Posts
I
was unaware of this discussion as it was going on yesterday. In the
interests of discussion I am reproducing material from Paul Beckwith’s Facebook page as well as reproducing some of the subsequent
discussion – I hope nobody minds.
I
have always had high esteem for Paul Beckwith and his ability to
communicate the reality of climate change and have disregarded his
advocacy (along with the whole of AMEG) of geo-engineering because of
what he has contributed and because I could recognise that his
intentions were sincere and coming from the right place.
However,
and especially because these are not privately-held views but shared
in the public arena I cannot stay silent about this latest idea of
using nuclear bombs to reduce global temperatures.
We
are all, each one of is grappling with the reality of a world that is
burning while the whole world fiddles. We have LONG reached the point
of no-return, the world of positive feedbacks and runaway (yes,
runaway global warming).
Paul
is saying very publicly that he does not ‘believe’ in near-term
human extinction. But I have never seen him come up with any real
evidence for holding to that view in the face of the very real
evidence that Guy McPherson and others are presenting for NTHE.
In
fact Paul is providing the very evidence to support the viewpoint he
does not hold.
It
is a very strange spectacle to see a scientist confront reality and
present evidence only to back away and switch over to a very
emotional position that is not at all supported by the very
evidence he is presenting.
There
is a responsibility, I think, for those of us that realise the
gravity of the situation to work on ourselves, to summon up the
courage to confront the reality we have helped uncover.
This
becomes a spiritual (or at least, psychological) endeavour, rather
than a scientific one.
Others
have done it. None of us hold to NTHE as a desired outcome (I think)
but rather it is an inescapable conclusion from the evidence.
Although
I would not express myself in exactly the same way as some of the
commenters I am shocked and flabbergasted by suggestions of putting
forward the very things that have put humans in this predicament as a
‘solution’.
The
mind boggles
I
will finish with the words of Bodhi Paul Chefurka:
“Paul,
as a fellow truth-teller and a fellow Canadian, I plead with you to
take a step back and reconsider what you are saying. ….... Trying
to remedy our damage to the planet by inflicting one more injury upon
it is madness”
And...
I
thought you might back away from this April Fools post. Instead, you
have doubled down! My god, is it not clear that this sort of madness
is what got our civilization here? A revolution from "the heart
of nature" is what is needed - not more human hubris and
absolutely insane engineering... Having spent my life attempting to
bring restoration to major ecosystems, I used to believe that system
engineering was not only justified but imperative. Eventually, I
began to understand that ending perturbations is the only viable
alternative... The unintended consequences of any other course of
action are unacceptable and will eventually fail regardless!
---Rick
Hill
Please think long and hard about this, Paul.
From Paul's Facebook page yesterday:
Last-ditch H-bomb halting abrupt climate change; cooling parameters:
Last-ditch H-bomb halting abrupt climate change; cooling parameters:
I
think there are many variables that are important...
1)
yield
2)
depth of detonation
3)
ground composition, salt, rock, sand
4)
surface cover, sand or even combustible materials like a forest, may
need ash from organic material up in stratosphere
5)
downwind regions
6)
radiation release to atmosphere is much less than atmospheric
detonation, more than underground explosion that doesn't break the
surface (zero in latter case)
7)
latitude
8)
longitude
This
may occur after a global climate emergency is declared by the UN and
countries around the planet.
The
idea is to chop off about say 0.2 C of the global average warming,
then repeat in a year or two. This is in parallel with
three-legged-barstool methods (leg 1: zero emissions ASAP, leg 2:
remove CO2 from atmosphere, leg 3: cool the Arctic). This is a last
ditch attempt to prevent massive global starvation and maintain
societal stability and prevent a mass extinction event. This method
also helps in legs 1 and 2, since cooler oceans absorb more CO2.
Paul has made a video on this:
The
physics says yes. Controlled H-Bomb detonations [1]
under the desert sands every year or two would hurl dust into the
stratosphere and cool the planet, arresting abrupt warming.
We
have waited forever to do nothing on climate change, and it has now
gone exponential and is spiralling out of control. We do have
last ditch, back to the wall options, which need to be in our toolbox
to save our hides.
Wouldn’t
it be the ultimate irony that the most powerful weapons ever devised
could save us [2]
[3]!
His segment starts at 23;55 here.
Robin, your position here is one I'm in agreement with for the most part (I've never seen sincerity in intentions regarding the call for geoengineering), and I thank you for saying what you had to say.
ReplyDeleteIt wouldn't be accurate to say I'm depressed, but I am often somber. Humanity failed. Now each day feels like a requiem for the all dying life forms - humans, animals, insects, reefs, trees/forests... all life systems. Teller wasn't sorry. I'm not seeing Paul show signs of it either - for his pondering the use of such an awful tool in what he calls the "toolbox" of ideas/options. This isn't the time for immaturity, even if it's just a thought. He's angry he wasn't heard to the point of being effective. Despite trying my best, I haven't been either. None of us have. We should all strive to face what is, but I know very few who are willing to acknowledge and speak to the full scope of anthropogenic causes of warming/cataclysmic meltdown/NTHE, including present geoengineering. A deployed weapon will never 'save' us, it'll just ride the soul. Too many weapons are already in use. None should have ever been.
Regarding Paul Beckwith suggesting nuclear explosions moderating global warming, I have two points to present. First, during the years 1950-1970s or so, during which there were many test nuclear explosions, you might notice that there was a moderation in the global temperature. Perhaps this was due to the atmospheric debris caused by these explosions.
ReplyDeleteSecond, the use of massive nuclear explosions to create enough debris in the atmosphere to block the incident sunshine and reduce the temperature by a degree would have the unfortunate side effect of blocking the sunshine from our plant agriculture, and our food supply would no doubt be severely effected, perhaps creating an even more severe impact on humanity. Our ability to modulate to get the optimum sunlight to allow for agriculture growth on the cool side, yet allow for moderation of temperature on the hot side is unlikely to be successful utilizing nuclear weapons. It might be noted that the use of stratospheric injection to block sunlight is being used to attempt to accomplish this. But, without the halting of CO2 emissions and even some sort of CO2 reduction technique this is unlikely to be successful over the longer term of a few decades.