|
by Jonathan Benson
December 30, 2014
from
NaturalNews Website
Spanish version
A prominent climate scientist who's actively involved in developing
technologies to thwart the natural weather patterns of the globe
says he's disturbed by the prospect of having to make such drastic
changes to the common order of things in order to fight
so-called
"global warming."
Dr. Matthew Watson from Bristol University in the UK told the
media recently that he's "terrified" by many of the geoengineering
projects currently in the works to thwart man-made climate change,
which is still being hawked by many in mainstream science as a
threat to humanity.
Speaking to the Daily Mail Online, Dr. Watson explained how
futuristic technologies like spraying chemical particles into the
sky to reflect sunlight back into space have the potential to
disrupt how rain falls, how plants grow and how life lives.
Right now, Dr. Watson is working on a $2.8 million project of this
exact nature.
The plan is to inject sulfur particles into the
earth's atmosphere with the stated goal of blocking the sun's rays
from reaching Earth, ostensibly to keep the earth from getting too
warm.
"Personally, this stuff terrifies me," Dr. Watson
told reporters. "Whilst it is clear that temperatures could be
reduced during deployment, the potential for misstep is
considerable."
"By identifying risks, we hope to contribute to the evidence
base around geoengineering that will determine whether
deployment, in the face of the threat of climate change, has the
capacity to do more good than harm."
Geoengineering will likely
cause irreversible damage to planetary ecosystems
The simplistic nature of such projects ignores the immense level of
irreversible damage that could result from interfering with the
normal functions of the planet.
By blocking sunlight, plants won't be able to engage
in photosynthesis, for instance, which means no more oxygen and no
more food.
Similarly, humans won't be able to obtain
natural vitamin D if the
sun's rays aren't allowed to penetrate the atmosphere, triggering an
epidemic of vitamin D deficiency and resultant disease.
One proposed method of mitigating excess carbon dioxide, which many
would argue isn't even a real problem, involves planting and
irrigating millions of trees in the world's deserts.
But this would
directly counteract the natural reflection of sunlight from desert
sands back into space, contributing to more warming.
Another proposal involves dumping iron particles into the world's
oceans to supposedly improve the growth of photosynthetic organisms
capable of absorbing carbon dioxide.
But this concept would only further toxify the
world's oceans, harming sea animals in the process.
Sulfur particles will
destroy ozone layer, leaving animals and humans exposed to deadly
radiation
Building upon an earlier idea pioneered by Dr. Watson, climate
scientists are also working on ways to pump sulfur particles into
the sky in order to disperse and reflect sunlight back into space.
But this process threatens to destroy atmospheric
ozone, leaving plants, animals and humans exposed to harmful solar
radiation.
"Geoengineering will be much more expensive and
challenging than previous estimates suggest and any benefits
would be limited," maintains Professor Piers Forster from the
University of Leeds, who has long tracked climate engineering
projects of this type and determined them to be more threatening
than beneficial.
Professor Steve Rayner from Oxford University,
who specializes in the legal and ethical ramifications of
geoengineering, seems to agree.
He told the Daily Mail Online that too little is
known about the long-term effects of geoengineering, including their
impact on planetary ecosystems.
"Mostly it is too soon to know what any of these
technology ideas would look like in practice or what would be
their true cost and benefit," he stated.
Sources
Are We Playing God
with Earth?
- Scientist Admits he is 'Terrified' of
the Technology Being Developed to Stop 'Global Warming'
-
by Ben Spencer
26 November 2014
from
TheDailyMail Website
Dr Watson from Bristol University
says we should be wary of
interfering with nature
on a planetary scale - known as
geoengineering.
It involves changing our planet to counteract effects of climate
change.
Proposals include injecting water into the atmosphere to block
sunlight
But Dr Watson, a leading
scientist investigating such methods,
says he is 'terrified' of what
the technology could do to Earth.
And it would also mean we have 'failed as planetary stewards'
A climate scientist has said he is 'terrified' of the
futuristic technologies he is helping to develop in a bid to slow
global warming.
British academics have spent £5.4 million ($8.5 million) in the last
five years on taxpayer-funded 'geoengineering' projects to stop the
effects of climate change.
Dr. Matthew Watson, lead investigator of a £1.8million ($2.8
million) project to pump chemicals into the atmosphere to reflect
the sun's rays, said using such technologies will become inevitable
if humanity fails to stop global warming.
Dr Watson from Bristol University
said we should be wary of
interfering with nature
on a planetary scale - known as
geoengineering.
It involves changing our planet to
counteract effects of climate change.
Earth is shown here pictured from
space
The Bristol University academic has already suffered a major
setback, when much-trumpeted plans to send a huge balloon into the
air to test his scheme was scrapped over a patenting dispute.
Yesterday he admitted that despite the millions already spent on
research, scientists are still decades from seeing their dreams turn
into reality.
