Potty Wadhams And King Want To “Fix” The Climate!
By Paul Homewood
h/t Phil Bratby/Robin Guenier
It is difficult to keep up with the incessant climate propaganda from the BBC at the moment!
Scientists in Cambridge plan to set up a research centre to develop new ways to repair the Earth’s climate.
It will investigate radical approaches such as refreezing the Earth’s poles and removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
The centre is being created because of fears that current approaches will not on their own stop dangerous and irreversible damage to the planet.
The initiative is the first of its kind in the world and could lead to dramatic reductions in carbon emissions.
The initiative is co-ordinated by the government’s former chief scientific adviser, Prof Sir David King.
"What we do over the next 10 years will determine the future of humanity for the next 10,000 years. There is no major centre in the world that would be focused on this one big issue," he told BBC News.
Some of the approaches described by Sir David are often known collectively as geoengineering….
One of the most promising ideas for refreezing the poles is to "brighten" the clouds above them.
The idea is to pump seawater up to tall masts on uncrewed ships through very fine nozzles.
This produces tiny particles of salt which are injected into the clouds, which makes them more widespread and reflective, and so cool the areas below them.
Such ideas have many potential downsides and may prove to be unfeasible.
But Peter Wadhams, a professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University, said that they should be properly assessed to see if the downsides can be overcome, because he believes that reduction of CO2 emissions on its own won’t be enough.
"If we reduce our emissions all we are doing is making the global climate warmer a bit more slowly. That is no good because it’s already too warm and we have already got too much CO2 in the atmosphere," Prof Wadhams said.
"So climate repair can actually take it out of the atmosphere. We can get the level down below what it is now and actually cool the climate bringing it back to what it was before global warming," he added.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48069663
Quite what that image of a drought has to do with any of this is a mystery.
As for Wadhams and King, they should not be allowed anywhere near positions of influence, with their track records.
Wadhams seems to think it is a good idea to return the climate to the Little Ice Age. He is so obsessed with Arctic sea ice that he does not seem worried that millions could die of starvation as a result.
As for refreezing the poles, let’s hope that they are not successful. Once sea ice starts expanding, they may not be able to stop it. Certainly a bit more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere won’t.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Nature is nature. Humans have always tried, but never ever been able to control or change it. I’n now closer to 70 than 60 so doubtless, I wont be around when humanity goes too hell in a hand cart!
“The initiative is co-ordinated by the government’s former chief scientific adviser, Prof Sir David King.”
And thus: cloud cuckoo land beckons.
Hedge funders, foreign governments, particularly Qatar and the KSA, and maybe gazprom?, the corporate blob will be falling over themselves at this epically vainglorious new ‘faculty’ and Cambridge laughing all the way to the banksters.
More virtue signalling and more jobs for the trustafarain boys and gals ex the UK public sector aristocracy and ooh such a pious and important ambition Hmm, never mind that whole the idea is bonkers, ya hoo! But who needs reality when the corporate blob sings in tune with Marxist academia and no doubt our loons in the BEIS and Defra will be positively aching to throw oodles of taxpayers cash at it…………’we’ve no money but………’
There’s just been a professor of chemical engineering from Sheffield University on Sky News being given an easy ride and claiming we face a climate tipping point in 10 years. How does anyone become a professor of any science if they seriously believe this nonsense?
I suppose that £10m he’s getting for his research might have something to do with it.
These people need to explain, if they’re going to try and reduce the Earth’s temperature, what they think the perfect temperature is and what evidence they have to support it.
Wadhams and King (Sounds like a comedy act!) know it will not work, but who cares when they know they have a huge grant to prove it won’t..
“These people need to explain, if they’re going to try and reduce the Earth’s temperature, what they think the perfect temperature is and what evidence they have to support it.”
“explain”
nope, not a snowballs chance in hell and there’s no explaining to them, how can you talk logic with delusional advocates?
Note that in the BBC propaganda that the arctic is now expected to be ice free in summer after 2050. Looks like Wadders has revised his estimate by a few decades!
The BBC article is beyond bad science and even bad sci-fi, but “When the rockets go up who cares where they come down, that s not my department said Werner von Braun”.
erm, not 2005/6/7/8 – then?
NO?
Even by 2050, the ice will still be there and all to do with the sun or actually for six months the lack of it………. brrrr!
You beat me to it Paul! The ‘Climate Repair Centre’! LOL. Kind of like QuickFit. You wheel in your climate and they repair it for you, there and then. It will be part of the newly set up Carbon Neutral Futures Initiative, headed by its first director, Emily Shuckburgh, who complained to the Times about Matt Ridley’s article on ice ages, claiming that we’d broken the ice age cycle anyway and won’t be expecting another for at least 50,000 years, probably never if we don’t stop Thermageddon now. I suppose that while they’re about fixing the climate, they can fix the broken Quaternary Ice Age cycle too. Shuckburgh was also adviser to Charlie’s Ladybird Guide to Climate Change.
