It's unfortunate that you have not done your homework. It doesn't appear that Keith has either. There is already geoengineering happening all across the country - ruining our weather and poisoning the people, plants and animals. Lab tests in Maryland, California and Illinois show outrageous levels of sulfur and other chemicals poured into our atmosphere everyday. Check it out and PLEASE report this! http://zerogeoengineering.com/lab-tests/
24
3-4 degrees celsius is baked into the CO2 already released. The bullet has left the gun -- we are just waiting for it to hit us in the forehead.
11
Beware calcium carbonate, Keith's latest idea for saving the world. Calcium carbonate is marble. It contains molds and bacteria and silica (a carcinogen). Some deposits contain arsenic. The largest global producer of calcium carbonate is Omya, a privately-owned company, own by Max Andre and Eric Schachenmann, reported to be one of the wealthiest families in Switzerland. The company takes the purest whitest marble in the world and grinds it up into very fine particles that have become ubiquitous in our society as an industrial mineral filler in paint, paper, plastics, carpet backing, floor tile, ceiling tile, etc. The idea of adding it to the pollutants already degrading our air quality is not a solution.
10
Here's a much more practical "Geo-Ego-Engineering" solution.
1. Remember all of those billionaires who have promised to turn over their wealth to Bill and Melinda Gates?
2. The US is already a much more energy efficient country than we give ourselves credit for. But part of it is due to our outsourcing our polluting industries to China and elsewhere. On the plus side, this has freed us to devise and implement much more efficient and cleaner technologies here.
3. We need to develop a database of the energy needs (present and future) of the various nations/regions of the world, and the energy usage (past and present) of these same units. This will give us a picture of the trends we need to tackle in the release of CO2 and other pollutants.
Now, take all that money from item 1, and the knowhow from item 2 and the "clearly stated problem" in item 3. You have the resource, a clearly stated problem and a pretty good set of solutions in hand. Implement it and go home.
Of course, the devil is in the details. But my point is, when you have 80% of the answer right in front of you and you just need to dust out and fill in the remaining 20%, why are we going to totally unpredictable gambles like Geo-Engineering?
This planet is the only thing we have. If you are in a lifeboat in the freezing North Atlantic, you have my sympathies. But it is still a stupid idea to start burning the oars and life vests to warm yourself up for this evening and then see how it goes. Only boat we have.
1. Remember all of those billionaires who have promised to turn over their wealth to Bill and Melinda Gates?
2. The US is already a much more energy efficient country than we give ourselves credit for. But part of it is due to our outsourcing our polluting industries to China and elsewhere. On the plus side, this has freed us to devise and implement much more efficient and cleaner technologies here.
3. We need to develop a database of the energy needs (present and future) of the various nations/regions of the world, and the energy usage (past and present) of these same units. This will give us a picture of the trends we need to tackle in the release of CO2 and other pollutants.
Now, take all that money from item 1, and the knowhow from item 2 and the "clearly stated problem" in item 3. You have the resource, a clearly stated problem and a pretty good set of solutions in hand. Implement it and go home.
Of course, the devil is in the details. But my point is, when you have 80% of the answer right in front of you and you just need to dust out and fill in the remaining 20%, why are we going to totally unpredictable gambles like Geo-Engineering?
This planet is the only thing we have. If you are in a lifeboat in the freezing North Atlantic, you have my sympathies. But it is still a stupid idea to start burning the oars and life vests to warm yourself up for this evening and then see how it goes. Only boat we have.
5
With environmental costs priced in, it's already cheaper to generate power with renewables. In many places it's cheaper even if environmental costs are ignored. Why contemplate an unproven, massively dangerous approach that masks rising risks rather than reduces them?
6
"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."
