Climatologist Speaks On the Effects of Geoengineering 105
Lasrick writes: In this interview with Rutgers University climatologist Alan Robock, he discusses geoengineering and nuclear winter. Robock believes that geoengineering is not the solution to global warming because of its many risks and unknowns. He notes that some of the technology that would be required to implement geoengineering has not been developed and that many socio-political questions would have to be resolved before it could be put into practice. To start with, the world would have to reach agreement on a target temperature and on what entity should do the implementing. Robock's biggest fear with regard to geoengineering is that disputes over these questions could escalate into nuclear war which in turn could cause nuclear winter, producing global famine among other effects. Fascinating, wide-ranging interview with one of the world's top climatologists.
Never a good idea (Score:3, Insightful)
To paper over a deep problem with a shallow solution.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Ah, yes. Warmist nut jobs. I bet you are one of those people who gets offended when they get called a denier. I bet that you are also not qualified to know whether those claims of a climate change link to earthquakes are true or not.
But hey, don't let that stop you.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Never a good idea (Score:4, Insightful)
No. It's that geoengineering can be dangerous on a scale usually reserved for asteroid impacts and total thermonuclear war.
Done right? Sure, it could be beneficial.
Done wrong? And you could not only not fix the problems the project was designed to fix. But you could exacerbate them, or create entirely new problems. A Best Case Scenario for something like this is billions to quadrillions of dollars wasted and nothing happens.
What's being argued, right now, is that we don't have a sufficient grasp on the technology, or a suitably unified scientific/sociopolitical agenda.
Re: (Score:3)
What's being argued, right now, is that we don't have a sufficient grasp on the technology, or a suitably unified scientific/sociopolitical agenda.
We dont even have a sufficient grasp of what is happening, what the true root causes are and what percentage of impact each has, or to what degree the global ecosystem is able to offset the impacts. How the hell do you build a "solution" to a problem you cant even fully quantify?
... and that. And that outcome wasnt quite what we predicted. But we're exactly right t
Arent people getting tired of these egocentric asshats that he repeatedly tell us, "Well, yeah, we were wrong about that. And that, and that,
Re: (Score:2)
Tell you what I'm getting tired of, these assholes who come along and say "We don't think anything's wrong, so full speed ahead! Burn that coal, oil, and wood! We're all gonna be fine," no matter what the evidence actually tells us. It is considered ill-mannered, in my country, to kill your friends will committing suicide
Hey, you're preaching to the choir here. I'm not 100% sold, but I'm a big fan of "let's leave the planet better than we found it". If that means killing the burning of fossil fuels? Okay!
But simply doing "anything", or worse, badly coordinated "anything" is a recipe for disaster.
Re: (Score:2)
See, this is precisely why you have such resistance. For people like you it's not about a logical progression of technology, or a measured response to possible or even likely impacts, You behave as though you have the one single whole and true answer, and that anyone
Re: (Score:2)
So we should not remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere but we should cut down our carbon dioxide emission?
Where is the credibility? It seems like global warming alarmists are trying to force their solutions down people throat. What is the difference between them and systemd supporters? Nothing much really.
Please, before you go off on me as if I were some lazy denier, try taking the time to READ what I said.
I'm saying that the science behind a geoengineering project needs to be HEAVILY scrutinized, as Doing It Wrong could be EXTREMELY detrimental to life on this planet.
I'm also saying that there needs to be a certain unity of action from all nations on the planet. Having North America and western Europe "resolve" to do something means exactly jack-shit if South America, Central America, Africa, Eastern Europ
Re: (Score:1)
You mean how scientists don't fully understand the brain, but yet we have brain surgery right?
Re: (Score:3)
You mean how scientists don't fully understand the brain, but yet we have brain surgery right?
If a brain surgery fails, one person either has his life screwed-up, he gets killed, he becomes crippled, or nothing happens but at great expense to find out. Either way, it only affects one person.
If geoengineering fails, every human being in current existence has their lives screwed-up, get killed, becomes inhabitants of a crippled ecosystem, or nothing happens but at incredibly greater expense to find out. Either way, it affects everyone.
The greater the potential/actual impact, the greater the caution re
Re: (Score:1)
We're geo-engineering now, we're just not doing it with any controls. Mostly, we do it by modifying the chemical components of the atmosphere through mass dumping of various exhausts.
