Through 2015, the October sea ice extent has declined 6.9% per decade over the satellite record."

      And: "Sea ice in Antarctica is near average"

      And: [In Greenland] "Comparing the seasonal progression of the four most recent years, the recent tendency for greater-than-average melt extent is apparent. This plot also shows the rapid increase in total melt area seen in July, increasing at a rate similar to the record melt year 2012. Greenland’s 2015 melt extent area total was approximately 85,000 square kilometers (32,800 square miles) above the 1981 to 2010 average"

      Antarctica is also losing mass at an accelerating rate.

      Between 1992 and 2001, ice was melting from the two main ice sheets at a rate of about 64 Gt a year.

      From 2002 to 2011, the ice sheets were melting at a rate of about 362 Gt a year – an almost six-fold increase.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Refreeze the poles?

        Anyone who says 'deniers' is a member of a cult, and not responsible for anything they say. Please forgive them.

        1. Stuart21551

          Re: Refreeze the poles?

          Anyone who says 'deniers' is a member of a cult is a member of a cult.

      2. chris 17 Bronze badge

        Re: Refreeze the poles?

        @Leslie G

        The world has been much warmer and much colder in the past before humans walked this earth.

        No one mentions the millions tonnes of CO2 belted out by nature every day.

        No one mentions it was early life including plants and trees that changed the chemical make up of our atmosphere first

        Just because we are humans, does not mean we are not part of natures design. Perhaps the earth is meant to be warmer, perhaps more atmospheric CO2 is needed for some other process of nature we do not understand yet?

        What would climate scaremongers have said after the last ice age? Blamed it on humans or just nature taking its course.

        Nature creates and destroys in equal measure and does things over time scales we find hard to fathom. We will not beat nature, she has the measure of us.

      3. Asterix the Gaul
        Coffee/keyboard

        Re: Refreeze the poles?

        "You know I am sometimes genuinely curious as to where on Earth deniers get these ridiculous myths and memes from"?

        The correct spelling for those in 'denial', is,"denyers".

        'Denier' is a term used to describe the weight of a material such as yarn.

        I guess that I am giving away my age,but,when I was at school more than 60 years ago,'spelling' was my forte & grammar was something to strive to perfect for obvious reasons.

        Have a nice day.

  3. moonrakin

    The Conversation? - slow news day (very)

    Perhaps the author might like to check out OCO-2 satellite observations and then think a bit further than he obviouly has - which in truth isn't very far at all........

    1. TheVogon Silver badge

      Re: The Conversation? - slow news day (very)

      "Perhaps the author might like to check out OCO-2 satellite observations"

      I took a look. It's in no way clear what point you are trying to make:

      "OCO-2 provides valuable data to be used by the atmospheric and carbon cycle science community to improve global models of the carbon cycle, reduce uncertainties in forecasts of total carbon dioxide abundance in the atmosphere and make more accurate predictions of global climate change in which CO2 is a key driver. By studying the location, nature and processes of natural carbon dioxide sinks, a better prediction of the rate of build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere and its impact on the climate becomes possible. It is unknown whether the CO2 sinks will continue to operate at their current efficiency or if their uptake will decrease over time which could lead to a significant increase in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide which would project a very different future for life on Earth.

      Measurements by OCO-2 will allow scientists to monitor the geographic distribution of carbon dioxide sources and quantify their variability in order to map the natural and man-made processes that regulate the exchange of CO2 between the Earth’s surface and the atmosphere on both regional to continental scales.

      The data provided by OCO-2 may also be of interest to policy makers and business leaders to make better decisions to ensure climate stability over the long-term.

      OCO-2 will also contribute to a number of other scientific areas related to the global carbon cycle:

      ◾the dynamics of ocean carbon exchange

      ◾the seasonal dynamics of northern hemisphere terrestrial ecosystems in Eurasia and North America

      ◾the exchange of carbon between the atmosphere and tropical ecosystems due to plant growth, respiration, and fires

      ◾the movement of fossil fuel plumes across North America, Europe, and Asia

      ◾the effect of weather fronts, storms, and hurricanes on the exchange of CO2 between different geographic and ecological regions

      ◾the mixing of atmospheric gases across hemispheres

      In addition to carbon cycle research, OCO-2 will support other operational applications that include precise measurements of surface pressure on a global scale, water column abundance, cloud and aerosol measurement, and solar irradiation data. This data can be used for climate research and meteorological research as well as operational applications such as weather forecasting."

      1. moonrakin

        Re: The Conversation? - slow news day (very)

        which proves you can copy n paste - poetry still challenging though eh?

        Unlike I suspect many here I have worked in the Arctic and am well acquainted with the variability of ice up there and I'm pretty ticked with folk who should know better pouncing on individual seasons to promote loopy hypotheses in both camps when the straightforward answer is "we don't know". The reference to OCO-2 is another"we don't know" thing regarding the actual observed effects of CO2 - the observations to date most certainly diverge grossly from models that claim to be skillful and on which this balloons / mirrors / sea spray daftness is based on.

        1. TheVogon Silver badge

          Re: The Conversation? - slow news day (very)

          "regarding the actual observed effects of CO2 - the observations to date most certainly diverge grossly from models that claim to be skillful and on which this balloons / mirrors / sea spray daftness is based on."

          Well no, the actual observed effects are that global average temperature is still rising over any statically significant measurement period. There has been plenty of natural variance is the short term - which is to be expected - but the long terms trends are very clear. See http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/

          1. moonrakin

            Re: The Conversation? - slow news day (very)

            why not go the whole hog and overlay Mauna Loa CO2? and while you are at it some error bars and some indication of changes/adjustments to the underlying data sets over the period plotted.

            woodfortrees eh? not exactly an authoritative resource.

            What part of "we don't know" is it that you are struggling with?

            1. TheVogon Silver badge

              Re: The Conversation? - slow news day (very)

              "woodfortrees eh? not exactly an authoritative resource."

              But it is a very authoritative source - it has the raw and easily verified data - that you can process and graph yourself anyway you like - removing the inherent bias in for instance cherry picked time ranges.

              1. moonrakin

                Re: The Conversation? - slow news day (very)

                Easily verified ?

                pull the other one...

                http://climateaudit.org/2010/12/26/nasa-giss-adjusting-the-adjustments/

                Hansen was a disgrace and Gavin is trying hard.

                I'd stick with bad poetry - there are plenty in the polar research community that view much of the alarmist claims with contempt - albeit tempered with a dollop of practicality about feeding their families and doing what they love. The price of even mild scepticism is vindictive vilification and worse - which is simply appalling.

                1. NomNomNom

                  Re: The Conversation? - slow news day (very)

                  you are clueless moonrakin. Like a creationist or a chemtrail or anti-vaxxer, you guys see nothing but conspiracies and are immune to evidence.

            2. bombastic bob Silver badge

              Re: The Conversation? - slow news day (very)

              Here's a thought: has anybody bothered to even LOOK at what the infrared absorption spectrum IS for CO2? And even MORE fun, compare it to WATER. You know, that stuff that forms clouds and covers some 2/3 or more of the planet, COMPLETELY uncontrollable by humans? It seems that CO2 has about 1/10 the absorption spectrum that WATER does for gamma energy levels that correspond to temperatures above about -60 deg (F or C your choice). For temperatures that are way too cold for earth life, CO2 does a TERRIFIC job at keeping us from turning into Mars. but compare the effect of SIMPLE cloud cover on a cloudy day vs a clear day, or a cloudy night vs a clear night. clear day WARM, cloudy day COLD. clear night COLD, cloudy night WARM. That's a SIGNIFICANT change, and no human activity is affecting THAT. In fact, doesn't HIGHER CO2 cause PRECIPITATION? you know, providing a nucleus for condensation for clouds... like CLOUD SEEDING! All in all I'd say that the effects of atmospheric CO2 are considerably different than whatever 1-dimensional models are being used to predict planetary thermal runaway doom gloom and "we need more socialism to fix it". yeah, that last part is the REAL motive!

              1. NomNomNom

                Re: The Conversation? - slow news day (very)

                "All in all I'd say that the effects of atmospheric CO2 are considerably different than whatever 1-dimensional models are being used to predict planetary"

                You are clueless too. You don't speak on behalf of science. In fact rather the opposite, you've thought about it for 10 minutes and assume no-one else ever has and therefore you've proven science must all be a lie. drivel.

  4. Voland's right hand Silver badge

    Key Homo Sapience species trait

    Key trait of Homo Sapiens as species is adaptability.

    How about actually using it? Yes I know, it is sacrilegious to consider the possibility that Chinese and Far East will eat spuds instead of rice, people of Middle Eastern origin (regardless of their religion) may have to eat pig and we, westerners, may have to eat guinea pigs or horses or dogs for that matter. Flexibility and adaptability are the key trait that has enabled human survival as species over time.

    Those who have chosen to forfeit that trait for religious, societal and other reasons - well, you need to check the dictionary definition of Darwin Award.

    1. TheVogon Silver badge

      Re: Key Homo Sapience species trait

      "Key trait of Homo Sapiens as species is adaptability."

