Geoengineering starting to get a serious look

[lawrocket 3]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/upcoming-report-on-technological-fixes-for-climate-change-adds-to-debate/2015/02/07/07bbe150-ac6e-11e4-9c91-e9d2f9fde644_story.html

I find this sort of thing to be fascinating. Because, in my opinion, it really shows what the true motivations of people and groups are. The short of it is what I've been putting on here for a while now: that if global warming is really such an awesome threat that warrants stopping or reversal then we have the technology and ability to quickly and cheaply do something about it. We can seed sulfur aerosols into the stratosphere and get an immediate cooling of the earth.

On the one sids are those who think the approach is merited.

On the other side are those who abhor the idea. Namely, those who are most in favor of putting controls on carbon. In my mind, this is an indication that they are not in favor of fighting a changing image. Rather, that is the public face of some other thing they hope to accomplish.

We can make a cooler world. Apparently this would also be a huge problem because that might affect precipitation patterns (the article actually has arguments that warn against cooling or maintaining the earth's temperature).

What are people's opinions here? I've seen the argument that drastic measure must be taken to tax the hell out of carbon and use that tax money to fund corporate interests fundamentally change the economy and energy use that, while indeed painful and difficult, is necessary to prevent the collapse of society.

A cheap, quick and scientifically effective alternative is getting consideration. Why are people averse to something that will save the world? Admittedly, it would create a different problem. But from what I've heard about AGW the past 25 years, the solution is far less problematic than soaring global temperatures.

In short: if the problem isn't bad enough to warrant a cheap scientific fix, why is it bad enough to warrant an expensive sociopolitical fix?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

I will put something else out there. Theres another climate summit coming up in Paris this year. Already, expectations are being lowered for any broad or far reaching deal to come out of it. Part of it is that there is the impression among many that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is looking more and more like it is 2 degrees or less for a doubling of CO2.

The cynic in me thinks that a deal has a better chance of getting done if these climate conferences were scheduled to be held in places like Bossaso, Somalia and Detroit and Tegucigalpa, Honduras. Going on public dole to conferences in Bali and Copenhagen and Paris and Rio and even Doha don't seem like rough spots. Start putting conferences in tough places and the odds of a deal going through increase.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 3]

Regardless of whether a person believes or doesn't believe in anthropogenic global climate change, history pretty well shows any attempt by man to artificially change the environment generally does not end well. Time and time again humans have attempted to address issues by taking an active role and introducing elements that ultimately end up making things worse or create new issues not previously considered.

Does that mean we shouldn't pursue the reduction of CO2 emmisions? Not at all. We KNOW what is currently causing the earth to increase in temperature well beyond what can otherwise be explained away by natural processes. (Yes, we really do.) The simplest answer is to simply reduce the cause; not introduce another factor.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

quade

Regardless of whether a person believes or doesn't believe in anthropogenic global climate change, history pretty well shows any attempt by man to artificially change the environment generally does not end well. Time and time again humans have attempted to address issues by taking an active role and introducing elements that ultimately end up making things worse or create new issues not previously considered.

Does that mean we shouldn't pursue the reduction of CO2 emmisions? Not at all. We KNOW what is currently causing the earth to increase in temperature well beyond what can otherwise be explained away by natural processes. (Yes, we really do.) The simplest answer is to simply reduce the cause; not introduce another factor.

PAul - firstl,I've just gotten an iPhone and am struggling with the new typing so head with me on the typos.

But on the subject of mitigation of global warming, let us assume everything the alarmists say is true. The ocean will rise a meter or two. The temperature will rise 4 degrees C by 2100. NYC will be under water. And if we completely stop CO2 emissions now it won't mean a thing becUse CO2 molecules stay in the atmosphere for anywhere from a couple hundred to a few hundred years.

Then what is being said is that we should just let catastrophe happen but cut CO2 emissions, anyway.

The President has just announced that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. His press secretary did not disabuse anyone of that notion. So we have this great threat to you and me, and the policy is to try to change the economy and society around the world, wait a few hundred years while the destruction runs its course, and not try to actually cool the place down.

This does not make sense to me. It says that the goal is to eliminate the petrochemical industry, not make the earth more liveable.

The whole objection to Geoengineering is that it might make things worse by eliminating the greatest threat to humanity? That sounds like misanthropy.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 3]

Attempting to use dz.com on an iPhone is generally a painful exercise. I understand.