What I don’t quite understand is that they intend to ‘refreeze’ the poles – and there was me thinking they were already rather frozen as it is!
Good point, the astonishing hubris aside if the next 10,000 years are a concern it’s the descent into another glaciation deeper than the previous that saw life on Earth severely challenged.
“claiming that we’d broken the ice age cycle”
hubris drifts into madness and good ol’ emily chuckleboro, she’s funny – ever so.
You couldn’t make it up………………………………….
Except they do, all the time.
I could not stop laughing when I saw the report on the BBC. It reminded me of the Comics, usually from the USA, they were better than the home grown ones, where time after time a story line would appear with a villain armed with a device guaranteed to change the climate. Fortunately they also had a Hero to save the day…..hope we have?
The artificial trees had me laughing ….whats wrong with real trees?
All I saw on the BBC was an elderly man asking for money to sustain his geriatric fantasy. But then I am biased.
How can you trust a doctor to cure you who has a vested interest in you being ill?
Similarly, how can you trust a climate scientist who has a vested interest in climate disaster scenarios?
“What we do over the next 10 years will determine the future of humanity for the next 10,000 years” … LOL and GROAN at the same time, just look at the Mauna Loa CO2 record, no way is that trend going to change in the next 10 years:
….and the change will be, if the trend continues, approximately another 20 ppm. But because the increase is log, it’s two-tenths of FA – even if CO² is responsible.
Mauna Loa. The worlds second largest active volcano. So they build a CO2 monitoring station on top of it.
What could possibly go wrong?
Dear Hot,
Please go to the site and read what they do and how they do it.
It is also just one of several efforts to monitor CO2, so you should
find the others and read about them.
Dear Hot,
I rather agree with John on this.
From the beginning of “climate wars,” sceptics have tended to confuse their – often correct – intuitions with precise scientific knowledge, and therefore to come up with dismissive “killer arguments” that are not quite right.
And, hence we are on the back-foot with public opinion, partly because of early, unnecessary, defeats.
A little example is Willy Soon producing a picture of Pevensey Castle on the coast of Sussex, which is dry around its foundations, and scoffing “where is the sea rise?” When anybody who has been there, and investigated, knows that a spit of land grew out from Eastbourne in an ordinary process of long-shore drifting and protected it. Pevensey Levels is reclaimed dry land now, where William the Conqueror’s ships floated in (not a lot of people know that he MARCHED to Hastings to set up his main camp!)
On that bombshell can someone point me to a site listing ALL of the CO2 recording sites in the world and how long they have been in operation? Afterall we would not want to get caught with our pants down relying on ONE detector…. on an active volcano…… spewing out CO2 now would we……..I think if there were to be a global network….. and why isn;t there some very interesting hotspots would appear…..just the same as the non uniform nature of surface temperatures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Ongoing_measurements_of_atmospheric_CO2
Thanks…. I try to avoid Wiki for anything climate related as the entries tend in a certain direction
I’ve recently bought myself a CO2 meter, outdoor CO2 in Southern England is currently around 410 ppm, matching the Mauna Loa data.
Jon, I suggest you start here:
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/other_stations/global_stations_co2_concentration_trends
This is not ALL the sites by any means, but it does give you an idea of the global consistency in trend (as well as illustrating the variation in annual cycle).
This is just the latest step in the scam by these fake scientists and other alarmists to get hold of more taxpayers’ money to fund yet more ridiculous ‘climate change’ schemes.
The BBC laps it up without any questions and of course at the bottom of the BBC article there is the usual link to ‘Why you can trust BBC News’. The BBC is beyond a joke and, like these fake scientists, should be defunded and closed down
After it trashed the Insectageddon paper a month ago I tuned into BBC R4 More or Less with high hopes today, as they covered “UK coal-free for a week”. Sadly, they immediately destroyed their integrity by declaring that coal-free is a good thing. A programme like that should just stick to the numbers, and not pronounce on whether or not something is “a good thing”.
They featured the lady from Watt-Logic, a good speaker and a realist, but sadly she joined in with the “good thing” nonsense. Here is her recent article on the subject, at least the BBC went to her rather than to one of the usual suspects:
On Tuesday 7th May when the Daily Telegraph posted “Britain goes coal-free for 100 hours”, I commented on their website (at 11:56 am):
How much coal our power stations don’t burn is irrelevant. At 7.00 am this morning our ‘reliable renewables’ – a DT quote – met our demand with 3.4% (solar), 1.6% (wind), 0.7% (hydro/pumped) and 5.0% (biomass); a total of 10.7%.