Re: (Score:1)
Ironically we do have one method that would combat climate change and that we can pretty much predict - have a medium scale global nuclear war. Climate change could easily be so bad that a nuclear war + nuclear winter that say kills 1.5 billion people could net save lives. Climate change and following effects are predicted to kill some 3 billion people. (maybe 1.5 to 5 billion)
The real question is whether climate change is going to happen and how bad it will be... By the time we know the answer there is one
Re:Never a good idea (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the IPCC models have been very good at predicting the changes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Facts do indeed trump propaganda. The facts are that, contrary to the initial claim, the IPCC models have been very good at predicting the changes we've seen.
If you want to talk about something else, start a new thread.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
soooooooo.... why are IPCC backpedaling on the certainty of their models in light of the 'pause'?
They aren't. There is no "pause".
Yes, the predictions cover a broad range; that doesn't negate the fact that the original comment is false. The predictions do match the outcomes.
Re: (Score:2)
"soooooooo...." (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The facts are that, contrary to the initial claim, the IPCC models have been very good at predicting the changes we've seen.
Your links show predictions with large error bars. So no, they aren't very good at predicting.
Re: (Score:2)
Have they been good at predicting things, or are the things predicted being 'adjusted' to better match the predictions?
"Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed âoeits hottest March since records began in 1880â. This year, according to âoeUS government scientistsâ, already bids to outrank 2014 as âoethe hottest everâ. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on whic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the latest UAH and RSS data sets (still in beta, so unofficial) show no warming for the last 18 years - something your link even acknowledges. (In 2009 he mentions "I have to say I find this all very puzzling.")
Re: (Score:2)
The catch with the whole idea is they are just forecasts based upon limited range of scientific theories and do not take into account everything that could happen. For example major steps could be taken to reduce solar inputs, only to be followed by a significant impact that throws a lot of dust into the atmosphere and now the opposite is the problem. A major solar flare could also cause significant environmental impact, that could again compound any active attempts at cooling the atmosphere.
The only sou
That escalated quickly (Score:3, Insightful)
While I see many challenges to geoengineering, talks breaking down into nuclear war is not one of them. I mean, I have challenging talks with my wife all the time about the budget, but I never think going into it that she's going to burn down the house in response to a dispute.
Re:That escalated quickly (Score:4, Funny)
Re:That escalated quickly (Score:5, Insightful)
The two of you hopefully agree that your interests are aligned, however.
What happens if the Russian plan for reducing temperature means a return of Dust Bowl conditions in the Great Plains of North America, and they start doing it unilaterally? You don't see how that could lead to a rapid escalation with Mr. "I'll nuke before I give Crimea back" Putin?
Re: (Score:2)
What happens if the Russian plan for reducing temperature means a return of Dust Bowl conditions in the Great Plains of North America
That is an unlikely scenario. Russia is one of the clear winners from global warming. They benefit from warmer winters and a longer growing season. They would have little reason to want to reduce temperatures. If there was a conflict, it would be more likely because they tried to block an international cooling effort.
Re: (Score:2)
I would agree that particular scenario is unlikely. I was just making the point that there may be a conflict between what is best on a local scale and what is best on a global scale, and there may even be severally equally flawed proposals which apportion the damage differently. The ones taking the brunt of the pain aren't going to be overly sympathetic, even if it needs doing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I would suggest to read about some terms, like winter and summer.
Also it would help to look on a map, to get an idea how Russia looks like.
Just because it is warmer, neither the summer is longer nor is the winter shorter.
Both seasons are more or less defined by the amount of light available. Or the length of the day.
Regarding latitude: russia has enough areas "south enough" to feed itself, if they had not done the same bullshit the americans did: exhausting the plains, having erosion, lack of water (Baikal
Re: (Score:2)
"Russia is one of the clear winners from global warming."
You really don't know that. Just because the average global temperature rises doesn't mean Russia will have sunny skies and stable weather patterns.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia is one of the clear winners from global warming
Except for things like the 2010 drought. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Your wife obviously isn't latina
Re: (Score:3)
I have challenging talks with my wife all the time about the budget, but I never think going into it that she's going to burn down the house in response to a dispute.
Wow. Your wife is a lot more emotionally stable than mine. What's your secret? I would love to be able to have a discussion without first hiding the gas can and matches.
Re: (Score:2)
I know you're joking, but in all seriousness its cultural. She shows me great respect and I'm loving towards her. As such, I admittedly don't experience the same levels of drama that my peers do. So my wife not going crazy was probably a bad example since that's not the norm everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Iceland, Greenland, Finland, Russia, and Canada all have MAJOR benefits from higher temperatures, while many smaller island countries will quite literally die at higher temperatures.
