Geoengineering gathers pace... but are we right to even consider it?

[Spud1k]

The field of geoengineering (i.e. fixing the world's climate) continues to gain profile with this (http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?year=&id=7983) issue of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Anyone familiar with the field should be unsurprised to see certain people contributing (e.g. Lovelock, Latham, etc.). Proposed ideas include mirrors in space, fertilising nutrient-poor areas of the ocean and spraying seawater into the atmosphere from a fleet of unmanned boats.

Most of the ideas being talked about are controversial to say the least and tend to get less-than-favourable receptions in the mainstream scientific community. The common perception is that we don't know enough about what side effects there might be to even think about it. However, proponents will argue that we can never hope to reduce GHG outputs quickly enough to put the brakes on global warming, so it'd be irresponsible.

The analogy I heard last year at a conference was comparing global warming to a car; you wouldn't want one with an accelerator but no brake. My response to that would be that you'd want to make damn sure that the brakes aren't going to lock the wheels and make you spin out of control before you use them.

ETA: Spotted a typo in the poll. The first one should be "was never meant to meddle with these things". I think the point still gets across though.

[Bluefire]

No option for "No, not needed" ?

[Spud1k]

Sorry, I didn't want to turn this into another flinging match regarding whether GW exists or not. Not trying to stifle debate here, but there's plenty of that argument going on on other threads.

On the other hand, if you're saying 'the world won't be any worse off warmer' then maybe I should have put that as an option.

[H'ethetheth]

While you're at it, I'd like to point out the obvious lack of any serious Planet X option.

[INRM]

Just because there isn't a god doesn't necessarily mean we should play god.

INRM

[Spud1k]

Just because there isn't a god doesn't necessarily mean we should play god.

INRM

One argument, which I don't entirely subscribe to, says that we're already effectively playing God and we should really seek to undo it.

Not sure I buy that myself though; some of the things suggested have a real 'swallow the spider to catch the fly' vibe about them.

[Cuddles]

I said no because we'll mess it up. The thing is, no matter what you believe about global warming, no-one can deny that we're not really all that sure about it. We don't know exactly what is happening now or what will happen in the future. Even assuming that our global average predictions are fairly accurate, local details are pretty much non-existent, with even the best models having resolutions of 10s of kilometres. Given that, trying to change something that we don't really understand yet is just silly.

It reminds me rather of our attempts at bioengineering. The majority of attempts to control invasive species, introduced accidentally by us, by introducing more foreign species to eat them have not gone well. And these are systems far simpler and better understood than climate is currently. Maybe in a few decades we'll be at a point where we can seriously think about deliberately altering the climate, but we just don't understand it well enough yet, and the consequences could be fairly serious. If you screw up the ecosystem of an island, even a fairly big one like Australia, for example, the consequences are mostly limited to that area. If you screw up the global climate that's a rather different matter.

Not sure I buy that myself though; some of the things suggested have a real 'swallow the spider to catch the fly' vibe about them.

I was going to make exactly the same analogy. The obvious problem being that it ends up with you dead from swallowing a horse.

[PixyMisa]

Which is why you try it first with a very small horse.

Come to think of it, how did she manage anything past the bird? The species is unspecified, but there are at least birds small enough for it to retain some degree of plausibility. You could cook it and cut it up, I suppose, or even make a soup, but that would seem to largely defeat the original purpose.

[mhaze]

Man can and does affect local and regional climate, and could likely over some time come to understand better how to engineer favorable local climates.

The mindset and approach of current climate science doesn't rank even as sloppy engineering method.

Oh, the question of the OP was about "Global?" Baby steps first.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1422448bf62f3e9144.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13680)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit-proof_fence (file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Mike/Desktop/Rabbit-proof%20fence%20-%20Wikipedia,%20the%20free%20encyclopedia.URL)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/earth/14fenc.html

[Giraffe107]

Which is why you try it first with a very small horse.

Come to think of it, how did she manage anything past the bird? The species is unspecified, but there are at least birds small enough for it to retain some degree of plausibility. You could cook it and cut it up, I suppose, or even make a soup, but that would seem to largely defeat the original purpose.

Yeah, surely her stomach acid would have killed the fly? It was one of those nursery rhymes that always bothered me as a kid (don't get me started on the Flintstones).

I think if we try now we'll screw everything up. The ideas I've heard so far have either been insane, impractical, or both. Maybe in 100 years.

[Spud1k]

The mindset and approach of current climate science doesn't rank even as sloppy engineering method.