      Hoping that we suddenly evolve the ability to be able to breath under water, or become able to survive regular temperatures of 50 C+ in certain parts of the world within a few decades might be somewhat pushing the limits...

      1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

        Re: Key Homo Sapience species trait

        Hoping that we suddenly evolve the ability to be able to breath under water

        Even 200 m rise will be less than fraction of a percent from the dry land. So you will only need to breath under water if you refuse to adapt and move elsewhere. Yeah, sure, there are whole countries that have an issue with moving elsewhere, but once again these are less than fraction of a percent of the overall population. So that is clearly a case of forfeiting adaptability. Just this time it is in the name of politics.

        The parts that are 50C today will be 50C tomorrow - that is 5%+ of the world surface. While the various projections for Sahara expansion may look fugly on a map they once again affect a fraction of a percent of the world population.

        Global warming does not pose a threat to the survival of the human species.

        It poses significant threats to the preservation of the current political and socio-economic status quo. F.E. Europe will not be the same if most of Holland and half of its capitals end up under water. We will have to deal with mass North-African/Middle East migration and a lesser migration out of Polynesia. Though, once again - the migration rate per year we have organized today by meddling in their politics is of an order of magnitude above what would have been a climate induced one. Also, if we take the cynical view, at this rate, there will be none left to migrate from Global Warming as they would have migrated out of the war zone anyway.

        It also poses significant threat to biodiversity, though even the worst projections are nowhere near what the Earth has endured in any of the large extinction events like the Late Devonian mass extinction or the Permian mass extinction. In fact, compared to the big 5 mass extinction events (http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/extinction_events) it will not even register on the paleontological "radar".

        1. TheVogon Silver badge

          Re: Key Homo Sapience species trait

          "Even 200 m rise will be less than fraction of a percent from the dry land. So you will only need to breath under water if you refuse to adapt and move elsewhere. "

          Tell that to say Bangladesh - where there is no nearby free land to move to. And even in say the US and Europe - a 200 metres rise would sink most major cities under water - so whilst we can potentially adapt to all living in caves on a mountain, it's not exactly an economically attractive option versus not frying the planet.

          1. Dr Stephen Jones

            Re: Key Homo Sapience species trait

            The threat to Bangladesh is poverty not "climate change". A modern industrial society has a resilient infrastructure. New York City took a direct hit from Hurricane Sandy without one single fatality. (Rural upstate NY is where there were fatalities).

            Stopping poor countries from developing, by denying them fossil fuels, will ensure many people die who didn't need to die. But maybe that's the plan.

          2. Eddy Ito Silver badge

            Re: Key Homo Sapience species trait

            - a 200 metres rise would sink most major cities under water -

            All well and good but there isn't enough ice on the planet to raise the oceans 200 metres. 200 feet ok, 200 metres, no. Granted that's of no comfort to Bangladesh as it would be completely flooded anyway.

            1. TheVogon Silver badge

              Re: Key Homo Sapience species trait

              "Talking about a 200m sea level rise "

              Blame the OP.

              "Find me one credible researcher who thinks there will be a temperature rise of anything like 10C in the next 85 years"

              The areally averaged warming in the Arctic is projected to range from about 2°C to about 9°C by the year 2100

              http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch15s15-3-2.html

              That's the product of lots of very credible researchers...

              1. DougS Silver badge

                Re: Key Homo Sapience species trait

                The Arctic isn't the whole Earth, and isn't a place where temperatures currently peak at 50C which is where the claim for those places hitting 60C originated.

                1. TheVogon Silver badge

                  Re: Key Homo Sapience species trait

                  "The Arctic isn't the whole Earth, and isn't a place where temperatures currently peak at 50C which is where the claim for those places hitting 60C originated."

                  No, but then that wasn't what you asked:

                  "Find me one credible researcher who thinks there will be a temperature rise of anything like 10C in the next 85 years"

                  However, 60 degrees is possible too:

                  http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/26/extreme-heatwaves-could-push-gulf-climate-beyond-human-endurance-study-shows

                  "The scientists used standard climate computer models to show that the fatal WBT extremes would occur every decade or two after 2070 along most of the Gulf coast, if global warming is not curbed. Using the normal measure of temperature, the study shows 45C would become the usual summer maximum in Gulf cities, with 60C being seen in places like Kuwait City in some years."

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Key Homo Sapience species trait

          >>>The parts that are 50C today will be 50C tomorrow

          But will likely be nearer 60C by the end of the century...

          1. DougS Silver badge

            Re: Key Homo Sapience species trait

            But will likely be nearer 60C by the end of the century...

            This is the kind of baseless alarmist crap that make people just stop listening. Talking about a 200m sea level rise or 10C rise in temperatures by the end of the century just makes you look stupid. Find me one credible researcher who thinks there will be a temperature rise of anything like 10C in the next 85 years, or that everything will melt by then (which is what would be required to rise 150m, I don't think 200m is possible as there is insufficient ice even assuming all ice goes to the sea rather than forming giant lakes in Antarctica and Greenland)

            1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Unep Eurobats
      Facepalm

      Re: Key Homo Sapience species trait

      Er, people aren't starving because they're fussy eaters.

      1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

        Re: Key Homo Sapience species trait

        Er, people aren't starving because they're fussy eaters.

        Nothing to do with eating, to do with growing. My dad, grandad, grandgrandad, ... has grown ALMONDS. I SHALL GROW ALMONDS TOO. Oh, shit no water around, that is a problem, how about growing wheat or barley? NO I SHALL GROW ALMONDS and I shall call my congresscritter/congress of people's deputies rep/Grand theocrat/whatever to ensure that my ALMONDS GROWING interests are not impinged on.

        Depending on the region, search and replace ALMONDS with rice, potatoes, olives, grain, etc - you name it.

    3. smartypants

      Re: Key Homo Sapience species trait

      Climate change is not a threat to humans as a species. What it does do through is to threaten the viability of certain population centres and growing areas. In the case of the former this means mass population movements and the strife it causes. In the case of the latter it makes it more likely that large numbers of people will starve.

      My view is that humans would do well to manage a population decline humanely without war and starvation. It would solve a lot of problems, especially the starving bit. Unfortunately, the mere mention of this solution sends people into paroxysms of anger, so I guess mother nature will end up stepping in as she always does.

      1. Cynic_999 Silver badge

        Re: Key Homo Sapience species trait

        "

        ... mass population movements and the strife it causes.

        "

        Mass population movements cause no strife if the move takes place over several generations.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Key Homo Sapience species trait

      If we pumped as much money into investigating what we might do in the event of significant warming to take advantage of it rather than assuming everything is going to go to shit, then things might not turn out as bad as the doom-mongers would have us believe.

      But this is heretical talk.

      All this talk of just reducing carbon emissions given what we know about industrialisation is burying our heads in the sand.

      Adaptability (an no, Mr Vogon, that doesn't mean we all need to develop gills: that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard) and technology is what will mitigate the effects of warming in the medium term.

      As far as I can tell, nobody is actually thinking publicly about this. If they are, they're getting drowned out by the warmist hysteria.

      - If some areas are getting warmer, are there better crops that farmers should turn to. If so, which and where?

      - If some places are going to be getting a lot more sun, can we take energy advantage of that?

      - If some areas are going to have problems with water, can we plan to do something about it now? Why are they not trying to solve this problem in California now and I mean desalination, not building more reservoirs, with all the extra energy from warming? It's not like they don't get a ton of sun right?

  5. beast666

    Utter Tosh

    "Atmospheric CO2 is the blanket that keeps our planet warm and any further emissions will mean more global warming. Observations in recent years show that warming is accelerating, that polar ice and glaciers are all melting, that sea level is rising … it all looks rather bleak."

    That's the problem right there in the first paragraph.

    It is completely false and to keep on asserting such nonsense is verging on criminal.

    That is all.

    1. TheVogon Silver badge

      Re: Utter Tosh

      "That's the problem right there in the first paragraph."

      The only problem I can see is that it says "that polar ice and glaciers are all melting" whereas it should say "some polar ice sheets and glaciers are melting". Otherwise it's in line with the overwhelming scientific consensus and the overwhelming observable evidence.

      1. Barely registers

        Re: Utter Tosh

        No inference should be drawn on what position this commentard holds re climate change. I believe the following to be an absolute.

        No scientific consensus is "overwhelming" - it matters not what, nor how many, scientists think, only what Nature does. To believe otherwise is hubris.

        Ask Barry Marshall - Nobel Prize winner for his theory bacterium-induced peptic ulcers, and his experience of trying to advance his theory in the face of a lucrative antacid industry

        Ask Daniel Shechtman - Nobel Prize winner for his discovery on the structure of quasicrystals, having been "ridiculed" and "treated badly" by his peers.

        http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15181187

      2. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

        Re: Utter Tosh

        it's in line with the overwhelming scientific consensus

        There is one?

        It's interesting that someone is recommending mucking around with the atmosphere to reflect 2% of solar radiation as having a positive benefit on climate change, yet most of the global warming advocates deny that solar variability has any significant impact and insist it's all down to greenhouse gases.