As a last ditch effort we may someday have to resort to it. I would prefer that day to come hundreds of years in the future when we're experienced with the concept of planetary engineering elsewhere and not on the only planet we have access to.

Today, it would be lunacy.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[GrimReaper 0]

lawrocket

A cheap, quick and scientifically effective alternative is getting consideration. Why are people averse to something that will save the world?

There's no money to be made with it...

There is not now, and never has been, a “Balance of Nature.” Entire stars are born and die every day. The second law of thermodynamics states that everything is progressing to more disorder. Uncounted bazillions of neutrinos are sleeting through your body as you are reading this. The northern continents are still rebounding from the melting of the ice sheets from 18,000 years ago. Meteorites and shooting stars add about 40 tons of material to the Earth every day. Volcanoes and earthquakes change the shape of continents, the oceans erode headlands and deposit beaches, and rivers carry sediment to the sea. We live in a dynamic universe. We do not so much exist in a static state of being. The only thing constant about our earth is that it is constantly changing. We should not spend our treasure trying to make climate constant, to fit someone's ideal image of what climate should be. It is futile to try and turn our dynamic environment into a constant. It is doomed to failure...

[BartsDaddy 4]

I agree Grim.

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[billvon 2,400]

> We should not spend our treasure trying to make climate constant, to fit someone's
>ideal image of what climate should be. It is futile to try and turn our dynamic
>environment into a constant.

Agreed. It is even more foolish to try to change our climate as rapidly as possible while pretending that any such changes don't matter.

[brenthutch 383]

Climate control, like gun control is not about climate or guns, it is about control. That is why it is such a fetish for the left.

[Andy9o8 0]

brenthutch

That is why it is such a fetish for the left.

Way to maintain the high standards of this discussion.

[billvon 2,400]

>What are people's opinions here?

Overall I agree with the National Academy of Sciences on this. If you are going to go to all that effort, just reduce AGW emissions. Geoengineering, to me, is like solving an obese person's health problems by getting them a powered chair.

And at a larger level, it seems like every time we've tried to muck around with the ecosystem (kill all the wolves to make Yellowstone safe, kill those annoying insect pests) we've just ended up making the problem worse. In every case I've looked at, "just mess with the environment less" is always the answer at the end of the day - unfortunately, usually after messing with it more causes problems.

From the NAS:
========================
Date: Feb. 10, 2015

Climate Intervention Is Not a Replacement for Reducing Carbon Emissions;

Proposed Intervention Techniques Not Ready for Wide-Scale Deployment

WASHINGTON – There is no substitute for dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate the negative consequences of climate change, a National Research Council committee concluded in a two-volume evaluation of proposed climate-intervention techniques. Strategies to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are limited by cost and technological immaturity, but they could contribute to a broader portfolio of climate change responses with further research and development. Albedo-modification technologies, which aim to increase the ability of Earth or clouds to reflect incoming sunlight, pose considerable risks and should not be deployed at this time.
. . .

“That scientists are even considering technological interventions should be a wake-up call that we need to do more now to reduce emissions, which is the most effective, least risky way to combat climate change,” said committee chair Marcia McNutt, editor-in-chief of Science and former director of the U.S. Geological Survey. “But the longer we wait, the more likely it will become that we will need to deploy some forms of carbon dioxide removal to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.”

If society ultimately decides to intervene in Earth’s climate, any actions should be informed by a far more substantive body of scientific research, including ethical and social dimensions, than is presently available, the committee said. Decisions regarding deployment of carbon dioxide removal technologies will be largely based on cost and scalability, and research is needed to make current options more effective, more environmentally friendly, and less costly. Conversely, any future decision about albedo modification will be judged primarily on questions of risk, and there are many opportunities to conduct research that furthers basic understanding of the climate system and its human dimensions -- without imposing the risks of large-scale deployment -- that would better inform societal considerations.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

brenthutch

Climate control, like gun control is not about climate or guns, it is about control. That is why it is such a fetish for the left.

But the right's desire to control what happens in the bedroom is not a fetish, that is just good policy!

[billvon 2,400]

>But the right's desire to control what happens in the bedroom is not a fetish, that is
>just good policy!

Would that would be a fetish control fetish?

[SkyDekker 1,122]

billvon

>But the right's desire to control what happens in the bedroom is not a fetish, that is
>just good policy!

Would that would be a fetish control fetish?