There are oil rights, trade routes,and flooding issues that mankind has a long history of straight out old school war over.
Also, it's not between husband and wives that like each other, but between people that don't get along well already.
Try thi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
...and then the country with less population, land mass, and wealth that's going to be completely flooded by what everyone else wants to do decides to stop the plans -- because they've got nuclear arms.
See, the thing is, they have nothing to lose, and no reason to play the voting game, which they know they will always lose. Sure, the entire country could move somewhere else -- but people tend to be resistant to that sort of idea unless it's backed with force.
This is why you see major dams flooding areas of
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose a few of those could eventually precipitate nuclear war and thus nuclear winter. But a) so could lots of things unrelated to climate change, and b) we have a pretty good solution for that too: fire up the coal plants and start feeding cows sauerkraut.
Re: (Score:2)
While I see many challenges to geoengineering, talks breaking down into nuclear war is not one of them. I mean, I have challenging talks with my wife all the time about the budget, but I never think going into it that she's going to burn down the house in response to a dispute.
Part of the reason that happens is you're both aware of the consequences of things getting out of hand.
This kind of speculation is a balance, talking about nuclear war too much is just fearmongering and people won't take you seriously.
On the other hand part of the reason it's probably not going to happen is people are aware of it. One of the reasons the West isn't taking a stronger response to Russia in Ukraine is the possibility that things will escalate and you'll end up in a war that could go nuclear.
The
Survival is not pleasant (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but you can't equate a nations survival against a different nation with an argument with your wife. Not even close to the same thing, and much more is at stake. Take his biggest example, what should Earth's surface temperature target? Any fixed rate will impact someone's growing seasons and food production. Somebody has to lose something, or perhaps it's best to term it "sacrifice" something. Does Asia lose rice production, or does Europe/North America lose grain production?
The article does not even tough the bigger issues. The particles that have been patented for use in GeoEngineering are hazardous. Perhaps there are other patents we don't know about, but the ones we do know about are primarily barium and aluminum. Neither humans or animals process large amounts of metals very well, and metals have a toxic effect over time because we can't process them out of our systems. Somebody has to take the blame when people start dropping, and war is probably going seen as the only option to fight off "those evil poisoner people".
Re:That escalated quickly (Score:4, Insightful)
Step 2: Break out the marshmallows.
Geo-engineering will be part of the solution (Score:5, Insightful)
When climatologists say geo-engineering is not the solution, they mean a political solution to drastically and immediately reduce CO2 emissions, is a better choice. Of course, that is NOT going to happen. So the choice is not between geo-engineering and some theoretical perfect solution, but between geo-engineering and doing almost nothing. I don't think we are to the point where we should roll out large scale geo-engineering, but we certainly should be doing the research so it is an option in the future. Currently it is politically incorrect to do even minimal research.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this. Obviously a political solution whose side effects are less pollution, lower energy costs, energy independence, and a whole new high-tech economy is a better solution, but there isn't even the political will for that. So we will need a plan B, and to have that plan B when we need it means starting the research now. Not having the technology and the ethics worked out ahead of time will mean delays responding to ecological crises, and a lot of human suffering will happen during those delays.
No, it won't (Score:5, Interesting)
Right winger before denial became untenable: you can't trust the models! Climate change is a hoax!
Right winger after denial became untenable: our models say geo-engineering is safe and will work! Trust us!
If you can't get the political will to do the simple safe thing, you won't get it to do the complex reckless thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When climatologists say geo-engineering is not the solution, they mean a political solution to drastically and immediately reduce CO2 emissions, is a better choice. Of course, that is NOT going to happen. So the choice is not between geo-engineering and some theoretical perfect solution, but between geo-engineering and doing almost nothing. I don't think we are to the point where we should roll out large scale geo-engineering, but we certainly should be doing the research so it is an option in the future. Currently it is politically incorrect to do even minimal research.
Good news, we already are.
The entirety of climate science and all the CMIP5 experiments for the IPCC ARE also geo-engineering research. We can't begin to talk about geo-engineering results until we know a lot better how the climate actually works. We've spent enormous time and effort trying to understand the impacts of CO2, and we still are trying to narrow down it's impacts and interactions. Heck, there still isn't a strong consensus on the SIGN for feedbacks of some water vapour processes like clouds. Yes
Re: (Score:3)
"Because it hasn't been tested and could have unpredictable consequences."
"So let's do some testing and improve our models of how it works."
"No way, we can't be doing research on geoengineering!" "Why not?"