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. Barely registers

          Re: Utter Tosh @Phil O'Sophical

          (correction to withdrawn comment owing to maths fail)

          The Total Solar Irradiance measurements taken during the satellite era show a variance in the range 1361 to 1364 W/m2, or about 0.22%

          Professor Hunt's comment about mirrors directing "say 2%" away from Earth is therefore some 10 times the effect of Sol's own variability, so I think it justifiable to say that such a scheme would have a measurable impact.

          Quite whether it is justifiable to block 27W/m2 of solar energy from all of Earth's plant life is another matter, given how much plants have evolved to compete for sunlight. It's side effects like the possible failure of crops that lead me to want to invoke the precautionary principle on such schemes.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Utter Tosh

          Solar variability is well below 2% you spud

        4. NomNomNom

          Re: Utter Tosh

          "It's interesting that someone is recommending mucking around with the atmosphere to reflect 2% of solar radiation as having a positive benefit on climate change, yet most of the global warming advocates deny that solar variability has any significant impact and insist it's all down to greenhouse gases."

          That's because solar output only varies by tenths of a %.

          But well done assuming you knew more than you did.

      3. bombastic bob Silver badge

        Re: Utter Tosh

        "Otherwise it's in line with the overwhelming scientific consensus and the overwhelming observable evidence."

        Uh, NO, and NO. To both of those points.

        Mark Stein, news commentator and radio host, and book author, has discovered that the alleged '95% of scientists' often referenced in this "overwhelming scientific consensus" argument was actually a narrow survey of 75 hand-picked "scientists", many of whom are climate ACTIVISTS. Mark Stein wrote a book about it. I guess the evidence I cite is his verbal summary of what he wrote in his book, and my recollection of it. I suppose I could go through various typed archives to look for it in print, but "Mark Stein's book" is probably a good enough reference to find it.

        And I don't accept the assumption that evidence for man made global climate change is in ANY way overwhelming. You could say the same thing about evidence AGAINST man made global climate change. I begin with the flawed CO2 model: water has ~100 times the effect on atmospheric infrared absorption, due to concentration levels AND absorption spectrum. If you want to keep temperatures above DRY ICE levels, CO2 is your chemical. For something a bit warmer than that, WATER is the major player. And I don't see any warmist "scientists" out there trying to control WATER. They can't. That's why.

        1. TheVogon Silver badge

          Re: Utter Tosh

          "Mark Stein, news commentator and radio host, and book author"

          So obviously an expert on climate change

          "has discovered that the alleged '95% of scientists' often referenced in this "overwhelming scientific consensus" argument was actually a narrow survey of 75 hand-picked "scientists", many of whom are climate ACTIVISTS."

          The evidence of overwhelming is also overwhelming! Actually it's "97% of Climate Scientists agree with AGW". For instance every single scientific representative to the UN from every single country on the planet agrees that a) the planet is warming and that b) the activities of humans are at least partly to blame. Also a survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Utter Tosh

      @beast666 - is that you Mr Page/Orlowski?

    3. Leslie Graham

      Re: Utter Tosh

      It has been known and understood that 'CO2 keeps the planet warm and any further emissions will cause warming' for around 118 years now.

      In fact it has been known that it keeps the Earth warm even longer than that, Fourier figured it out in around 1840 if I remember my high school lessons correctly.

      By the 1950's it was solid mainstream science and it has remained so ever since.

      I don't know where on Earth you get the idea that this is incorrect.

      Perhaps you could cite the scientific research that led you to believe this?

      I would be interested to read it myself.

    4. Grikath Silver badge

      Re: Utter Tosh

      I call "Utter Tosh" for a completely different reason: The dear Speaker is simply talking out of his arse.

      Irrelevant of anyones' stance on the whole weary AGW discussion and related subjects, the whole thing has generated an immense amount of actual scientific research into how our atmosphere actually works, if only to dis/prove certain (pet) theories. Besides often sparking more Discussion, all this work has had a profound effect on the one practical discipline in this area: meteorology. The day-to-day weather prediction is the one thing that affects us most, and accurate mid- to long-term prediction of weather is a serious tool in managing a lot of economic activity and planning. Meteorology has grown from something of a Dark Art to a full science over the past couple of decades, and it has hugely benefited from all the data points and measurements that are being made about our planets' atmosphere. It also has the added bonus that between prediction and actual result even a half-trained amateur can check how well the predictions are. And no, not in the "it's not raining here, mate" sense, but it's really easy to check if the predicted progression/development of a weather front actually matches reality, and how far off that prediction is/was. Weather is strongly affected by Quantum, but if the atmospheric models are correct, things generally should end up where they're predicted.

      And they don't. Short term ( up to three days) they're OK-ish, but mid-term ( about a week) the predictions are still ... prone to change..., and characteristic elements ( fronts, pressure centers, temperature boundaries,....) end up in significantly different places than predicted. Which means the models simply are not good enough... yet... Which can and does have some serious implications, as the failure to correctly predict the landing place of Sandy shows, for instance.

      This all amounts to a number of very simple conclusions: Our atmosphere is significantly more complicated than previously thought. We do not know enough about quite a number of phenomena/cycles and their interaction to correctly model them. As a result of this, any result the models give is at best an educated guess.

      Conversely, if someone boldly claims this One Simple Solution will Save the Planet, you can be pretty sure he's talking out of his arse, if not selling Snake Oil. If you're buying that kind of stuff, I have got this great! opportunity! to make $$$! in your spare! time!!! And that's cutting me'own throat, mister!

  6. MacroRodent Silver badge

    Scapegoat

    Of course you realize that anyone intentionally meddling with climate using any of the mentioned techniques will immediately become the scapegoat for every fierce storm, unusually cold weather, or unusually warm weather? Doesn't matter if the accusation is reasonable or not.

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      Not to mention that we have people advocating injecting our upper atmosphere with various compounds in just about the same way people advocated introducing new species into Australia in order to regulate some problem or another.

      I'm sure the results will prove just as reliable.

  7. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge
    Alert

    fiddling while Rome burns?

    And then you have vast numbers of people (especially in the USA) who believe this is all utter rubbish.

    North Carolina has even passed lasws restricting what their climatologists can report on.

    Well done people. Put your head in the sand and watch the outer banks get submerged by rising sea levels.

    Until the likes of the USA, Russia and China get on message the little bit was do towards reducing our CO2 emissions is a mere drop in an ever increasing ocean.

    They will carry on burning coal, driving Pickups with 6ltr Engines and making hay while the rest of us suffer.

    This http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34872956

    is worth a read. Meanwhile sales of Air Conditioners will keep on rising.

    Where's the 'head in the sand icon' when you need it?

  8. Zog_but_not_the_first Silver badge
    Trollface

    Send for...

    Kevin Costner!

    1. Martin Budden
      Thumb Up

      Re: Send for...

      And spray him into the stratosphere from a helium balloon? Works for me!

  9. Mystic Megabyte Silver badge
    Stop

    Sea rise

    Here in the far North of Scotland I've been walking various dogs around the same bay for over 20 years. I did the same thing yesterday. Fence posts that were 2mtr. inland are now hanging in the air. This area of land is supposed to be rising do to post-glacial rebound so this erosion is not a good sign.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Sea rise

      "this erosion" is likely to be determined by your local geology.

    2. Grikath Silver badge

      Re: Sea rise

      Given that even the worst case scenario would have the sea level rise at best a couple of centimeters in 2 decades, you can be pretty sure the erosion that is happening is simply that... : The sea pounding on soft rock on the same place for a long time. 10 cm up or down would not make much of a difference.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Don't worry chaps

    Once the Paris summit is all over, these ridiculous articles will vanish.

    Someone should do a statistical analysis of the frequency of articles spreading FUD and the temporal proximity of climate conferences. The science is of course settled. Activism in climate is a self organising conspiracy by self interested parties and the record of propaganda shows that 97% of scientists, politicians and journalists engaged in climate science are there because it pays them to be.

    1. Rik Myslewski

      Re: Don't worry chaps

      Oh, riiiiiiiight ...

      All that climate scientists care not about is not the truth, but only lining their pockets with scads of grant money ...

      Sure ..

      Yeah ..

      Have you ever heard about honest inquiry? Have you ever heard of professional integrity?

      Trust me, dickhead, not everyone in the world is as corrupt and easily bought as you.

  11. Missing Semicolon Silver badge
    Unhappy

    Oh dear

    You can see Mr Page no longer works here.

    The loons are out of their box......

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Oh dear

      How true! Also 'The Conversation' is noted for its pandering to the green blob and there just happens to be a very green UN sponsored 'happy fest' scheduled in Paris very soon.

      I do hope all those attending the Paris jamboree travel there using non CO2 producing ways otherwise they will show what their true reasons are - making money through a carbon tax.

    2. codejunky Silver badge

      Re: Oh dear

      Well people did cry when Lewis or Andrew popped up an article not 100% agreeing without any reservation the forgone conclusion of the MMCC co2 religion (*all bow now). I am sure I remember comments complaining of too much propaganda. I wonder if they will continue complaining about such?