Fetish on both sides means I can strike it out...so no just fetish.

See math is good policy too.

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>What are people's opinions here?

Overall I agree with the National Academy of Sciences on this. If you are going to go to all that effort, just reduce AGW emissions. Geoengineering, to me, is like solving an obese person's health problems by getting them a powered chair.

Or like giving clotting factor to a hemophiliac. Or Coumadin to a person with blood clots. Coumadin may very well kill you. There is s bigger chance of the clot killing you, though.

Quote

And at a larger level, it seems like every time we've tried to muck around with the ecosystem (kill all the wolves to make Yellowstone safe, kill those annoying insect pests) we've just ended up making the problem worse. In every case I've looked at, "just mess with the environment less" is always the answer at the end of the day - unfortunately, usually after messing with it more causes problems.

No doubt that increasing the albedo will cause different problems. What if your doctor told you that chemo and radiation to treat a cancer will make you sick and sterile and cause other problems down the road so let's not do it?

Here's the deal: is AGW a huge threat of not? Is AGW like cancer that requires harmful treatment to get rid of (and isn't this situation like a smoker with cancer? Telling the smoker to just stop smoking won't stop the cancer.) or is AGW more like a common cold that we just live with?

Come to think of it, isn't the threat of problems that could result from the use of chemical preventatives exactly the reason why anti-vaxxers don't vaccinate their kids?

Vaccinating my daughter against HPV could make her a whore and cause more problems. Vaccinating my son against measles can make my kid autistic. Prevention and management just makes it worse.

It is the argument used by anti-vaxxers. Don't do it because you make make it worse. Easiest thing is just don't catch whooping cough. Wash your hands. Etc.

Quote

From the NAS:
========================
Date: Feb. 10, 2015

Climate Intervention Is Not a Replacement for Reducing Carbon Emissions;

No it isn't. It's a mitigation strategy to prevent catastrophic warming. This is the point. The point is not to prevent warming or "climate change" but to reduce carbon emissions.

It's again telling the smoker with lung cancer to just stop smoking and not treat the cancer. From what I understand, the planet has cancer. Would they suggest that a person stay out of the sun because sunscreen just enables the dangerous behavior?

>>>Proposed Intervention Techniques Not Ready for Wide-Scale Deployment

But transition to a carbon less economy is?!?!?!

>>>Albedo-modification technologies, which aim to increase the ability of Earth or clouds to reflect incoming sunlight, pose considerable risks and should not be deployed at this time.

The risks of inaction threaten to civilization, right?

>>>“That scientists are even considering technological interventions should be a wake-up call that we need to do more now to reduce emissions, which is the most effective, least risky way to combat climate change,” said committee chair Marcia McNutt, editor-in-chief of Science and former director of the U.S. Geological Survey

there is the judgment. Most effective. Least risky. There is no such thing. And scientists said that the CO2 in get air now will be warming he earth hundreds of years from now. It's worth trillions of dollars and a fundamental change in the nature and backbone of human civilization to avert catastrophe. But not worth a few billion with readily available and deployBke technology to avert catastrophe.

They are shoveling something. And it isn't stopping the planet from warming.


>>>“But the longer we wait, the more likely it will become that we will need to deploy some forms of carbon dioxide removal to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.”

Ah! Here it goes. The problem isn't that bad right now, but there will never ever be a time when albedo management enters in. The only thing to be considered is CO2 removal.

This is where science has officially ended and politics has firmly rooted itself.

>>>If society ultimately decides to intervene in Earth’s climate, any actions should be informed by a far more substantive body of scientific research, including ethical and social dimensions, than is presently available, the committee said.

There it is. If one is ethically and morally opposed to fossil fuels then the answer is predetermined. Proving again that the way out for the scientific fix is the moral and ethical consideration. That means if there was a device that could suck up and sequester CO2 from the atmosphere in large quantities and do it for free, the ethics of its deployment must be considered. She is saying that even a CO2 remover should be approached with caution. She is saying that the wholesale demo al of large amounts of CO2 to a preindustrial level might not be socially desirable

The between the lines is that it would take away the social cost of fossil fuels. If one could burn coal and scrub CO2 before hitting the atmosphere, this would not be desirable. Because she's A scientist.

Welcome to science today. Where opinion is fact. And where solutions are discounted because of religion.

>>>Decisions regarding deployment of carbon dioxide removal technologies will be largely based on cost and scalability, and research is needed to make current options more effective, more environmentally friendly, and less costly.

