Western Antarctic ice sheet collapse has already begun, scientists warn

[BlasterBates]

The "Green Brigade" will only be happy when the entire countryside is smothered in obnoxious wind farms, the aim of which is not to cut carbon emissions, which it won't, but as a huge religious symbol to say "F---off" to anyone who disagrees with them.

Most "greenies" don't actually go out into the countryside, they sit in basements smoking pot.

[pjclarke]

It is not just a lack of iron that is a problem it is a lack of silicon and other elements also

Reference? Everything I've read (which is by no means all of the literature, its extensive) indicates that OF is only cost-effective in areas where silica is abundant and Iron is the limiting factor.

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.

I give you a report commissioned by the Royal Society and authored by Professor John Shepherd FRS , 80 pages of analysis and recommendations, 6 pages of references.

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Roy.../2009/8693.pdf

GeoEngineering is the Liposuction of solutions, it may play a part but diet and exercise are far more effective and cheaper .... unless you're greedy and lazy.

[DodgyAgent]

Reference? Everything I've read (which is by no means all of the literature, its extensive) indicates that OF is only cost-effective in areas where silica is abundant and Iron is the limiting factor.



I give you a report commissioned by the Royal Society and authored by Professor John Shepherd FRS , 80 pages of analysis and recommendations, 6 pages of references.

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Roy.../2009/8693.pdf

GeoEngineering is the Liposuction of solutions, it may play a part but diet and exercise are far more effective and cheaper .... unless you're greedy and lazy.

You are so far behind on technology it beggars belief

Far Infrared is much better than exercise:


Far Infrared For Fitness
Why Is the Far Infrared Sauna Better For Your Health? | www.Infrared-Saunas.org

Medical evidence from the last 75 years shows that almost all diet and exercise program fail in the long run.

In the United States, obesity is a national epidemic despite the fact that over 61% of Americans are dieting at any one time.

The weight loss industry is big business. More than 10 billion dollars every year is spent by folks seeking to find some solution to their dilemma: how to lose those extra pounds permanently.

This overweight epidemic is less about genetics and more due to the lack of education folks have in how to manage their body’s metabolism for optimum wellness and fitness.

In the field of biotechnology, it is proven that Far infrared Radiant Heat activates and increases the body's metabolism which in turn stimulates the release of unwanted fat, toxins, and waste products as well as strengthens the immune system...ALL AT THE SAME TIME.


You are also wrong about nualgi because the element nutrients are attached to nano silica molecules which supplements parts of the ocean lacking in silicon. So as i said all the research and papers that you read are based on 12 experiments none of which lasted for more than 3- 6 months. You also seem to think the ONLY OF method is to plonk iron into the ocean. This apparently gives you and your ilk enough ammunition to dismiss it.

[EternalOptimist]

Here is an interesting one for you Dodgy

A positive spin off from any ice melt is that it increases iron naturaly

sort of what you are driving at

[DodgyAgent]

GeoEngineering is the Liposuction of solutions, it may play a part but diet and exercise are far more effective and cheaper .... unless you're greedy and lazy.

Right now it is the only show in town because all your "diet and exercise" remedies have failed

[DodgyAgent]

Here is an interesting one for you Dodgy

A positive spin off from any ice melt is that it increases iron naturaly

sort of what you are driving at

That won't please the AGW zealots

[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.

Why don't you just butt out. Saving the planet is big boys work

[doodab]

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.

Kyoto was hamstrung by political lobbying. The targets agreed on were actually weaker than the ones that China proposed. The "architects" of that outcome were politicians who knew damn well they were watering things down to the point it would achieve little, so it's hardly surprising that little was achieved. Suggesting that is the fault of the environmental lobby is disingenuous in the extreme.

[DodgyAgent]

Kyoto was hamstrung by political lobbying. The targets agreed on were actually weaker than the ones that China proposed. The "architects" of that outcome were politicians who knew damn well they were watering things down to the point it would achieve little, so it's hardly surprising that little was achieved. Suggesting that is the fault of the environmental lobby is disingenuous in the extreme.

OK what impact have these policies made then? None is the answer, so why are they ignoring geotechnical solutons?

[pjclarke]

DA - Which part of 'reference please' is giving you the problem? ;-)

On the one hand we have several hundred academic studies with supporting field trials, every one of which has concluded that Ocean Fertilisation has limited feasibility as a large scale means of carbon sequestration; to have a even a minor impact we'd have to fertilise about a third of the oceans. Imagine spraying all the arable land in the world with Miracle-Gro and then picture the consequences for ecosystem balance.....

On the same hand we have a study on Geo-engineering co-ordinated by a Fellow of the Royal society, a Professor of Earth Sciences who has spent his working life in the field and a dozen other distinguished academics reveiwing hundreds of studies. This apparently qualifies as disinterest. Presumably this paper, from January, also qualifies ...

Potential climate engineering effectiveness and side effects during a high carbon dioxide-emission scenario : Nature Communications : Nature Publishing Group

On the other hand we have Dodgy and Mr. Sampath Kumar and his patented magic pond and aquarium plankton food. (Maybe his Wave Energy device will save us if the bug thing doesn't pan out). Hmmmm, tough one.

Kyoto was effectively dead in the water after the US, the Spiritual Home of Climate 'Scepticism', declined to ratify the treaty, however, and apologies for introducing some facts into a CUK General thread, the 'Annex 1' countries that did sign up comfortably exceeded their modest target of 4.2 % during commitment 1 phase, with an aggregate reduction of around 16%. Now this was mostly driven by the collapse of heavy industry in the Sovtiet Bloc, still the UK exceeded its targets, with a total of -19% reduction versus a target of -12.5%. Its not enough but it is not nothing either. And contrary to absurd 'back to the Stone Age' rhetoric it was achieved at a cost of a barely noticeable <0.1% of GDP.

For me, an interesting question is: why are the people who are or were asserting that there is no or insignificant risk from manmade climate change often the the same ones who are apparently willing to fund non-solutions to a non-problem?