Given your oft-stated opinion of climate science in general and the fact that those promoting geoengineering represent a fringe (some would say pariah) element that the rest consider overconfident, I would genuinely love to witness a debate between one of the likes of you and one of the likes of them. At a safe distance. With popcorn. ;)


Although to be honest, a debate involving one of those lot invariably ends with "yes there are things we don't know, which is why we need to investigate it". A cynical person would just interpret that as "give me more funding". I personally think we're much better off funding the continuing development of the coupled climate models because these are ultimately what will be used to predict the regional and global effects of any geoengineering efforts.

[Soapy Sam]

Global engineering begins with contraception.

And we frequently screw that up , too.

[taypro]

Something that has kind of always bugged me about many geoengineering endeavors is that they are temporary fixes that only make things worse in the long run.

Just of the top of my head as an example I think of breakwaters/jetties emplaced to control beach erosion. New structures have to continuously be constructed in the direction of longshore current, because a breakwater does nothing to actually stop beach erosion, it only redirects it.

This is not a perfect example, because there plenty of obvious and immediate benefits to these structure, i.e. a larger (or at least not smaller) beach to frolic about, ease of access for boats and ships.

But my point is, we may try to go against nature and "play god", but we really suck at it. For me, the suggestions of CO2 ocean sequestration, etc only bring to mind more punctuated and disasterous climate change in the distant or near future.

With all this being said, I DO believe the most effective geoengineering practices will always be those which mimic natural processes as closely as possible. IMO, The more we work with nature (limiting the "playing god" aspect of our efforts), the more sustainable and therefore effective the endeavor. I fuzzily recall a geochemical cycle by which the erosion of carbonate rocks/minerals has functioned as a "thermostat" for the Earth throughout it's history, moderating both warming and cooling climate trends. Obviously the oceans have always played a HUGE role in the moderation of global temperatures (ok, so maybe CO2 injection into the ocean isn't the WORST idea thrown out there so far). These are kinds of processes we should better understand in order to prolong our co-existence with the Earth.

I agree the most important area of research to focus on at this time is still climate modeling. It's obvious global climate is changing, and getting the best estimates of when and where is very important information to have in order to best utilize our resources.

So, I answered "no because we'll mess it up". But I see after writing out this whole thought process I was having, it appears I really think "yes but we need to think carefully before we act".

Haha! I changed my own mind...

[mhaze]

Given your oft-stated opinion of climate science in general and the fact that those promoting geoengineering represent a fringe (some would say pariah) element that the rest consider overconfident, I would genuinely love to witness a debate between one of the likes of you and one of the likes of them. At a safe distance. With popcorn. ;)

Although to be honest, a debate involving one of those lot invariably ends with "yes there are things we don't know, which is why we need to investigate it". A cynical person would just interpret that as "give me more funding". I personally think we're much better off funding the continuing development of the coupled climate models because these are ultimately what will be used to predict the regional and global effects of any geoengineering efforts.It would appear that my comment either went completely over your head, or you chose to ignore it.

The direction of my comment leads to completely opposite conclusions regarding funding, doesn't it?

[Spud1k]

It would appear that my comment either went completely over your head, or you chose to ignore it.

The direction of my comment leads to completely opposite conclusions regarding funding, doesn't it?

Chill out, I know what you were saying. The first bit was meant to be a joke. The second was just a stream of consciousness that wasn't really in response to anything you said.

To an extent, I actually agree with your post. Except your attitude towards climate science in general, but for the purposes of this thread I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

[mhaze]

Chill out, I know what you were saying. The first bit was meant to be a joke. The second was just a stream of consciousness that wasn't really in response to anything you said.

To an extent, I actually agree with your post. Except your attitude towards climate science in general, but for the purposes of this thread I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.Oh, I'm always chilled out. NonWarmers , easy to chill.

I'll make it a bit simpler.

The rabbit fence definitively proves...?

[Spud1k]

The rabbit fence definitively proves...?

...that land use changes can affect local and regional climate (there are other of other examples of this sort of thing). But how exactly this works and whether it is something we can exploit are two entirely different questions I don't think anyone has a decent answer to yet.

[mhaze]

...that land use changes can affect local and regional climate (there are other of other examples of this sort of thing). But how exactly this works and whether it is something we can exploit are two entirely different questions I don't think anyone has a decent answer to yet.You'r getting there. Now just extend that statement:

And so any geoengineering effort must be at the local and regional level, as this is where actual effects have an impact.

Note: Subtracting heat from the Sahara and adding heat to Canada would not change "global temperature" since the anomalies cancel.