5
Living in the Pacific Northwest, the last thing we need is for less sunlight. Our gardens need ever last ray of sun we can get. On many summer days, the amount of sunlight we get now is already greatly diminished by the clouds created by jets flying overhead leaving contrails, which gradually spread, and a cobalt blue, tomato-ripening, August morning sky by afternoon is a pale overcast one. The answer is not more geoengineering. The answer is to stop the geoengineering we are doing now by pumping so much CO2 and methane into the atmosphere.
8
Those aren't 'contrails', which refers to condensation from normal airplanes that don't linger to cover the sky. Those are chemtrails from geoengineering, already going on as you note. They're spraying toxic metals--including tons of aluminum, barium, and strontium that are already having devastating effects on life on this planet. This full length video is an eye opener: https://youtu.be/jf0khstYDLA. Also see geoengineeringwatch.org.
6
Great piece. Yes, the key queasy factor with geo-engineering -- not to mention "rewilding," "de-extinction" and CRISPR -- is intentionality, as pointed out in this story.
It was way easier to be a globally potent species before we realized that was the case. The challenge in the Anthropocene is taking ownership. I published a deeper discussion of this on Dot Earth last year that's worth a look, perhaps: Can Humans Go From Unintended Global Warming to Climate By Design? https://nyti.ms/2mKbQPH And much more on the core Anthropocene question is here: http://j.mp/revkinanthropocene
It was way easier to be a globally potent species before we realized that was the case. The challenge in the Anthropocene is taking ownership. I published a deeper discussion of this on Dot Earth last year that's worth a look, perhaps: Can Humans Go From Unintended Global Warming to Climate By Design? https://nyti.ms/2mKbQPH And much more on the core Anthropocene question is here: http://j.mp/revkinanthropocene
3
Gross. Misguided.
10
Furthermore, the article exposes some very unhealthy psychological issues. Are any of these experts planning on consulting the rest of the human race? Because the whole idea seems extremely narcissistic and obsessive to me (like a gambler who just can't stop). These people are living in a bubble of their own making and denying the simple truth about science; most of today's results will be over-turned/modified by future generations of scientists.
5
We humans have made a real mess out of this planet. And it seems that the more technology we acquire the bigger the mess we make using it.
5
I hope that there is a critical literature in which this and similar geoengineering proposals are examined taking into consideration each and every question raised in the excellent comments filed the first day this article appeared.
I see that Alan Roboc has "compiled a list of possible dangers" but I think an article as long as this one should give us references to the critics - literature that is.
I filed my comment days after this first appeared and this one is yet another day later so probably will go unread.
But until the specifically American (USA) energy community can explain more seriously why the approaches in the Nordic countries are so widely ignored by that community and therefore by the Times, then I think fixation on geoengineering is a serious problem.
In other words, from what I know about C emission in Sweden, Sweden and other Nordic countries do far better and never in the world consider geoengineering.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen-US SE
I see that Alan Roboc has "compiled a list of possible dangers" but I think an article as long as this one should give us references to the critics - literature that is.
I filed my comment days after this first appeared and this one is yet another day later so probably will go unread.
But until the specifically American (USA) energy community can explain more seriously why the approaches in the Nordic countries are so widely ignored by that community and therefore by the Times, then I think fixation on geoengineering is a serious problem.
In other words, from what I know about C emission in Sweden, Sweden and other Nordic countries do far better and never in the world consider geoengineering.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen-US SE
6
The global ecosystem is extremely complicated and we don't fully understand it. Reducing CO2 emissions by using clean energy technology would move us towards a previous, known system state of the global ecosystem. Geoengineering like solar radiation management may take us to a new, unknown system state of the global ecosystem.
7
I thought long ago about changing the composition of the fuel of jet engines for high flying jets in order to put sulphate particles up in the atmosphere to enhance sunlight reflection and cause global cooling (what large volcanic eruptions also do), and then I read somewhere that someone else had already come up with the same idea.
If someone would find a therapy for cancer, then the face of nuclear power would lose some of its ugliness -- just as unfortunately the face of nuclear war would lose it.