      We even have Prince Charles trying to link climate change to Syria. So again the west will be to blame for all the killing over there.

      1. Vic

        Re: Oh dear

        So again the west will be to blame for all the killing over there.

        The West does bear significant blame for the killing over there. But not because of climate...

        Vic.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Oh dear

      "The loons are out of their box......"

      Is in his box, surely?

    4. TheVogon Silver badge

      Re: Oh dear

      "You can see Mr Page no longer works here."

      Maybe he is just away at the Republican hustings?

  12. flearider

    how stupid are you ... yes you

    seeing as over the last 20 yrs or so we have gone thru a maximum of the sun ..don't you think a fraction of a degree uptick would be normal ?? look at it again in 15-20 yrs yes it will be colder

    blocking out the sun WTF are they thinking and i'm sure there computer models show everything will be alright .. well up untill now they have been spot on ... ohhhh wait no there miles off

    it is the way the earth stands now impossible to over heat the planet check your Physics

    and seeing as we are comming to the end of a very long interglacial we really could do with a little more heat ..

    wake up sheeple control is control no matter what form it takes ..

    1. TheVogon Silver badge

      Re: how stupid are you ... yes you

      "seeing as over the last 20 yrs or so we have gone thru a maximum of the sun ..don't you think a fraction of a degree uptick would be normal "

      We can accurately measure solar radiation, and we have ~ reached 1 degree C average surface temperature rise since the industrial revolution. Way more than can be explained by solar variance.

      "it is the way the earth stands now impossible to over heat the planet check your Physics"

      Fix your English...and explain your physics!

      "and seeing as we are coming to the end of a very long interglacial we really could do with a little more heat .."

      But perhaps not a lot more heat as we are currently heading for...2 degrees C rise by 2100 looks pretty conservative at the moment without drastic changes...

      1. flearider

        Re: how stupid are you ... yes you

        We can accurately measure solar radiation, and we have ~ reached 1 degree C average surface temperature rise since the industrial revolution. Way more than can be explained by solar variance

        over a short time period ? yes but the eath has been hotter and at the time more fertile .

        so over a longer time period 1 deg c is nothing ..

        incomming energy v outgoing energy including heat from the core .. this is why we have winters and summers theres not enough energy to keep the whole planet warm all at once .. very simple explanation

        But perhaps not a lot more heat as we are currently heading for...2 degrees C rise by 2100 looks pretty conservative at the moment without drastic changes...

        in all honesty if we were entering a glacial period i'd be hoping for at least 20c .. above normal ?

        you do know when it happens we will be lucky to have 2% of the world population survive

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: how stupid are you ... yes you

          "so over a longer time period 1 deg c is nothing .."

          Tell that to the melting permafrost and ice sheets!

    2. Yugguy

      Re: how stupid are you ... yes you

      "sheeple"

      I'm afraid whatever point you may have been trying to make was instantly rendered invalid by your use of this wretched word which in my experience is only used by those who wish to sound smart but are anything but.

    3. Martin Budden

      Re: how stupid are you ... yes you

      wake up sheeple control is control no matter what form it takes

      Whatever you do, don't wake up sheeple!

  13. Infury8r

    Satellite measurements don't .....

    "Observations in recent years show that warming is accelerating, ...."

    The temperatures observed during the entirety of the satellite age show no warming of the global mean temperature.

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Satellite measurements don't .....

      The entire satellite age represents so little of the current interglacial that they show nothing but noise.

    2. TheVogon Silver badge

      Re: Satellite measurements don't .....

      "The temperatures observed during the entirety of the satellite age show no warming of the global mean temperature."

      Not true - see the satellite records here:

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah

  14. CAPS LOCK Silver badge

    DOOMED, WE"RE ALL DOOMED...

    ... and when humans are all gone, what will replace us? My money is on raccoons, smart, inquisitive, opposable thumbs and indestructible in normal everyday use. Lets hope they make a better job of things...

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: DOOMED, WE"RE ALL DOOMED...

      "My money is on raccoons"

      Cockroaches & woodlice (pillbugs for leftpondians). They're indestructible.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    With any luck non-carbon releasing generating technologies will soon be significantly cheaper than fossil fuels and we won't have to worry quite so much. It would take a really bone headed dinosaur burner to keep doing something that costs them more. What I'd really like to see now is a ton of research money being put into energy storage. The renewable generating technologies have, I feel, just about taken off and become self sustaining. The storage area though is barely getting going and we are going to need some serious storage.

    For what it's worth I always thought methanol would be quite a good energy storage medium. It's long term stable, it's a liquid at room temperature (it's vapour pressure it a bit high though), it's energy dense, can be burnt efficiently in fuel cells, it's not stupidly toxic (but don't drink it), it has other uses, etc, etc. You could even use CO2 from the air as part of the processes for added win.

  16. Primus Secundus Tertius Silver badge

    Cool the Core

    Most of the CO2 put into the atmosphere is natural, from volcanoes which are mostly under the ocean, so the green campaigners do not see them.

    To solve this problem we need to conduct away all the heat from the Earth's core - easily done as the core is metallic. That just leaves the Earth's mantle, but the mantle heat will then be flowing back to the cold core rather than to volcanoes at the surface.

    Simples.

    Although there is still a problem with that other greenhouse gas, water vapour, produced when the sun shines on the oceans. Perhaps we should drain the oceans, into the new cool core.

    1. Thought About IT

      Re: Cool the Core

      "Most of the CO2 put into the atmosphere is natural, from volcanoes which are mostly under the ocean, so the green campaigners do not see them."

      Why did you make that up?

      1. Primus Secundus Tertius Silver badge

        Re: Cool the Core

        @Thought...

        For quantitative reasons. There has indeed been an increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere since the nineteenth century. Burning coal and oil might account for that, except that for every ton of atmospheric CO2 there are a thousand tons dissolved in the ocean.

        So most of the CO2 from coal and oil would have dissolved in the ocean. Where, then, did the measured increase come from? Volcanoes, is my answer.

        When that Iceland volcano erupted a few years ago, disrupting air traffic, it was probably pumping out as much CO2 as the whole of Britain's fuel consumption.

        1. TheVogon Silver badge

          Re: Cool the Core

          "So most of the CO2 from coal and oil would have dissolved in the ocean."

          Correct in idea if not scale - in fact about 60% of man made CO2 emissions are absorbed by the oceans.

          "Where, then, did the measured increase come from? Volcanoes, is my answer."

          Nice idea, but the facts are:

          "The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes. Our understanding of volcanic discharges would have to be shown to be very mistaken before volcanic CO2 discharges could be considered anything but a bit player in contributing to the recent changes observed in the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere."

          1. Primus Secundus Tertius Silver badge

            Re: Cool the Core

            @TheVogon

            I stand by my hypothesis.

            An active volcano can spew out a thousand tons of lava per second. Over a year this amounts to thirty thousand million tons of material. Imagine that there are many volcanoes, and that the lava contains an appreciable fraction of CO2. Then the increase in oceanic CO2 is accounted for.

            1. TheVogon Silver badge

              Re: Cool the Core

              "An active volcano can spew out a thousand tons of lava per second"

              Evidence of that happening?

              "Over a year this amounts to thirty thousand million tons of material"

              Evidence of that happening?

              "and that the lava contains an appreciable fraction of CO2."

              What fraction?

              "Then the increase in oceanic CO2 is accounted for."

              If the CO2 is contained in Lava then how is it going to be reaching the ocean?

          2. PaulFrederick

            Re: Cool the Core

            Right now forest fires in Thailand are emitting more CO2 than the whole USA is.

            1. TheVogon Silver badge

              Re: Cool the Core

              "Right now forest fires in Thailand are emitting more CO2 than the whole USA is."

              Nope, they are potentially emitting more than the UK (0.5GT), not the US (5.3GT).

              However - this is still AGW - the fires are mostly started deliberately and illegally to clear forest for paper and palm oil production

        2. GeorgeRoberts

          Re: Cool the Core

          See the article: "Voices: Volcanic versus anthropogenic carbon dioxide: The missing science"

          "Published estimates based on research findings of the past 30 years for present-day global emission rates of carbon dioxide from subaerial and submarine volcanoes range from about 150 million to 270 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, with an average of about 200 million metric tons."

          "These global volcanic estimates are utterly dwarfed by carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning, cement production, gas flaring and land use changes; these emissions accounted for some 36,300 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2008, according to an international study published in the December 2009 issue of Nature Geoscience. Even if you take the highest estimate of volcanic carbon dioxide emissions, at 270 million metric tons per year, human-emitted carbon dioxide levels are more than 130 times higher than volcanic emissions."

          http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/voices-volcanic-versus-anthropogenic-carbon-dioxide-missing-science

      2. bombastic bob Silver badge

        Re: Cool the Core

        "Most of the CO2 put into the atmosphere is natural, from volcanoes which are mostly under the ocean, so the green campaigners do not see them."

        "Why did you make that up?"

