Climate change and geoengineering - What do you think about artificially turning down our planetary thermostat?

I don’t really like it. Messing with the climate in such a direct way can have unforeseen and potentially disastrous consequences. Not to mention that such weather control technology could, and probably would be used as a weapon of mass destruction. Don’t like the policies of a country? Hit it with a draught/tornadoes/hurricanes and kill millions of people. Or use it as a threat to bully a country into submission.

Geoeengineering as defined ignores the increased CO2 impacts on ocean acidity, altered micronutrient/nitrogen composition in plant components (ie our and all animals food), etc.. and then adds massive and unpredictable further impacts on regional climate, ozone depletion, further questions of governance, ecosystem function under altered light diffusion, not to mention the cost and energy required for continued deployment of geoengineering solutions, ..etc..etc..

As stated by John Holdren ”“The ‘geo-engineering’ approaches considered so far appear to be afflicted with some combination of high costs, low leverage, and a high likelihood of serious side effects.”

See here for a full article that tackles the potential impacts of multiple misguided and flawed “get out of GHG reduction” distractions.

http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/20Reasons.pdf

Nice quote from Ken Caldeira

“If we keep emitting greenhouse gases with the intent of offsetting the global warming with ever increasing loadings of particles in the stratosphere, we will be heading to a planet with extremely high greenhouse gases and a thick stratospheric haze that we would need to main more-or-less indefinitely. This seems to be a dystopic world out of a science fiction story. First, we can assume the oceans have been heavily acidified with shellfish and corals largely a thing of the past. We can assume that ecosystems will be greatly affected by the high CO2 / low sunlight conditions — similar to what Earth experienced hundreds of millions years ago. The sunlight would likely be very diffuse — maybe good for portrait photography, but with unknown consequences for ecosystems.

We know also that CO2 and sunlight affect Earth’s climate system in different ways. For the same amount of change in rainfall, CO2 affects temperature more than sunlight, so if we are to try to correct for changes in precipitation patterns, we will be left with some residual warming that would grow with time.

And what will this increasing loading of particles in the stratosphere do to the ozone layer and the other parts of Earth’s climate system that we depend on?

On top of all of these environmental considerations, there are socio-political considerations: We we have a cooperative world government deciding exactly how much geoengineering to deploy where? What if China were to go into decades of drought? Would they sit idly by as the Climate Intervention Bureau apparently ignores their plight? And what if political instability where to mean that for a few years, the intervention system were not maintained … all of that accumulated pent-up climate change would be unleashed upon the Earth … and perhaps make “The Day After” movie look less silly than it does.

Long-term risk reduction depends on greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Nevertheless, there is a chance that some of these options might be able to diminish short-term risk in the event of a climate crisis.”

If we as a global society fail so badly as to ever have to rely on geo-engineering to save us….

I think that the most dangerous experiment ever is the experiment we’re conducting now—carrying on with business as usual.

@ragingloli – I don’t like it either. The ideal solution would be, as @ratboy pointed out, to stop the most dangerous experiment we’re conducting now: releasing more than 100 million years worth of solar power (via photosynthesis of ancient planets) into our ecosystems in a matter of decades. We should definitely not carry on with business as usual. What if we do? That’s what my question is about.

By the way, TNT can be used to build tunnels and it can be used to blow of buildings in a country which policies we might not like. Developing tornado-manipulation technology can save lives and it can destroy lives. That’s not a reason to investigate the potential.

@Critter38 – Good quote. But the question remains. Chemotherapy produces serious side effects, but dying from cancer is worse.

the difference between TNT and a weather weapon is that you have to move the TNT to the target area and it’s effects are limited to a small area. A weather weapon could easily be used remotely and would affect a large area. You can stop TNT at the border, but a tornado would be unfazed by your fence and guards. If such technology must be used then it must not be used by any single country but its usage must be internationally controlled and limited.

I am pretty sure I am responsable for global warming.
My Dad always used to say “Shut the door! Are you trying to heat up the whole outside?”

No one said scientist’s can’t investigate their potential and both Caldeira and the PDF linked suggest as much.

The problem is that none of these geoengineering options are true solutions. The chemotherapy analogy is flawed because it implies that geoengineering works, it’s risks are known, and that it is a reasonable and cost effective solution to a problem. Geoengineering is none of these and most importantly is a dangerous distraction because all to often it is sold as a “last hope” when it is anything but.

So let’s be clear on the point of contention. Yes scientists can research this stuff, because negotiations may fail at some or many levels. But no these are not cures in any sense of the word and the public needs to be very clear that there is no “keep emitting and get away with it” technofix option.

@ragingloli – I hope weather weapons never get implemented. TNT in missiles can be used remotely as well. Let alone nuclear warheads.

@filmfann – We are all responsible for global warming. The few people who are not live in poor countries like Eritrea. Here’s an interesting list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita

showing that Canadians use more energy per capita than the US.