POTENTIAL SIDE EFFECTS OF FIVE GEOENGINEERING STRATEGIES
-
Afforestation: This technique would irrigate
deserts, such as those in Australia and North Africa, to
plant millions of trees that could absorb carbon dioxide.
Drawback: This vegetation would also draw in sunlight that
the deserts currently reflect back into space, and so
contribute to global warming.
-
Artificial ocean upwelling: Engineers would
use long pipes to pump cold, nutrient-rich water upward to
cool ocean-surface waters.
Drawback: If this process ever stopped it could cause oceans
to rebalance their heat levels and rapidly change the
climate.
-
Ocean alkalinization: This involves heaping
lime into the ocean to chemically increase the absorption of
carbon dioxide.
Drawback: Study suggests it will have of little use in
reducing global temperatures.
-
Ocean iron fertilization: The method involves
dumping iron into the oceans to improve the growth of
photosynthetic organisms that can absorb carbon dioxide.
Drawback: Study suggests it will have of little use in
reducing global temperatures.
-
Solar radiation management: This would reduce
the amount of sunlight Earth receives, by shooting
reflective sulphate-based aerosols into the atmosphere.
Drawback: Carbon dioxide would still build up in the
atmosphere.
And he said they could indeed be dangerous.
The schemes could see rainfall patterns change, droughts spread
across the world and the ozone layer damaged beyond repair.
'Personally, this stuff terrifies me,' he said.
'Whilst it is clear that temperatures could be reduced during
deployment, the potential for misstep is considerable.
'By identifying risks, we hope to contribute to the evidence
base around geoengineering that will determine whether
deployment, in the face of the threat of climate change, has the
capacity to do more good than harm.'
But he added that it would be 'unethical' not to try
the technology.
'If we ever deploy these technologies it will be
the closest indication yet that we've failed as planetary
stewards. But there is a point at which not deploying some
technologies would be unethical.
'It's a watershed for our relationship with the Earth and with
nature. It fundamentally changes the way seven billion people
are going to interact with the world, and I'm not sure the
system is going to be controllable in the way we want.'
Three taxpayer-funded schemes will today publish the
results of five years of research into geoengineering.
Each report will confirm that we are many years away from seeing any
project work outside the laboratory.
One of the touted projects includes spraying low-level clouds with
sea salt to make them reflective to the sun; another would pump
aerosols or sulphur particles into the atmosphere to disperse
sunlight; and others would see greenhouse gases such as carbon
dioxide sucked out of the air to reduce global warming.
One of the proposals to
geoengineer our planet
involves Solar Radiation
Management (SRM), pictured,
which would involve releasing
small particles into the stratosphere
that reflect some of the incoming
solar radition.
This would then allow Earth to
cool instead of continuing to warm like it is now
One of the biggest risks is disrupting the delicate balance of land
and sea weather influences.
The scientists admit that each technology they investigated could
lead to damaging changes in rainfall patterns, leading to floods
where there had previously been little risk, and droughts elsewhere.
Another danger specifically linked to sulphur particles is the
destruction of atmospheric ozone, a vital barrier to harmful solar
radiation that can trigger skin cancer and have damaging effects on
plants and animals.
Dr. Watson said the day may come when the use of such technologies
cannot be avoided.
'We are swimming, drowning, in a sea of
ignorance. This terrifies me. But doing nothing is not an
option.'
'Unless we're very wrong about climate change or quickly change
our ways, at some point we're going to have to 'go outside'
[with these technologies],' he said.
Several proposals for
geoengineering
have been proposed, illustrated
here,
But Dr Watson said resorting to
these measures amounted to us
admitting we could no longer save
the planet by managing our global emissions
- and meant we had failed to look
after Earth
He stressed that without drastic cuts in greenhouse emissions,
global warming was on course to make the world 4°C (7.2°C) hotter by
2100.
'That's going to have a profound effect on the
planet,' he added.
Professor Piers Forster from the University of
Leeds, who has also investigated climate engineering projects, said:
'Our research shows that the devil is in the
detail. Geoengineering will be much more expensive and
challenging than previous estimates suggest and any benefits
would be limited.'
Professor Steve Rayner of Oxford University,
who has researched the legal and ethical ramifications of
geoengineering, said:
'Mostly it is too soon to know what any of these
technology ideas would look like in practice or what would be
their true cost and benefit. But it's almost certain that
geoengineering will be neither a magic bullet nor Pandora's
Box.'
He said that each technology would have to be shown
to be safe, effective and affordable before it was trialed - but
added:
'They will probably be part of the tool box.'
'Unless we're very wrong about
climate change or quickly change our ways,
at some point we're going to have
to "go outside,"' added Dr Watson.
He stressed that without drastic
cuts in greenhouse emissions
(stock image shown), global
warming was on course
to make the world 4°C (7.2°F)
hotter by 2100
|