        It's not 'made up', maybe just improperly stated. I, Captain Obvious, shall explain (you're welcome):

        Most of the world's CO2 is stored as carbonates on the ocean floor. In fact, sea animals with shells bubble their exhaled CO2 through ocean water in order to create their carbonate-based shells. Water has a GREAT affinity for CO2 absorption, which [worthy of mention] is HIGHER for cold water, LOWER for hot water. No the planet won't go into thermal runaway as temperature goes up and CO2 is 'effervesced' by warming oceans (since the earth is not an UNSTABLE system; if it were, it would have happened ALREADY). But it DOES mean that underwater volcanoes, which stir up the carbonates on the ocean floor *AND* reduce the solubility of CO2 in the water, are causing water-born CO2 to 'effervesce' and go right up into the atmosphere, where it's measured as a CO2 increase. It's like putting a cold soda or beer in a glass, and letting it warm up. When it's cold, LOTS of bubbles. When it's warm, not so much. That's because the gas solubility of water goes DOWN as temperatures go up [for room temperatures anyway]. So, NATURALLY, a volcano would cause oceanic CO2 (as carbonates, or dissolved) to go into the atmosphere. And YES, it IS natural.

        No need to thank me, Captain Obvious is rarely that helpful. This should have been obvious, after all.

        What else is obvious, is that WARM TEMPERATURES CAUSE A CO2 RISE, and NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Yes, WATER has a LOT bigger role to play in worldwide temperatures than does CO2. There's MORE OF IT, and it has a MUCH BIGGER FOOTPRINT when it comes to infrared radiation absorption, which is how the whole 'greenhouse effect' works, ya know?

        1. NomNomNom

          Re: Cool the Core

          "are causing water-born CO2 to 'effervesce' and go right up into the atmosphere"

          nope, the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased due to human emissions. Direction is therefore into the oceans not out.

    2. JayB
      Alert

      Re: Cool the Core

      Love it!

      Now all we need to do is drill one mother of a hole (that's the mining industry helped out, make a big assed rod to conduct the heat from core to here (that's the steel industry sorted) then call Coolermaster and get them to make a bitchin' heatsink to strap to the rod! Although we might need some more Arctic Silver so we should probably get them on overtime in Production too....

      Sorry, that's as seriously as I could take that....

      1. Primus Secundus Tertius Silver badge

        Re: Cool the Core

        @Jay8

        Don't be embarrased. That is about as seriously as I took it. I'm not sure everyone else realised that, though.

  17. Valerion

    Remind me why cold is good and warm is bad?

    If our choice is things warming up and some low-level land getting flooded - with the side effect of excellent plant growth for food, or things going freezing putting much of the entire planet under ice - with the side effect of being unable to grow food and humanity starving to death, I know which I'd choose.

    Also need to say that "deniers" and "believers" are not scientific words, so I don't know why they get used in scientific debate.

    1. Thought About IT

      Re: Remind me why cold is good and warm is bad?

      "If our choice is things warming up and some low-level land getting flooded" - Valerion

      It isn't. Our choice is drastically cutting CO2 emissions, which the fossil fuel industries are strenuously lobbying to prevent, or changing the climate from the relatively benign one during which human society has evolved, to one of extremes of weather and sea level rises which we won't be able to control control.

      "Also need to say that "deniers" and "believers" are not scientific words, so I don't know why they get used in scientific debate."

      A denier is someone who denies something despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It doesn't have to be scientific evidence, but clearly is in the case of AGW deniers such as yourself.

      1. Yugguy

        Re: Remind me why cold is good and warm is bad?

        No.

        A denier is a measure of the fineness of certain fabrics. It is popularly used to describe the opaqueness of ladies' tights.

        1. Thought About IT
          Boffin

          Re: Remind me why cold is good and warm is bad?

          "No. A denier is a measure of the fineness of certain fabrics"

          It may surprise you to read this, but some words in the English language have more than one meaning!

      2. PaulFrederick

        Re: Remind me why cold is good and warm is bad?

        But the evidence is not overwhelming. Unless you are easily overwhelmed. Besides there is nothing we can do right now any differently than what we are presently doing. Furthermore this planet comes with no climate guarantee. Other then the unwritten guarantee that the climate will, and has always changed. The Perminan-Triassic extinction event was not caused by Man!

    2. Tom 7 Silver badge

      Re: Remind me why cold is good and warm is bad?

      While there is some benefit to plant growth that plant growth comes at the cost of water consumption. It was reported that Australia had lost 1/4 of its streams due to just this problem. Like most things its by no means win win.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Remind me why cold is good and warm is bad?

        It was more likely due to the drought. We have them, often. Some worse than others. Nothing has changed.

    3. Yugguy

      Re: Remind me why cold is good and warm is bad?

      This is what I've always said.

      If sea levels rise and the UK climate warms the south east of england will be flooded.

      So we'll have vineyards in the midlands and a lot less whinging southerners.

      Whats not to like?

  18. Yugguy

    Bloody great radiator fins

    Just put two massive radiator fins up into space at the poles, pumping refridgerant up and down.

    Job done, polar ice caps saved.

  19. russell 6

    Question

    Can anybody tell what the correct temperature at the poles should be???

    1. russell 6

      Re: Question

      Great, got a down-vote for a serious question. What is the max temperature allowable in the Arctic and Antarctic to stop the land-masses losing more ice to the sea in summer than they gain in winter?

      1. TheVogon Silver badge

        Re: Question

        "What is the max temperature allowable in the Arctic and Antarctic to stop the land-masses losing more ice to the sea in summer than they gain in winter?"

        Firstly - there is only land mass at the Antarctic, not the Arctic. Secondly temperature is not the only factor - the weather also impacts the amount of ice. Therefore there is no exact answer.

    2. bombastic bob Silver badge

      Re: Question

      "Can anybody tell what the correct temperature at the poles should be???"

      colder than a witch's, uh, ...

  20. Stevie Silver badge

    Bah!

    This new learning fascinates me. Explain once more how we may employ sheep's bladders in the prevention of earthquakes.

  21. oneSTARman
    Flame

    Carbon-Capture Technology

    Along with Transitioning Rapidly to Wind and Solar from Oil and Coal we need a way to reduce the carbon we have pumped into the Atmosphere. We need machines that can take in CO2 and lock it into a solid form like when it was in the ground. It would be best if these machines were solar powered and maybe self replicating so they could expand on their own and making oxygen would be terrific too. We call these Machines TREES and we have to stopping cutting them down and start re-planting Forests. .

    1. Yugguy

      Re: Carbon-Capture Technology

      Dunno why you got voted down. You're absolutely right. I'd love to know the figures for how much CO2 the average tree processes, cos there's so many places you could stick a tree. Doesnt have to be a chuffin great Scots pine or maple, there's plenty of smaller trees.

      We have a flowering cherry tree and an apple tree in a 20 foot by 6 foot patch of grass, and they seem to be doing fine. They might be small but they will be processing some CO2 and as the cycling chap showed, a lot of little improvements can add up.

      1. Stevie Silver badge

        Re: Carbon-Capture Technology

        "Average tree"???

        Now I'm going to have nightmares about the EU Standardized Hybrid Tree (ISO LEAFY).

  22. Mikel

    God forbid Canadians should wear shorts.

    1. The Dude

      Only when we travel to Mexico in the winter....

      1. PaulFrederick

        Canadians are Mexicans.

  23. YARR
    Boffin

    Natural carbon capture

    Wouldn't using nature to capture and store our excess carbon be the simplest approach, then nature does the work so we don't have to? We need to convert large areas of land where currently not much grows into dense forests or grassland (I'm guessing forests convert more CO2 per area than grasslands)? As the plants grow they absorb the carbon from the atmosphere, when they decay the carbon is captured underground.

    To convert vast areas of deserts and Arctic tundra, we need to identify and selectively breed (possibly using GM?) suitable plant species which can thrive in those environments, then seed them.

    To cover large areas of land quickly, use aircraft to disperse these seeds in bands along the current boundaries of desert / tundra. Once the vegetation grows, move to the next band and so on, year after year. As the vegetation advances it should retain more moisture and nutrients in the soil, further supporting the advance. Obvious really...

    Any reason why this wouldn't work?

    Any reason why governments don't do this?

  24. Terrence Bayrock
    Joke

    Are you nuts?

    Try to engineer the climate of our one & only planet without some assurance of pre-testing?

    Man-caused climate change may or may not real {regardless of the advocates, the science is NOT finalized} . One messes up on planetary engineering, I think would be much worse than the effects of climate change.

    1. NomNomNom

      "One messes up on planetary engineering, I think would be much worse than the effects of climate change"

      when you realize our Co2 emissions ARE planetary engineering

      1. flearider

        yes and no Co2 is not all that it's made out to be .. but when your planet needs it to live why try and ban it ?

        try looking up how much natural Co2 there is as a race we don't produce as much as the amazon

        but if people who are getting paid to find problems tell you it is why should you not beleave them ...

        yeah it's the paid part ...

        1. NomNomNom

          Humans are the driver of the recent unprecedented co2 increase in the atmosphere. It IS planetary engineering.