@Critter38 – Well, maybe one effect of the geoengineering research is telling people how desperate we are. We need the change. We can change. Yes we can. Can’t we? Yet I’m not so sure anymore Barack Obama realizes the need for action.

When looking at 2007, 2008 and 2009 climatologists observe stagnation of temperatures at a high level. Climate change deniers take this and turn it into: see, we told you so, global warming scare for nothing. I fear the stagnation aspect will play a role in Copenhagen.

I share your frustration.

With regards to the temperature stagnation (there isn’t one by the way…), we’re just seeing (in part) ENSO cycles altering the % of heat transferring to the atmosphere versus the ocean. But that just isn’t as catchy or politically expedient as taking any short oscillation in the rate of atmospheric global warming as a sign that climate change isn’t happening..

The hypocrisy is unbelievable. Can you imagine if climate change scientists took a three year trend in any climate cycle to indicate anything at all in terms of a general long term pattern?!..not to mention these have been the hottest 10 years on record, and the pattern within that 10 years is nevertheless positive (which I hasten to add is too short to look for real trends).

hard to wade through all the bullshit out there…but its effective bullshit…yet more obstacle to rapid progress.

Anyways, check this article out..it accurately reflects the issue.

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap-impact-statisticians-reject-174088.html

I regularly fluctuate between tentative optimism and utter dispair. It’s hard to work even at the tail end of this stuff and not get entirely frustrated with the malleable ignorance of the public and the callous disregard for humanity exhibited by some of the media, corporate and political representatives

Yes, the last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record. Stagnation at a high level is still high. And stagnation does not mean cooling.

Some climate change deniers seem to listen to the following arguments: Do we really want to remain dependent on oil and gas exporting countries? Renewable energies can make our own country stronger and more independent. Can we really afford gas when the barrel of oil costs $300? Yes, we realize that increased worldwide demand creates a problem. We need alternatives.

Framing the discussion in those terms may be useful on some fronts.

The problem is that although those are valid arguments for action from an economics or even geopolitical angle, they don’t contain the level of inherent urgency needed to address the climate change challenge. Without the acceptance of the reality of climate change, none of the current necessary responses to climate change really make sense from an economics or geopolitical standpoint. Yes the direction can be consistent (ie weeding off from foreign oil, etc), but not the totality of what’s needed in the timeframe required. At the heart of the matter we can’t get around the need to sell the truth.

So I see these as more fringe benefit carrots to toss to the reality challenged, rather than incentives to motivate the necessary response.

I do not think we should attempt any of those geoengineering options until time—dependent multi-dimensional modeling of both the evolving earth atmosphere and the effects of various interventions(alone or in combination) can be felt to be more accurately predictive . NOAA and others do get a measurable share of supercomputer time now but could use more, I am sure. Without this step we could inadvertently make things worse.

Scientists will do what they do best – experiment – willy nilly. It makes no difference if we (whoever that is) want it or not. Look at the Chinese going ahead with a massive project to change the direction of a major river, without any regard to the harm it might cause.

When some politicians decided to deface a major natural wonder (Mt Rushmore) could anybody stop them? When ski lodges choose to “make” their own snow, is there anything we can do about it? When some enterprising businessmen decided to steal an entire river from Northern California they did it all in secret, and now we are stuck.

When the Corps of Engineers decided to put the entire Hetch Hetchy valley underwater and destroy another natural paradise, even the objections of thousands of forward looking people couldn’t stop them. They lull us with their promise of more recreation areas, and build dams by the hundreds, with zero regard to the beaches that are going lacking because of their meddling.

@Critter38 – Yes, they don’t contain the level of inherent urgency. The question is when deniers don’t listen to scientific arguments and even reject the precautionary principle, what can we do? Throwing more science at them won’t do the job. I think for them it’s more of an emotional problem, like it is with evolution deniers. But they want to be proud of their country. So let’s tell them more needs to be done about green technology.

I’ve met a few hardcore Republicans. Some really think the US is best at virtually everything. When I tell them that for many technologies Germany is actually ahead of the US, they don’t really like this message. Some even don’t believe it. But I also tell them that I think the US is still the biggest innovation machine on Earth. So innovate. Become number 1 in renewable energies. I think that would be great. Otherwise if the US remains dormant, not only Europe will outrun you, but also China, Japan, Korea, India and so forth. They seem to get this message. Even Thomas Friedman (a conservative) wrote a book about the flat, hot and crowded planet. It’s a plea to get serious about the transition to green technologies and sustainable development. So is there hope after all?

@YARNLADY – Good points. But it seems the Chinese do learn from past mistakes. Deforestation has created a huge problem: severe floods. Now they are planting trees big time.

@mattbrowne <3 Friedman, but conservative ?

@virtualist – I think so yes. Moderate Republican as far as I know. Maybe I’m wrong. There are many conservatives in favor of green technologies. Conservative is about conserving. It’s part of the word even.