"Because geoengineering is such a bad idea!" "Why?"
"Because it hasn't been tested and could have unpredictable consequences."
...
Also it seems to me it might be necessary (Score:2)
I guess it depends on who you believe, but there have been climate scientists that have said we are beyond the tipping point, that even if we reduce emissions warming will happen. Ok well if that's true, and if it is true that the warming will be a net harmful thing, then some kind of geo engineering would be necessary. You can't very well say "Reducing CO2 won't fix the problem, but let's do as much of that as we can and only do that and then cry about the problem!"
risk versus risk (Score:3)
Of course there are serious risks to engineering... to be traded off against the huge risks of the planetary science experiment ongoing since the dawn of agriculture and the industrial revolution, the risks of modifying that science experiment and waiting to see what happens, or of potentially fighting over the enforcement of planetary carbon, water, pollution, and etc. rights inferred by those modifications.
Siberia becoming a kickin' place (Score:2)
Plus, some nations want warming. [businessinsider.com]
Geo-engineering is intrinsically riskier (Score:5, Insightful)
My (likely) worst case scenario: an ice age in 100 years. That would be worse than global warming.
Re:Geo-engineering is intrinsically riskier (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish I had some mod points for you. This is exactly the issue. Our climate system is incredibly complex, and new complexities are always being added to climate models as we discover them. The geo-engineering solutions might look good in one dimension, but have virtually infinite potential forks that lead to unintended consequences. The real question is, Are we willing to try a geo-engineering solution that is certain to have unimaginable unintended consequences? Unfortunately, the answer is probably yes. There are many stories about various schemes that have been implemented and produced profound unintended consequences, so it is obvious that that won't stop folks from trying it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ha! That was the backstory of the watchable but still marginal "The Colony" -- an attempt to geoengineer climate goes haywire, inducing a planet wide ice age.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Geo-engineering is intrinsically riskier (Score:4, Insightful)
At least with carbon reduction we're attempting to reverse climate changes through a mechanism believed to trigger those changes. However, with new intervention mechanisms that aren't fully understood, I don't trust anybody's model of what they think will happen.
I'll buy that. But I think it's worth noting here that all of our choices are geoengineering choices, including emission reduction and doing nothing. I find it a dubious argument to heavily favor one approach and then rule out a whole category of other strategies on the basis that we don't know enough to implement them. That should be a warning that we don't know enough to implement any of them.
Also there's some low-lying geoengineering fruit such as albedo changes in urban environments in hot locations which is a considerable part of the world, reforestation, and putting out large coal bed fires.
Re: (Score:2)
Also there's some low-lying geoengineering fruit such as albedo changes in urban environments in hot locations which is a considerable part of the world, reforestation, and putting out large coal bed fires.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I personally would lump all three of those in with carbon reduction as "rolling back to more of the way things were", and therefore (a bit more) intrinsically safe than, say, dumping iron into the ocean.
Re: (Score:2)
Global warming isn't fully understood (Score:2)
Your complaint about geoengineering is that it's unpredictable. The problem with global warming is that it's unpredictable. We don't know precisely what will happen, only that we probably won't like it.
My (likely) worst case scenario: an ice age in 100 years. That would be worse than global warming.
We know how to emit stuff. We know how to burn stuff to stay warm. But the only way we know how to cool stuff is by generating heat.
We should be studying this now (Score:1)
We know climate change is real. We know that humans are causing it. We know it is going to cause bad things for us. (at least those of us who prefer logical thought over blind emotion know these things)
We don't know exactly how bad it is going to get nor do we know exactly how quickly it will get there. We don't know exactly how much we need to cut back on greenhouse emisions but all indications are that we need to cut back a lot and quickly.
In other words.. we don't know that it is even possible anymore t
Re: (Score:2)
"maybe we don't know everything there is to know about geoengineering"
That is the understatement of the year. More like, we know almost nothing about geo-engineering. The reason we know almost nothing is that we have only studied a few dozen accidental effects on the climate from human activities. We have these accidental effects, and we have computer models. While I concede that the computer models have gotten quite good lately, I certainly would not bet the planet's future on their ability to accurate
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I should have been shorter.
My suggestion is that when you are presented with two doors, behind one you know there is death, behind the other you have no f'ng idea. Only an idiot would chose the death one. Taking a chance is better than not having a chance!