          Some people can't admit the danger because they are more concerned about money and conspiracy theories.

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Moron. Look up what the A in AGW stands for, re-read your pathetic post and attempt therafter to comprehend how far along the road to stupidity your religious fervor has taken you.

        1. TheVogon Silver badge

          "Man-caused climate change may or may not real {regardless of the advocates, the science is NOT finalized} "

          That AGW is happening and that man is at least a significant cause of global warming hasn't been in any credible doubt for over a decade. The science is not finalised around the details (how bad will it get, and in what timeframe?) - not the headlines.

  25. Bota

    Yes the climate may be changing.

    No it has nothing to do with people.

    Yes the agenda for "pro man made climate change" is all about control in every area of life.

    Yes, I have read the UN agenda 21 document, and so should you. Considering what is in there its scary.

    As a side note "denier" is a bullshit smear tactic and I don't care for it. Call me a denier if you like I couldn't give less fucks, peer pressure is for kids, not grown adults. Yes, you should stop trying to intimidate others into your world view. Are those here advocating the man made model actual climate scientists which haven't been bought off with large grants for saying the right thing?

    Thought so.

    P.s 17 - 12 - 2015 may the force be with you.

    1. NomNomNom

      "As a side note "denier" is a bullshit smear tactic and I don't care for it."

      how about anti-science backwards conspiracy loon then?

      1. codejunky Silver badge

        @ NomNomNom

        "how about anti-science backwards conspiracy loon then?"

        We tried that but they just draw a hockey stick graph, show a cartoon dog drowning because someone didnt turn off a light and claim the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. And these are the nutters who think monuments to a wind god will save us.

        Makes me feel somewhat better to be lumped in with anyone not devoted to the cult although I dont feel I deserve lumping in with the other cult of the other extreme.

    2. Rik Myslewski

      Fool

      "No it has nothing to do with people"

      Sorry, sir, but when you make a statement as utterly ignorant of simple science, statistical analysis, historical data, and — well — the opinions of tens of thousands of folks demonstrably more educated than you are on the topic, perhaps the most cogent response to such a silly assertion might be:

      "Blllllllpppppppgggghhhh!!!!"

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Call me a denier "

      I prefer ignorant, poorly informed, gullible and / or outdated...

      Have you ever considered a career in Scientology?

  26. Jason R

    Anybody remember teh comic strip The Tower King from the relaunched Eagle comic back in the 80's?

  27. bollos
    Go

    extract the suns heat.

    if you put thermal heaters on your roof, to extract heat and heat up your water, are you not taking the heat out of the atmosphere? if every home on the planet had thermal heaters on their rooves, would that not extract heat from the atmosphere and save us a ton of energy at the same time?

    you can't stop global climate change. it is changing all the time. what we MUST do is stop poisoning this eden in space. we're crapping on our own doorsteps!

    imo home batteries invalidate nuclear energy and with wind turbines and photovoltaic panels and even exercise bikes (seriously!) to top up the battery, along with a low-priority grid trickle charging during low-use periods, we can harvest the clean and free energy that is all around us.

    most noise and pollution in cities is due to the infernal combustion engine, so when we all start driving electric cars we can enjoy a cleaner and quieter life with less people getting and asthma from this toxic crap!

    worry about TOXICITY not TEMPERATURE.

    see also: "According to Donohue and his colleagues' research, climbing levels of CO2 in the air correlated with an 11 per cent increase in foliage cover from 1982 to 2010 across arid areas in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa."

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/11/co2_greens_the_deserts/

    1. TheVogon Silver badge

      Re: extract the suns heat.

      "if you put thermal heaters on your roof, to extract heat and heat up your water, are you not taking the heat out of the atmosphere?"

      Are you really that dim? Where do you think the heat from your water will end up when it cools down?

      "you can't stop global climate change"

      We could stop most man made climate change given enough effort / desire.

      "According to Donohue and his colleagues' research, climbing levels of CO2 in the air correlated with an 11 per cent increase in foliage cover from 1982 to 2010 across arid areas in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa.""

      Unfortunately the benefits only exceed the negatives for a very short time. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34800829

      "Prof Richard Tol predicts the downsides of warming will outweigh the advantages with a global warming of 1.1C - which has nearly been reached already. He has previously highlighted the positive effects of CO2 in fertilising crops and forests. "

      1. bollos
        Holmes

        science.

        "Where do you think the heat from your water will end up when it cools down?" - in my bath or cooking pot.

        "We could stop most man made climate change given enough effort / desire." - man does not have that power and it would be stupid to even try. we could stop man-made pollution by switching away from using poison for energy but that involves defeating the hydrocarbon mafia amongst other things.

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34800829

        yes of course there will be dislocation, i totally agree but that would be because people were not prepared for climate change.

  28. nilfs2
    Mushroom

    The only way we can fix the environment...

    The only way we can fix the environment is by getting rid of the majority of the human population as well as get rid of the entire economical system and adopt a resource based economy. Sooo... never gonna happen, just get ready for the human race demise.

  29. RichardB

    Spray sea water into the atmosphere?

    Genius!

    Now... if only there was a cheap and easy way to do that.

    We could perform some localised heating of water, even just a few degrees should encourage more evaporation. Oh wait! The whole world is heating up... so... surely more water will evaporate... so more clouds.... so more cooling! Awesome.

    Not only that but more clouds means more rain, and it always gets colder when it rains right? Then the rain can evaporate again, thereby cooling the ground or tarmac that it evaporates from.

    Ooooh and more rain, more wet ground means more plants, and plants love CO2 so they will be thriving and sucking up CO2...We could feed the world!

    Sounds almost like a homeostatic system.

  30. JWG

    Escapee from UK asylum... What? Cambridge? Same thing.

    Blocking the sun, shutting down all coal fired anything, whatever... The climate is changing no matter if we do anything or not. We are puny little microbes on the surface of the planet and have extremely little impact on anything, except killing each other. "Human caused" anything is the greatest scam ever pulled, and it's making all those people who've dumped money into green things rich (even if it fails, the government will bail you out with a tidy profit). The "scientist" who started the whole thing was from a little known UK college (thank you too much Brits), who's now a rich man, able to give up his day job, jet around the worked (polluting all the way) and we're paying for it. Then there's our ex-veep, Bill Clinton's evil assistant, Algore. A BS in journalism is all he can boast (plus being a failed politician and totally corrupt at that. The raw data does not support anything but normal fluctuations in the general climate on Earth, but not global warming (same as that Russian back in the 60s saying we were headed to another ice age - FAIL!" Cow flatuance, coal, nuclear energy, aerosol cans, and the list goes on. "Stop it, for God's Sake, stop it" to quote MK Gandhi. 15 years of flat temps, the Antartic ice sheet is growing in leaps and bounds (which offsets the Artic losses by an order of magnitude). You might as blame us for CMEs, the shift of the Earth's magnetic poles, and the eventual demise of Pokemon (I threw that one in for grins and giggles). The last one, thankfull, is the only one that can be blamed on humans, even though it's children finally getting bored with it. Climate science, at best, is about 40 years old, not long enough to have enough data on anything. If we can't control the weather, his in the name of fucking Hell do you expect to control climate change, which if far more complex that weather and is measured in 10s of thousands of years? Please, grow a brain, because the on tiny one you've got will believe anything, particularly if it's on the Internet.

    1. TheVogon Silver badge

      Re: Escapee from UK asylum... What? Cambridge? Same thing.

      " We are puny little microbes on the surface of the planet and have extremely little impact on anything,"

      Microbes can kill an elephant.

      "The raw data does not support anything but normal fluctuations in the general climate on Earth, but not global warming "

      100% of climate scientists disagree with you , and 97% of those believe that the warming is at least partially man made.

      "15 years of flat temps"

      Nope:

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2000/trend

      "the Antartic ice sheet is growing in leaps and bounds"

      As already posted the seasonal ice sheets have declined on average over 6% per decade since satellite measurements began. The land based ice is also melting - as evidenced by year on year sea level rise.

      "Climate science, at best, is about 40 years old, not long enough to have enough data on anything."

      We have ~800,000 years data on CO2 versus temperature and ~150,000 years on sea level versus temperature....

      1. Roboiii

        Re: Escapee from UK asylum... What? Cambridge? Same thing.

        Data that's been manipulated to fit an agenda. Heard of climategate? Purposefully leaving the Medieval Warm Period out of their data, etc.

    2. Yugguy

      Re: Escapee from UK asylum... What? Cambridge? Same thing.

      Paragraphs. They're awesome!

  31. Rik Myslewski

    Optimism! Reg commenters wise up ...

    I've been following Reg commenters — let's face it, a somewhat right-leaning bunch — and their climate-change opinions over the past five or six years, and I gotta say that the recent trend is heartening.

    Sure, here in the Land O'Reg there's still a comparatively high percentage of know-nothing science-deniers when compared with other supposedly rational website communities, but that percentage has been dropping precipitously in the last year or so.

    Encouraging.