Then at 5:45 pm:
“Britain goes wind free for 24 hours.” Well not quite wind free but less than 1 GW (about 2% of demand) for the last 24 hours. Relying just on wind (e.g. overnight) we would have needed at least 50x the number of wind farms/turbines. Solar managed 5 GW (about 13%) for 4 hours during daylight.
And the last 24 hours: 2.1GW wind (5.7% of demand) at 7.00pm yesterday has steadily dropped to 0.62GW (1.7%) at 6.30pm today.
Why does no one ask what happens when it’s dark and there’s no wind?
I thought it was the “dash for gas” that meant we use very little coal? Happy to see coal entirely replaced by fracked gas.
Whenever any project is undertaken there has to be set goals: targets that can be defined, measured, understood. and, above all, achievable.
With that in mind, and considering where the money will be coming from, King needs to define what it is he wants to achieve, ie: what is the ideal climate and how will he know when he has achieved it? According to him (on R4) he wants to get to 350 ppm CO² (wonder where he got that idea?), but didn’t explain how sequestering 160 ppm can be done bearing in mind it’s 1.3 TRILLION tons of CO² (if my boae calc is right). And that still depends on King being right that the warming is caused by CO².
So, question to King: what is the ideal climate and how will you know you’ve achieved it?
Well, so far, no one has demonstrated by empirical means that CO2 causes the world to warm.
King really has to demonstrate that first before going any further.
This is being portrayed on the BBC News Channel is along the lines of :
“Radical NEW ways to “repair the climate” and “reverse global warming” are being considered…”
For a start, I don’t think they are “new”, since most of them have been suggested before and rejected as being infeasible.
Also “reverse global warming”?
Does the BBC really know what is saying, i.e. make the world colder?
Seeker of truth: you are so right. If these clowns were running for office and their slogan was: ‘Vote for me, I can control the weather for you’, people would rightly call for the men in white coats. And if I was the DG of the BBC I’d e embarrassed that this was something I supported.
The BBC knows no shame.
Welfare for the Arts.
Someone needs to find a way to sue these nutters for depriving humanity of it’s right to CO2.
A few days ago I saw a comment that went along the lines of “We don’t need to fix the climate, we need saving from those trying to fix the climate”. Never a truer word (or 17) has been spoken…
Is it me or are we now reaching peak hysteria? If so, what happens when the hysteria fades – they can’t keep it up for more than a few months – even the BBC (and its audience) will lose interest!
That dried up Lake bed hasn’t been dried up for very long. That tiled effect is caused by a layer of mud drying out and shrinking. If the picture represented the kind of permanent draught that the alarmists assure us are becoming more common, the tiles would have eroded.
All nothing to so with grandstanding to receive easy money is it oh once august Cambridge! Wanting your noses in that big troff of tax payer money to do something totally useless for mankind after how many hundred years of enriching life?
Har! I can see the headlines now. Decline in CO2 causes lower food crop production, millions starve, economies ruined due to industrialized world cutting CO2! They want poor countries to die!
What kind of idiots believe anything with Wadhams’ name on it? What a shame the esteemed University with Newton’s chair allows such charlatans to destroy their rep.
Every thousand tons of precious, life-giving, beneficial, atmospheric trace gas CO2 means a third world child avoids starvation.
As I understand it, the Arctic goes cold because high pressure over the polar region allows warm air to escape through clear skies while the sun is too low to warm the ground. Wouldn’t creating clouds or making them more reflective hold warmth in?
I would agree, David. The Arctic warms when depressions push up from the south and intrude into the cold Arctic air. This also affects the ocean circulation, warm water is also pushed further north. The thinner ice at the edge of the Arctic gets pounded by wave action under the strong winds associated with the fronts which bring mild, cloudy weather often with associated rain. All these factors help to melt sea ice. The only way the ocean can cool is via the atmosphere, and cloudy weather inhibits this process. Perhaps the so-called scientists should stick to science, Here it seems to be more like science-fiction. Should we now call these learned people Science-fictionists rather than scientists?
What are the chances that the power required to ‘develop new ways’ and industrialise that output will greatly exceed the actual/claimed benefit? Not unlike the motor fuel derived from maize and added to petrol.
That it is cloud cuckoo land matters not, it will be believed by the grass root greens, and will instill even more fear in the masses. How much energy would be needed to re-freeze the Arctic is beyond measurement or practicality as the sun doesn’t shine during the winter and the wind farms would have to be relocated annually etc etc What a lot of baloney
Law of Diminishing Returns – applied to CO2 in the atmosphere.
(See link below for a clean copy. Can you insert a table or chart directly in dialog box?)