[Spud1k]

You'r getting there. Now just extend that statement:

And so any geoengineering effort must be at the local and regional level, as this is where actual effects have an impact.

Note: Subtracting heat from the Sahara and adding heat to Canada would not change "global temperature" since the anomalies cancel.

Rather than moving heat around, most of the global geoengineering concepts involve changing the earth's albedo, which means a bigger fraction of the sun's energy gets reflected back up to space. This would cause a global drop in temperature. This is not just a theory in the case of injecting SO2 into the stratosphere; you get a short-term global dip in temperatures whenever you get a major volcanic eruption for precisely this reason. It's whether we can control whatever mechanism we use or whether we can predict its side-effects are the iffy bits.

Anyway, I'm not about to get mired in the technicalities because this isn't really what's under discussion here. If you want to talk about that, I'll see you on another thread.

[mhaze]

Rather than moving heat around, most of the global geoengineering concepts involve changing the earth's albedo, which means a bigger fraction of the sun's energy gets reflected back up to space. This would cause a global drop in temperature. This is not just a theory in the case of injecting SO2 into the stratosphere; you get a short-term global dip in temperatures whenever you get a major volcanic eruption for precisely this reason. It's whether we can control whatever mechanism we use or whether we can predict its side-effects are the iffy bits.

Anyway, I'm not about to get mired in the technicalities because this isn't really what's under discussion here. If you want to talk about that, I'll see you on another thread.Oh, I understood the drift from the onset, and noted in an earlier response:
The direction of my comment leads to completely opposite conclusions regarding funding, doesn't it?
But the embarrassing part of the global chiller microniche tunnel visionary fantasy construct is that it leads to no clear and demonstratable benefits for any given people or region.

Well, mine does.:)

[dahduh]

I said no because we'll mess it up. The thing is, no matter what you believe about global warming, no-one can deny that we're not really all that sure about it.

Granted; but the models are becoming more and more sophisticated daily. And some of the methods proposed are reasonably 'safe' in the sense that if something goes awry, they can just be turned off - quite unlike the rabbit fence analogy, in which your problem is bunnies breeding out of control.

For example, according to preliminary estimates (http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/921mt954r2m2750k/fulltext.html) we need spray only 150kg/s of seawater into the atmosphere in order to 'hold the fort' long enough to develop renewable resources. Preliminary estimates like these are invariably optimistic but it would be irresponsible not to investigate each feasible proposal seriously, no matter how cynical one may be about fund fishing.

[Spud1k]

Granted; but the models are becoming more and more sophisticated daily. And some of the methods proposed are reasonably 'safe' in the sense that if something goes awry, they can just be turned off - quite unlike the rabbit fence analogy, in which your problem is bunnies breeding out of control.

For example, according to preliminary estimates (http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/921mt954r2m2750k/fulltext.html) we need spray only 150kg/s of seawater into the atmosphere in order to 'hold the fort' long enough to develop renewable resources. Preliminary estimates like these are invariably optimistic but it would be irresponsible not to investigate each feasible proposal seriously, no matter how cynical one may be about fund fishing.

Regarding that particular proposal, something I find slightly alarming is that because of the localised nature of the forcing, the lastest and greatest models predict that it would have knock-on effects on ocean currents and rainfall patterns. The nightmare scenario would be if it created a permanent El Nino or something, which is why I think we need to be sure of the models before we get carried away with the feasibility.

[mhaze]

Granted; but the models are becoming more and more sophisticated daily. And some of the methods proposed are reasonably 'safe' in the sense that if something goes awry, they can just be turned off - quite unlike the rabbit fence analogy, in which your problem is bunnies breeding out of control

To clarify:

The fence was put in place for rabbits,etc.
Land use changes on one side.
Surprise result: Lots of clouds one side, none on the other.

[dahduh]

Regarding that particular proposal, something I find slightly alarming is that because of the localised nature of the forcing, the lastest and greatest models predict that it would have knock-on effects on ocean currents and rainfall patterns. The nightmare scenario would be if it created a permanent El Nino or something, which is why I think we need to be sure of the models before we get carried away with the feasibility.

Agreed. At least as alarming is the possibility of positive feedback from e.g. methane released from melting permafrost kicking the planet into a much warmer state, or snow melt from Greenland shutting down the North Atlantic conveyor and throwing Europe into a much cooler state.

In the end it is a balance of risks, and the best we can do is build the best models we can and pick the least-risk route. Given the seriousness of the possible consequences, all options should be on the table and we should balance the risks without ideological bias.