    Perhaps the obvious reality of the physics behind global warming is becoming clear to the smart tech folks who frequent this site? Perhaps the blindingly obvious propaganda of the fossil fuel industry has insulted their sensibilities? Maybe Reg commenters have taken it upon themselves to actually study the data and not merely denialist "Them commies be a-commin'!" screeds?

    Dunno ...

    But the slow-but-steady transformation of my well-loved Reg community from blinded denialists to thoughtful "What the %#€&$! are we going to do about this?" forward-looking planners is heartwarming.

    Thanks, guys 'n' gals.

    1. Thought About IT

      Re: Optimism! Reg commenters wise up ...

      If Lewis Page has gone, as mentioned in a comment above, perhaps his agenda went with him. After all, it was undermining everything else The Register does.

    2. Primus Secundus Tertius Silver badge

      Re: Optimism! Reg commenters wise up ...

      @Rik

      "a somewhat right-leaning bunch" ??

      Not at all! More like saying that Lenin was right wing compared with Trotsky. Certainly not the kind of people you would meet in the British Conservative Party, which is somewhere between the US Democrats and the US Republicans.

    3. PaulFrederick

      Re: Optimism! Reg commenters wise up ...

      Science deniers? Science is about asking questions, and never just accepting how you think things are. Because when you're sure, you're surely wrong then too.

  32. sigsegv

    Cutting the amount of solar radiation making it to the surface would be very short-sighted indeed. The effect would be to reduce the rate at which plant life can take up CO2 and would also reduce the effectiveness of earth based solar as a renewable energy source. We'd be shooting ourselves in both feet. Rather spend the billions on fusion research and kick the hydrocarbon habit for good.

  33. LucreLout Silver badge

    @Hugh hunt

    Lets assume for most of this post that the whole global warming shebang is actually real and attributable to the causes commonly suggested....

    Could we directly engineer the climate and refreeze the poles? The answer is probably yes, and it could be a cheap thing to achieve – maybe costing only a few billion dollars a year. But doing this – or even just talking about it – is controversial.

    So, less that we already raise in green taxes and waste on things already shown not to work. Seems worth a try, if only on economic grounds...

    Some have suggested there is a good business case to be made. We could carefully engineer the climate for a few decades while we work out how to reduce our dependency on carbon, and by taking our time we can protect the global economy and avoid financial crises. I don’t believe this argument for a minute, but you can see it’s a tempting prospect.

    If we could re-engineer the climate as you suggest then why would we need to reduce carbon output? Or are we only re-engineering one aspect of the proposed effects?

    Oh, I see later on you clarify that there's still acidification to deal with, but you've made no mention on how that could be re-engineered.

    There are so many problems with climate engineering. The main one is that we have only one planet to work with (we have no Planet B) and if we screw this one up then what do we do? Say “sorry” I guess. But we’re already screwing it up by burning more than 10 billion tonnes of fossil fuels a year. We have to stop this carbon madness immediately.

    Equally, there is no second life - we only have this one to live and if we spend it adhering to one hypothesis which later turns out to be wholly incorrect, we can't get the time back to live better lives.

    You must realise that progressively more families are spread further over the globe now than at any other time in history? without car / air travel, they simply can't visit each other. Any proposed solution that fails to take account of that, fails.

    We must work fast to cut our carbon emissions and at the same time we should explore as many climate engineering options as possible, simultaneously. However while reflecting sunlight may be an idea that buys us some time it is absolutely not a solution for climate change and it is still vital that we cut our emissions – we can’t use climate engineering as a get-out clause.

    First you need to prove the science - identify the cause and specific effects. You've made the classic mistake of jumping to a conclusion based on incomplete knowledge and research, and hopped straight onto the "something must be done and that something means less" bandwagon. I can almost hear Al Gore laughing from here.

    It's understandable, given you've made a significant commitment in terms of your time and resources into studying environmentalism, in much the same way as others have with homeopathy, but that places no requirement on the rest of us to live our lives by, or to fund, your beliefs.

    Your article shows an astounding lack of critical thinking for someone studying at Cambridge. Are there no other interpretations of the facts you present? Are there not other bodies of relevant evidence that give different conclusions?

    1. sisk Silver badge

      Re: @Hugh hunt

      So, less that we already raise in green taxes and waste on things already shown not to work. Seems worth a try, if only on economic grounds...

      I would agree if economics were the only consideration. However it's not even in the top five most important considerations in this particular debate, and the consequences of getting something wrong here....well, have you seen Snowpiercer? I doubt we could get it quite THAT wrong, but we could do a lot of damage if we screw up.

      You've made the classic mistake of jumping to a conclusion based on incomplete knowledge and research, and hopped straight onto the "something must be done and that something means less" bandwagon.

      This is true of everyone who seriously argues in the climate debate. The fact of the matter is that the climate of Earth has just too many factors for us to quantify. We don't know what all the variables are, let alone their values.

      It's easy to point at history and say "The world's been getting hotter since the industrial revolution! Global warming must be man made!" but such an approach fails to explain how earlier periods that were much hotter than even the wildest estimates for man's impact over the next 50 years got that way. On the other hand those denying man's influence on the environment fail to explain why global warming correlates so closely with human activity.

      Basically my thought on it is this: global warming or no global warming we need something more sustainable than fossil fuels. Fossil fuels WILL run out eventually. Probably not in our lifetimes (with the possible exception of oil, which super pessimistic estimates claim will be gone by 2050), but certainly within the next 300 years or so at the rate we're currently using them there won't be enough fossil fuels left to keep us going. Biofuels aren't really a viable option either because they burn up our food supply. If you can somehow get the world population back down to around 5 billion then biofuels become a lot more viable, but honestly short of another world war or super-bug epidemic or something equally catastrophic do you really believe that's possible? Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I don't. (Those pesky humans just enjoy mating too much.) We know the current crop of renewables can't provide enough energy for our power hungry lifestyle, which is probably only going to get worse. That could change with a major breakthrough in solar power (the 30% efficiency we can get now leaves plenty of room for improvement) but it's never going to be viable for high latitude locations.

      That leaves us with nuclear power (which is fraught with political complications) and things that we can't actually get a net-positive return from yet like fusion and seawater-hydrogen. And, really, when it comes down to it, those are the energy sources we need for the future. That is unless someone decides to spend a couple quadrillion dollars building a Dyson swarm (technically we COULD do it right now, at least a partial swarm, but who in their right mind WOULD?)

      1. LucreLout Silver badge

        Re: @Hugh hunt

        @sisk

        I would agree if economics were the only consideration. However it's not even in the top five most important considerations in this particular debate

        Economics is always the most important consideration in every debate. All the good ideas, all the deeply held beliefs, all the proposed solutions are worth nothing what-so-ever if you cannot afford to fund them.

        I believe no child should be born to starve to death, and that the world has sufficient agri-land to ensure they don't. But as I lack the economic means to implement a solution, however worthwhile, it doesn't happen.

        such an approach fails to explain how earlier periods that were much hotter than even the wildest estimates for man's impact over the next 50 years got that way. On the other hand those denying man's influence on the environment fail to explain why global warming correlates so closely with human activity.

        Environmental science fails to explain away the min-ice age where the Thames froze up year after year, during a period of human activity off the scale compared to a few hundred years earlier when it didn't because it was a lot warmer. So it ignores it. Goose, gander, sauce.

        Things like the CRU debacle, for that IS what it was, do nothing to enhance the warmists standing. You simply cannot take seriously people who fear the release of their data and method because they worry about contradictory hypothesis. That's not science, it isn't even as valid as religion, because at least those people have faith in their beliefs.

        Acceptance of the damage they have done themselves, and the release of the zealot/worshipper/believer mindset would do the warmist movement no end of good. Endlessly shouting out guff like "one year to save the environment" or "UK to be hotter than Portugal" just makes them look ridiculous when of course they fail to happen, over and over again.

        We know for a fact that the models don't work; it is indisputable. We therefore can expect with a 99.9% certainty, that conclusions drawn from those models will also be wrong; they carry no greater scientific weight than the reading of runes. The models always overshoot by a considerable way, so the only sensible thing to do is assume that reality will be a lot more pleasant than environmentalists want you to believe. And oddly enough, it always has been.

        Basically my thought on it is this: global warming or no global warming we need something more sustainable than fossil fuels. Fossil fuels WILL run out eventually.

        I agree, but that doesn't mean we need junk solutions today, it simply means that by the time the fossils are gone we have to have something else. And we do, in spades. Nuclear energy for starters.

        Most environmentalists dislike nuclear because it takes the heat out of the debate. It buys thousands of years worth of breathing space in terms of energy usage. No requirement for less, you see.

        Probably not in our lifetimes (with the possible exception of oil, which super pessimistic estimates claim will be gone by 2050)

        That is simply not possible at all. Peak oil, the bit where we've used half of it, is approximately 250 years away from now. Thanks to fracking there is zero possibility of running out of oil in anything less than several centuries, assuming we don't locate anymore within that time frame, which of course, we will. Peak oil is, for all practical purposes, dead and buried: Science & technology killed it.