The table below gives approximate values for heating from CO2 over the years and a projection into the future. As the amount of CO2 (measured in ppm – parts per million) increases, the amount of heating increases as well, but only up to a limit – which is at about 655 ppm.
Year CO2
ppm Additional Heating
watts/metre2 Total heating watts/metre2 Comments
1900 – 2000 300 – 400 1.5 7.5 – 9.0 Industrial era ~1850 onwards
2000 – 2050 400 – 500 0.9 9.0 – 9.9 Ramp up after World War II
2050 – 2100 500 – 600 0.5 9.9 -10.4 Projection based on
2100 – 2150 600 – 700 0.1 10.4 – 10.5 Saturated Infra-red bands
2150 – 2200 700 – 800 0.0 10.5 – 10.5 Asymptote here at 10.5
2200 800+ 0.0 10.5 No extra heating
The graph below shows two approximations to the data above – the line with dots () is from Arrhenius and the IPCC; the one with squares () is by Douglas Lightfoot, includes the origin (0,0) and is more accurate. When the asymptote is reached (~655 ppm) there will be no extra heating from CO2.
Lightfoot HD, Mamer OA. Calculation of atmospheric radiative forcing (warming effect) of carbon dioxide at any concentration. Energy & Environment. 2014;25(8). Table 4.
Graph not appearing, but is here
https://www.dropbox.com/s/zp99hxe8gal8ha9/CO2-Diminish%20Returns.pdf?dl=0
if they succeed in cooling the climate , won’t they be faced with huge legal complaints from the agricultural industry?
“Its already too warm”. Just an assertion with no proof whatsoever. Once again the BBC allows climate Alarmists to say anything they like without any kind of challenge. It is simsimply propaganda, pure and simple.
For sheer hubris, this takes the prize. Wadhams must be competing with Ehrlich to see who can get the most things spectacularly wrong and still get more grant money, year in year out.
I wonder how long before a government can be persuaded that saving the planet is such a global emergency that they have to stop China building more coal plants even if it means dropping bombs on them. We have been to war on more flimsy grounds.
The Opium Wars with China
The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand plus
the sinking of the Lusitania The Great War WW 1
Germany’s dispute with Poland over rail way and Rothchilds pledge to protect Poland plus Pearl Harbour World War 2
Gulf of Tonkin incident Vietnam war
9/11 Afghanistan war (Britain had earlier wars with Afghanistan)
Weapons of Mass destruction Iraq war
Syria war averted when Parliament voted against war 285-272 (13 votes a 7 vote swing would have lead to war)
Libya War protecting protesters
Climate Change more dangerous than terrorism, King 2004:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3584679.stm
“In my view, climate change is the most severe problem we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism,” he wrote.
“If we don’t do enough there could be floods every few years causing tens of billions of pounds worth of damage in the south of England,” he added.
Sir David believes that a second Thames barrier needs to be built within the next 20 years to protect the city from rising flood waters.”
New Thames Barrier by 2024 to stop rising flood waters?
Billions of people will die.
‘Cambridge University, formerly a respected seat of learning, has booted out a young scholar for daring to champion the cause of free inquiry.’ – Delingpole
Those who think Cambridge will be puting scientists in charge of the atmosphere are wrong: they will be putting politicians in charge. Billions will die. The ironing being that Man will destroy earth in his quest to ‘save’ it.
What a difference a day makes…
October 13, 2004,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3737160.stm
“Carbon ‘reaching danger levels”
By Alex Kirby, BBC News Online environment correspondent
“The UK government’s leading scientist says levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere already represent a danger. Professor Sir David King told a London audience, (Greenpeace), climate change was “the most serious issue facing us this century and beyond”, needing global solutions.”
Oct 14, 2004
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/greenhouse-04h.html
“UK’s Chief Scientists Doubts CO2 Problem”
London (UPI)
“The U.K. government’s chief scientific adviser said the current rise of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere may be just an aberration, not the start of a trend.”
Check out “Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weather and Climate Control”
https://reviews.history.ac.uk/review/1028
It’s not like there is no ice at the Arctic …
Quite a lot considering how long it’s been since we’ve left the LIA.
With only around 1°C warming since the end of the LIA, what are these numbskulls thinking of, surely it should be warming-up?
“What we do over the next 10 years will determine the future of humanity for the next 10,000 years. There is no major centre in the world that would be focused on this one big issue,” he told BBC News. This shows the stupidity of these people, there is no way, no certainty, that we can know what the climate variations will happen in ‘10,000 years’. King, Shuckburgh, and Wadham’s arrogance and hubris knows no bounds.
It is hardly news anyway, 15 seconds of Googling came up with “Every Silver Lining Has A Cloud by Willis Eschenbach / May 12, 2010 from WUWT.