Western Antarctic ice sheet collapse has already begun, scientists warn

[doodab]

An english word for the "desire to control others"

[I][B]We (the liberty minded) must take the conversation away from statists that libertarians are selfish and turn it toward the very real fact that most statists are driven by fear, envy and centrally the desire to control others through force.

BTW the fact that you are now quoting talk radio doesn't bode well does it. Even if your arguments are entirely unoriginal you could at least paraphrase or something.

Try and have an original thought, go on!

[doodab]

have you got any words for it?

I'd suggest authoritarianism or subiordination both have a closer relationship to "a desire to control" than any of the words you're randomly using. Of course you want something with negative connotations don't you?

[DodgyAgent]

As usual you're missing the point. The motives of your opponents are irrelevant, as are yours. It just doesn't follow that you are right because your opponent is doing something for the wrong reasons. They may well be right in spite of that. Someone like me (who is actually fairly neutral on the AGW thing) sees this argument, or any other, sees the way you argue, and simply dismisses what you are saying because the mode of argument you are employing is spurious.

I am not saying I am right and therefore "this is the solution" you idiot. I am saying that this type of geo thermal /scientific solution is not welcome because the people who protest the most about climate change are not motivated by a desire to save the planet. Whilst I am doing this I am attempting to support the feasability of the product in order to warrant at least the testing of it.
The AGW lobby are not interested even in this evidenced by PJ Clarke's overwhelming attempts to discredit it despite the fact that he understands little about the science or that it has been neither proven to be effective or disproven.
As it happens the Environment agency have agreed to pour some of it into a tank of polluted water and test its effectiveness. if it works they will then test it on one of Britains polluted lakes or beaches.

If that works and it also has the effect of replenishing fish stocks in the surrounding waters and draws out CO2 from the air, de acidifies the water, and puts oxygen into the water then the likes of PJClarke and the IPCC can pack their bags and go home.

[doodab]

I am not saying I am right and therefore "this is the solution" you idiot.

You were at one point arguing that this was the solution, actually. And don't call me an idiot or I will call you a **** and that won't get anyone anywhere.

I am saying that this type of geo thermal /scientific solution is not welcome because the people who protest the most about climate change are not motivated by a desire to save the planet.

Yes and your basing that conclusion on what seems to be a flawed line of reasoning. Your only point of evidence to support your thesis appears to be that they happen to want people to take a specific action based on what they believe to be based on strong scientific evidence. To jump from that to the conclusion that they don't want to save the planet at all is simply bad logic.

I am sure if dumping this tulip in the oceans is tested and works everyone will be in favour of it. Of course it needs to build a fairly strong case that it's safe as well or the cure could be worse than the disease.

[pjclarke]

Ad hominem is a fallacy: it does not validate or invalidate an argument being made, but it is a good indication that you've lost the argument.

Can you explain the difference between the low % figure for ocean required and the conclusions of the paper you linked? How about

- taking the manufacturer's best case figure for efficiency. Bit like broadband speeds and mpg. Real world experiments come up with drastically lower results.
- Only about half the C emitted is absorbed into the oceans.
- not all the oceans are suitable, the technique only works where there is a shortage of nutrients (LNHC regions). The paper you referenced puts these at 30% of total ocean area.


In reality the limits on the efficiency of the technique are set by chemistry rather than Biology, Buesseler et al 2008 reported an upper bound for sequestration of 0.5 Gt C yr–1, corresponding to a reduction of 0.24 ppmv atmospheric CO2 yr–1 (see also Cullen & Boyd 2008). But that was a modelled result, as the paper on marine diversity reported, real world experiments found an efficiency about half that.

http://www.int-res.com/articles/theme/m364p295.pdf
http://www.int-res.com/articles/theme/m364p213.pdf

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...xperiment.html

But, some room for limited optimism a more recent study doubled the potetntial sequestration

At most, a global programme could mop up about 1 gigatonne of carbon per year, about a tenth of our current emissions, according to a modelling study by Ken Caldeira at the Carnegie Institution of Washington in Stanford, California (Climatic Change, DOI: 10.1007/s10584-010-9799-4). "It's too little to be the solution," agrees Smetacek, "but it's too much to ignore."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...after-all.html

Looks like the idea is being researched, in depth.