        Where is Tim when you need him? #BBW

        That could change with a major breakthrough in solar power

        Solar & wind power are sideshows and always will be. The post oil future of energy is nuclear, with a bit of hydrogen thrown in for portability. It might not be the kind of nuclear we have now, but the future is not going to be a couple of windmills in your garden and a brace of solar cells on your roof.

        I like the R&D side of environmentalism - it'd do the world no harm to continue investing in future energy supplies, because running our really would be bad - but the vast majority of it amounts to nothing more than a religion for atheists, and communism in an amusing mask. The endless parading of the communist mantra of less isn't advancing their cause.

        If you want to regress to an agricultural lifestyle and 1970's standard of living, by all means feel free to do so, just understand that you have no moral, legal, intellectual or scientific right to insist anyone else does.

        Climate change has never killed anyone and it never will. However, ocean acidification, IF it can be proven to be the problem it is suggested as being and have the causes it is suggested to have, and we're a pretty long way away from that, then it is something we should seek to rectify. That may well not mean "less" though, it may simply have a technical, chemical, or some other type of solution.

        1. sisk Silver badge

          Re: @Hugh hunt

          Climate change has never killed anyone and it never will.

          Actually there have been some deaths that can be attributed to climate change. Lots of them. Probably at least a good couple million over the last 5,000 years or so as the Sahara has expanded and made growing food more difficult. There's even some evidence that it might be man made climate change from primitive agricultural methods that used up the nutrients in the soil.

          Honestly my only problem with nuclear power is that the nuclear industry insists on building their reactors using filthy reactors that produce far more nuclear waste than what a more modern breeding reactor or thorium reactor would produce. In fact I think our best route forward with our current tech is thorium reactors. Cars are probably going to be stuck with either fossil fuels or hydrogen for mid-term future, and frankly the idea of certain greasemonkies I know having access to plentiful amounts of hydrogen is frightening. I'm really hoping they're not indicative of gearheads in general. These guys do stuff like make gasoline balloons (think water balloons) and throw them into campfires.

          (I went camping with them exactly once....after that anytime the words "campfire" or "bonfire" came out of one of their mouths I made myself scarce).

          1. Roboiii

            Re: @Hugh hunt

            The research shows global cooling would be much more harmful. Guess we'll find out as we're headed towards a mini ice age currently with the sun going into a Maunder minimum.

  34. sisk Silver badge
    Coat

    Oh forget it.

    If you need me I'll be working on my tan on the beach in Anchorage. Keep the coat. I won't need it.

  35. Alistair Silver badge
    Windows

    Lewis Page and the open mind.

    While I sympathise with RikM, there is some dangerous crap in this article. LucreLout, I agree, the class of critical thinking in that is less than one should expect of any truly advanced university.

    I've made my position clear, several times. Yes, in general the climate is changing, and yes we need to stop dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. I STILL have not seen conclusive evidence presented anywhere that shows how we do this without taking a substantial portion of the global tax base and handing it to a series of corporate entities and making them spectacularly wealthy. Admittedly we're still in the pit of making folks that sell decayed dinosaurs spectacularly wealthy.

    Perhaps one of the things we need to fix *along* with the source of all this horrid carbon dioxide is the source of all this economic bullshit that gets fed out to us as well.

    Still, the fact that the number of trees used in "the models" may be off by a factor of 1000 has not been reviewed or pulled into the calculations - so we need to make sure that "minor" adjustment has been looked at. < http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/02/great_news_tree_huggers_your_woody_harem_is_much_bigger_than_thought/ > ( Yes it's a Lewis Page article, but it bears reading and I'm sure someone in the scientific community will have to do the resulting analysis)

    I'm inclined to go off and buy myself a nice chunk of land where I can grow my own food, raise my own four footed protein sacks, and put up Solar and Wind sources and big huge batteries to store my energy -- but here's the catch, in order to do all the above, which in a practical sense would be a *good thing*, I have to pay energy companies a duty, or a tax -- because god help our poor energy company, they wont make money off me.....

    Again, yes, climate is changing, again, yes lets stop dumping CO2, but *why* should something that helps this process be enriching the same entities we're trying to get out of the equation? There needs to be a financial model change before we'll get the energy model change.

    1. TheVogon Silver badge

      Re: Lewis Page and the open mind.

      "shows how we do this without taking a substantial portion of the global tax base and handing it to a series of corporate entities and making them spectacularly wealthy"

      Isn't that how it already works?

  36. starbright

    I am worried about global cooling due to space junk reflecting suns rays...

    I am worried about global cooling due to space junk reflecting suns rays...

  37. Brian Allan 1

    There are some areas of the Earth where global warming would be welcome! Just saying...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "There are some areas of the Earth where global warming would be welcome! Just saying..."

      I too look forward to the South Downs becoming a coastal resort with a Mediterranean climate...

  38. Roboiii

    You haven't noticed

    They've been doing this since the early 90s. Look up. You'll notice "contrails" that don't dissipate but turn into "cloud cover".

  39. DJ
    Holmes

    Not to worry

    For a time, I too, was worried about self-important self-appointed zealots working feverishly to rectify a problem they didn't fully (or nearly) understand with un-tested methods and unknowable consequences for the entire planet.

    Then I began seeing articles about CRISPR/Cas9 (gene editing for dummies -

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR/Cas_Tools) and was comforted to know this will solve all our problems well before we self-destruct the environment we inhabit.

    Once these fools (humans) begin fiddling with the human genome in a substantial manner, '12 Monkeys' and 'I Am Legend' are going to look much more like prophecy than science-fiction.

    But, anyway, it's a lovely day outside, isn't it?

  40. John Wayland Bales

    So the goal is . . . what?

    From the article:

    "A small-scale experiment was cancelled because even it proved too controversial, too hot. Imagine if we demonstrate that this technology can work. Politicians could then claim there was a technical “fix” for climate change so there would be no need to cut emissions after all."

    So the real goal is to cut emissions, even if potential global warming side effects can be countered cost-effectively. It's not really about global warming then, that's merely a pretext for a different agenda.

  41. John Pombrio

    Using Sulfur Dioxide

    Volcanoes eject sulfur dioxide into the high atmosphere that has a large cooling effect on the Earth. The best place for this to occur is in the northern high latitudes, Canada say. Canada has a huge pile of sulfur left over from mining operations in exactly the right locations. Add water to make a slurry and pump it up into the stratosphere using a long hose with staging pumps up to a high altitude balloon. The sulfur with mix with oxygen to create sulfur dioxide. It WILL work and WILL cool the atmosphere and can be done very inexpensively. A crop failure and snowagendon occurs due to he cold air and everyone sues. The solution is there, waiting. Can we overcome our fears to accomplish it?

    1. Vic

      Re: Using Sulfur Dioxide

      pump it up into the stratosphere using a long hose with staging pumps up to a high altitude balloon.

      Do you have any idea how much that lot will weigh?

      It WILL work

      It won't. You'll just end up with a puddle of slurry on the ground, surrounded by miles of heavy pipe.

      Vic.

  42. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Great plan for fixing a science fiction problem

    But even though on Earth this is not needed (unless you are some kind of Bond villain) it might be cool to do for terraforming Venus.

  43. Gahrgardner@gmail.com

    Same story every time hey this works but don't do it. It's not natural it is only encouraging more carbon pollution, might not work.

    Well it is time to do something that does work. This is the cheapest option and it does work. It doesn't stop acidification of the ocean but ocean fertilization does. Again cheaply. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT UNELECTED OFFICIAL HAS MADE THIS CHOICE FOR ALL OF US.

    We have to accept a carbon tax which will make us poor now while waiting for the benefits decades down the road. After China and India are fully developed and our oceans are dead. Good Luck.

  44. Potemkine Silver badge

    The article starts with the predicate that global warming is bad.... That one should be demonstrated first.

    For instance, if some Islands may disappear, huge quantities of lands from Canada, Groenland, Russia and more will become available. So, why is Global Warming mandatory bad?

    1. h4rm0ny

      >>"For instance, if some Islands may disappear, huge quantities of lands from Canada, Groenland, Russia and more will become available. So, why is Global Warming mandatory bad?"

      It isn't. But the rate of change could be a problem. Cities take time to move, agriculture takes time to adapt. Species do too (though in comparison to what humanity does to species, global warming is a drop in the ocean).

  45. John Pombrio

    There is an easy, inexpensive way to cool down the most heavily affected area of the world, the Arctic. Just set off a volcano. Or at least the major atmospheric effect of a volcano, Sulfur Dioxide gas. It cools down the Earth so well that 1816 was known as "The year without a summer" because of the effect the eruption of Mount Tambora had.

    There are huge leftover stockpiles of sulfur left over from removing it from Canadian oil. It can be mixed with water and sprayed into a high altitude by pumps, hoses, and high flying balloons creating sulfur dioxide gas. The sun gets reflected off of the gas and we have a much cooler Arctic. And Europe. And Canada. And Russia. The polar bears are happy. Humans? Not so much.

    The question is should we let part of the world suffer for the good of Gaia? Humans have had a huge effect on the world and that is part of who and what we are. I expect the world to adapt to us, at least for the short time we as a species exist here. Welcome to the Age of Anthropocene.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019