Every study that comes out says that we need to cut unrealistic amounts of carbon and we need to do it yesterday. Meanwhile politicians only commit to mandates that aren't even as good as what realistically could be done and industry just continu
Chase the rabbit (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You've got that backwards: there can be no solution to global warming, as too many wealthy people have too much to lose from their industries, so fund the constant obfuscation.
I've seen multimillionaires threaten entire city councils over environmental action that doesn't suit them.
I didn't know ... (Score:2)
Because Robock is pulling the threat of nuclear war right out of his ass. Sadly, the nations most likely to suffer from geoengineering gone wrong, or failing to fix the climate 'problem' using geoengineering are too small and weak to threaten anyone with nukes. The few big players in the nuclear game are also big enough globally that, unless we have their cooperation, unilaterally trying to tweak the climate just won't work.
We can do what we want. But unless C
Lawsuits (Score:1)
The Ambulance Chasers would LOVE geo-engineering. Every possible weather event, from drought, to flood, to little Bobby's rained out birthday party would no be blamed on the geo-engineers and open the door to endless litigation.
Everything has consequences (Score:3)
The alternative solutions are:
1. Doing nothing.
2. Pretending to reduce CO2 emissions while not actually doing it because the instant anyone tries they suddenly realize they can't afford to do the thing they set out to do... so they just make it LOOK like they're doing it.
3. Geo engineering.
Choose any of the three.
I prefer 1 or 3 because 2 is just 1 with pretensions.
Re: (Score:1)
other solutions to doomsday:
4: Wait until some future tech solves the problem.
5: Determine that the problem really does not exist. (Y2K bug? Mayan Calendar?)
These two choices have actually worked throughout human history so far.
Re:Everything has consequences (Score:4, Interesting)
2. is the renewable option, which is worse than doing nothing as it has large ecological and economic impact for virtually no benefit.
3. may be necessary at some point for things like ocean acidification, but doesn't solve the fundamental energy problem.
However, limiting oneself to three unworkable options isn't productive, so let's introduce another:
4. the nuclear option; ie. doing something which actually works. The BRIC countries are already embracing this one.
I prefer 4, as it provides reliable carbon neutral energy with minimal environmental footprint. Density is key, in energy as well as other human endeavors. I refer people to An Ecomodernist Manifesto [ecomodernism.org] for the motivations. Those who truly value the environment and prosperity of humans should read that. The end goal is well within reach, but indulging in the "green" fantasy won't lead us there.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that most of the opposition to nuclear power is green lobby hysteria... I kind of feel like ignoring the green lobby and going nuclear anyway is basically option 1.
A large portion of the green lobby are the same people that were pushing Malthus's discredited theories. A collection of ideological Luddite zealots. And I have a hard time taking anything seriously that they're involved in... they're too crazy. Let them talk long enough and they'll start talking about mass sterilizations and stuff. It gets
Re: (Score:2)
... We've had droughts in Cali for generations and all the science says they have happened for time out of mind.
Defend your position immediately or be righteously labeled a twit.
You do realize ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You're full of shit. Heating up a bunch of rocky gravel (=anything that was covered by glaciers during the ice age) doesn't turn it into fertile soil, and the lack of sunlight is always going to limit the growing season in the far-northern latitudes to what it is now (just the summer months).
Geoengineering would hurt some people (Score:2)
Geoengineering would hurt some people. Global warming is good for some of us in the northern climates because it is giving us a longer growing season.
Note I'm not arguing about if it exists, but the reality is climate changed is a mixed bag that hurts some people and benefits other people depending on where you are. There are scientific papers about this. Thus any geoengineering to reverse climate change will also hurt some people and benefit others.
A better idea would be to focus on the real problems such
Good geoengineering must NOT be sustainable! (Score:2)
There's nothing wrong with testing geoengineering techniques so long as there is no possible runaway state. We might spread nutrients to seed blooms of alga and seaweed that will pull carbon from the air and, after incorporating it into their own growth, sink to abyssal depths and then stay out of circulation for long periods of time. Such a process would run only in the presence of the added nutrient.
And nothing requires geoengineering to occupy the whole planet. There are all sorts of local processes that
*headdesk* (Score:2)
Finally 1 semi-sane climatologist (Score:2)
... hopefully there are more somewhere out there to finally raise a public voice against the insanity that is geoengineering.
Disregarding the doubtful science/engineering for a moment, just the motivation behind geoengineering seems flawed. Seriously, we want to maintain some sort of agreed upon status quo of climate? What in the entire universe is unchanging? Nothing. So why should our climate somehow be exempt?
There is only one action required by people to 'engineer' the planet sanely: stop being was