[pjclarke]

An example of how environmentalists mislead using "pseudo science"

The article shows a dramatic picture of a disappearing glacier "ooh how scary".

Basically the climate is changing always has. Check out newspapers in the 18th and 19th centuries for horrible storms, floods and droughts.

from Cogley 2009. See also the World Glacier Monitoring Service report at http://www.wgms.ch/

[DodgyAgent]

Ad hominem is a fallacy: it does not validate or invalidate an argument being made, but it is a good indication that you've lost the argument.

Can you explain the difference between the low % figure for ocean required and the conclusions of the paper you linked? How about

- taking the manufacturer's best case figure for efficiency. Bit like broadband speeds and mpg. Real world experiments come up with drastically lower results.
- Only about half the C emitted is absorbed into the oceans.
- not all the oceans are suitable, the technique only works where there is a shortage of nutrients (LNHC regions). The paper you referenced puts these at 30% of total ocean area.


In reality the limits on the efficiency of the technique are set by chemistry rather than Biology, Buesseler et al 2008 reported an upper bound for sequestration of 0.5 Gt C yr–1, corresponding to a reduction of 0.24 ppmv atmospheric CO2 yr–1 (see also Cullen & Boyd 2008). But that was a modelled result, as the paper on marine diversity reported, real world experiments found an efficiency about half that.

http://www.int-res.com/articles/theme/m364p295.pdf
http://www.int-res.com/articles/theme/m364p213.pdf

Hungry shrimp eat climate change experiment - environment - 25 March 2009 - New Scientist

But, some room for limited optimism a more recent study doubled the potetntial sequestration



Geoengineering with iron might work after all - environment - 18 July 2012 - New Scientist

Looks like the idea is being researched, in depth.

You are trying to find reasons for it NOT to work which is central to my point (which you continue to evade) . You are using examples based around dumping iron into the ocean an activity which in itself may well involve making a larger carbon footprint than the one it is supposed to reduce.

As I said before there have been only a dozen or so experiments on OF and none has lasted more than a few months. You are using conclusions based on a technology that has since been superceded -yet you are determined to argue as if it were something it is not. My point and (I keep repeating it - you keep avoiding it) is that such technology is suppressed by people like you who see AGW as a way to manipulate and control human activity. If you were genuinely concerned about dangers of climate change you would look positively at almost anything until it proved "otherwise" (unworkable).

The fact that Ocean Fertilisation shows positive results should be enough to persevere with it, to develop it and "remove the bugs" - however you and your ilk look for any reason you can to dismiss it and I am just trying to understand why.

[DodgyAgent]

You were at one point arguing that this was the solution, actually. And don't call me an idiot or I will call you a **** and that won't get anyone anywhere.



Yes and your basing that conclusion on what seems to be a flawed line of reasoning. Your only point of evidence to support your thesis appears to be that they happen to want people to take a specific action based on what they believe to be based on strong scientific evidence. To jump from that to the conclusion that they don't want to save the planet at all is simply bad logic.

I am sure if dumping this tulip in the oceans is tested and works everyone will be in favour of it. Of course it needs to build a fairly strong case that it's safe as well or the cure could be worse than the disease.

You explain why PJ Clarke and so many environmentalists and scientists are so opposed to geotechnical solutions then.
Run a google search and you will see the hostility. The hostility is based on fear (fear for their own livelihoods) not on science. And the howls about interfering with nature are also not based on logic or science.

If you notice the people making the most noise about climate change are not offering up any wealth of their own are they?