Here's where cost is important, eh?

Conversely, any future decision about albedo modification will be judged primarily on questions of risk, and there are many opportunities to conduct research that furthers basic understanding of the climate system and its human dimensions -- without imposing the risks of large-scale deployment -- that would better inform societal considerations.

Again. Science is to be tempered with societal engineering considerations.

Pass the Tylenol. Social science has become hard science.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[yoink 321]

My biggest concern would be the unforseen consequences of deliberately messing with the atmosphere.

In a system as complex and dynamic as planetary climate, I can't possible imagine that we'd understand and control every possible 3rd and 4th order consequence of making deliberate changes.

As a last resort, maybe. Like quade, I'd like to see it tested on another planet first...

I'd be interested first to see what happened if we genuinely reduced CO2 emissions - will the climate sort itself out or have we fucked it beyond the point of no return? That's when mitigation should be implemented IMO.


There's also a significant moral question. In altering the atmosphere, we're making a decision for the entire planet. Who gets to say whether it should be done or not?

[billvon 2,400]

>Or like giving clotting factor to a hemophiliac.

Not quite. A fat person could choose to diet or exercise to reduce their weight so they don't need a chair. Or they might just decide all that is too hard and get a power chair. Likewise, a society could decide to reduce CO2 and methane emissions so they don't need to do geoengineering. Or they might just decide that all that is too hard and decide geoengineering is easier.

On the other hand, a hemophiliac cannot just decide to work out and produce clotting factor. He doesn't have a choice. We do.

>Here's the deal: is AGW a huge threat of not? Is AGW like cancer that requires
>harmful treatment to get rid of (and isn't this situation like a smoker with cancer?
>Telling the smoker to just stop smoking won't stop the cancer.)

No, AGW isn't like cancer. Warming alone won't be a disaster.

Overall AGW is more like smoking. Will smoking cause cancer? Maybe. Can we GUARANTEE that smoking will cause cancer, that you will die at age 55 if you smoke but live to age 71 if you don't? No. But a doctor can tell you with very high confidence that your odds of cancer (or lung disease, or heart disease) will go up, and THOSE diseases might cripple or kill you.

Likewise, scientists can't tell you that you will die a year earlier due to climate change. But they can give you good estimates on how much the weather will warm, how much the sea levels will rise, how much more acidic the oceans will become, how quickly the tundras will melt and how soon we will lose glaciers.

>Vaccinating my daughter against HPV could make her a whore and cause more
>problems. Vaccinating my son against measles can make my kid autistic. Prevention
>and management just makes it worse.

Right. Silly of them. Better to prevent the problem (vaccinations) along with the other standard mitigations (washing hands, avoiding measles areas.) If the problem you are trying to prevent does arise, then hospitals, palliative therapies etc are indicated. But it would be silly to say "let's not bother avoiding the problem; let's wait until he/she is sick and then fix it."

>It's again telling the smoker with lung cancer to just stop smoking and not treat the
>cancer. From what I understand, the planet has cancer.

?? Seems like an extraordinary claim. Where do we have cancer?

We are smoking (literally) and the results of that smoking are taking risks with the planet. We should stop smoking, rather than just say "keep smoking! It's hard to quit. If you do get cancer, well, plenty of time to worry about it then."

Would they suggest that a person stay out of the sun because sunscreen just enables the dangerous behavior?

>>>Proposed Intervention Techniques Not Ready for Wide-Scale Deployment
>But transition to a carbon less economy is?!?!?!

Yes; we are doing it now. California is reducing their overall CO2 output while improving its economy so we know it can be done. That, to me, is a much smarter solution than just smoking as much as we want and hoping we can deal with the cancer later.

[billvon 2,400]

>We would be choking on smog and suffering the more immediate effects of pollution
>long before we pumped out enough CO2 to have a significant impact on the global
>climate.

Not any more. Pollution levels of everything but CO2 continue to decline while CO2 output continues to go up. You can clean the exhaust of a car (or a powerplant) of everything but CO2 - but you can't put a clever filter on the output to eliminate CO2. You have to either store (sequester) it, use it for something else or exhaust it.

> However, if you're concerned about 'your carbon footprint' and all that other
>nonsense go out and plant a few trees in your neighborhood.

I did; there are quite a few trees around here that I've planted. I also generate all my own power, and drive an EV that I charge off a solar power system.