If I compare Climate change to cancer or other genuine life threatening illnesses people will go to all ends of the earth, turn over every stone to find a cure no matter how daft the treatment or how expensive it is. Not so climate change. the zealots simply want to see the populace controlled by the threat of global warming (similar to when we used to have to say our prayers - until we found the world wasn't flat after all), to give up their pleasures and their wealth to the high priests of AGW (the scientists) who can deliver us from this great overwhelming armageddon.

Instead they take our money and use it to enrich themselves and to spin and exaggerate the problem - which is why to make any sort of point they always accompany it with a picture of a storm or a dry river bed or an earthquake.

Real cost of Climate McCarthyism, apart from big bills, is to free speech | Mail Online

It is not as if other policies are working for these people to afford to smear geo technical solutions

The emissions cuts agreed by the EU and other countries at the 1997 Kyoto Treaty and imposed by our own Climate Change Act have made energy more expensive, and exported jobs and prosperity to countries such as China – which adds billions of watts of coal fired power to its grid each year. CO2 emissions have continued to rise.


The architects of such policies know they have failed, but they have no alternative except more of the same. Maybe it’s because their argument is weak that they resort to climate McCarthyism. The cost, apart from higher energy bills, is to democracy, and free speech.

So my presentation of a geotechnical solution is not so much about the solution itself but the way it illustrates the politics behind the debate. If we keep allowing the likes of PJ Clarke to indoctrinate us with scaremongering we will end up impoverishing ourselves and failing to find a solution to a problem that has been trivialised by his and his "ilks" political agenda.

[pjclarke]

How has it been superceded? As I said, lack of Fe is the limiting factor in most regions and that's a hard limit set by chemistry, the ratio of Fe to carbon in Algal cell composition. Some delivery vectors may be more efficient than others but the amount of Fe available is the limitation. That's the harsh reality, even the promoters of 'Nualgi' claim no different.

Your rose-tinted figures are predicated on re-seeding the same area once a week, it seems, but the Lohafex experiment found that

The researchers tried to provoke a second bloom by fertilising the same patch of ocean three weeks later, with no success – most probably because the water was already saturated in iron.

so you'd need to rotate, and so, even on your hugely optimistic numbers, you'd need to fertilise something like 100% to 300% of the available area, with consequences for downstream waters starved of nutrients, hypoxia, and break a dozen or so international laws of the sea, problems that YOU have avoided.

but even so, did you miss the title of the New scientist piece I linked and quoted?

Geoengineering with iron might work after all - environment - 18 July 2012 - New Scientist

[DodgyAgent]

How has it been superceded? As I said, lack of Fe is the limiting factor in most regions and that's a hard limit set by chemistry, the ratio of Fe to carbon in Algal cell composition. Some delivery vectors may be more efficient than others but the amount of Fe available is the limitation. That's the harsh reality, even the promoters of 'Nualgi' claim no different.

Your rose-tinted figures are predicated on re-seeding the same area once a week, it seems, but the Lohafex experiment found that

The researchers tried to provoke a second bloom by fertilising the same patch of ocean three weeks later, with no success – most probably because the water was already saturated in iron.

so you'd need to rotate, and so, even on your hugely optimistic numbers, you'd need to fertilise something like 100% to 300% of the available area, with consequences for downstream waters starved of nutrients, hypoxia, and break a dozen or so international laws of the sea, problems that YOU have avoided.

but even so, did you miss the title of the New scientist piece I linked and quoted?

Geoengineering with iron might work after all - environment - 18 July 2012 - New Scientist

It is not just a lack of iron that is a problem it is a lack of silicon and other elements also so the technology behind Nualgi HAS superceded the simple dropping of iron sulphate into the ocean. my point (again I will repeat) is that further studies (which should be taking place) are being stifled by the political agenda of you and your scientist friends. It may well be that nualgi does not work on the scale that is suggested but given the failure of you and your ilk to do anything else about it I just wonder why you are so quick to find reasons NOT to investigate geo technical solutions like this.

The Lohafax experiment lasted only 70 days and was opposed for all sorts of non science reasons. It showed enough positive results (given the failure of your lot to come up with any answers ) to warrant further tests.