The greatest problem on Earth is how we get our leaders. The alpha-males that rule us seem much more primitive than the populations, which however are easily deceived. But how to change this?
If someone would find a therapy for cancer, then the face of nuclear power would lose some of its ugliness -- just as unfortunately the face of nuclear war would lose it.
The greatest problem on Earth is how we get our leaders. The alpha-males that rule us seem much more primitive than the populations, which however are easily deceived. But how to change this?
3
No, no no, please god and donald trump, NO!!!! Please don't tinker with the world again - how many examples do you need to understand the law of unintended consequences - oh dear!! Rabbits in Australia, Kudzu, the weed that ate the South, sparrows, toads, the list goes on and on and on - please don't forget the joke that is the Army Cors of Engineers building the Hoover dam and not figuring out that silting might occur..NO no no, for once can we just restrain ourselves, and do less, burn less, just be more like wind and air..
8
Not only it's not ok but it's also most insane and psychopathic idea one could possibly come up with!!!
For anyone who not yet aware, Geoengineering via areal spraying of toxic stratospheric aerosols have been going on for over 15 years now with last 5 years running at full capacity. Look at the health side effects it delivers. None stop spraying of Aerosols composed of nano sized Aluminium, barium, strontium, lithium, mercury rich coal fly ash triggered pandemic of Dementia , Alzheimer's , degenerative disease, myriad of neurological and upper respiratory disorders, cancer worldwide. Surely releasing huge amounts of heavy metals nano particles into upper atmosphere wouldn't go unnoticed. To Truly understand the scale of damage that this method already delivered to human health and our ecosystem you would have to do your own research and not rely on mainstream media disinformation. There few websites where you could find most up to date info about effects of geoengineering and how to keep your health in check, two of most knowledge filled web sites are http://globalskywatch.com and http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org
Go and enlighten yourselfs.
For anyone who not yet aware, Geoengineering via areal spraying of toxic stratospheric aerosols have been going on for over 15 years now with last 5 years running at full capacity. Look at the health side effects it delivers. None stop spraying of Aerosols composed of nano sized Aluminium, barium, strontium, lithium, mercury rich coal fly ash triggered pandemic of Dementia , Alzheimer's , degenerative disease, myriad of neurological and upper respiratory disorders, cancer worldwide. Surely releasing huge amounts of heavy metals nano particles into upper atmosphere wouldn't go unnoticed. To Truly understand the scale of damage that this method already delivered to human health and our ecosystem you would have to do your own research and not rely on mainstream media disinformation. There few websites where you could find most up to date info about effects of geoengineering and how to keep your health in check, two of most knowledge filled web sites are http://globalskywatch.com and http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org
Go and enlighten yourselfs.
7
For those well educated and not so well educated.
Let me remind you the timeline of weather modification propaganda.
During the 1970s the media promoted global cooling alarmism with dire threats of a new ice age. Extreme weather events were hyped as signs of the coming apocalypse and man-made pollution was blamed as the cause. Environmental extremists called for everything from outlawing the internal combustion engine to communist style population controls.
Now ... from around 1980 mainstream media all over sudden changed to narrative of global warming and for the past 30 years it was banging about it none stop.
So last couple of years mainstream media skipped from global warming to Climate change and here we are fixing something that was never there with this insane idea.
The fact is Climate never stays the same .... it always changes and it always will. With help of few sell out scientists who knowingly and deliberately tempered with temperature data of the planet humanity was duped into believing that somehow its our fault that the climate is changing and we have to do something about it. Brilliant let's fight it with pumping millions of metric tons of toxic stratospheric aerosols. Absolutely amazing idea from our psychopathic scientist community. Humanity at its best. Curtains.
Something doesn't add up. Who could possibly benefit from it.
Let me remind you the timeline of weather modification propaganda.
During the 1970s the media promoted global cooling alarmism with dire threats of a new ice age. Extreme weather events were hyped as signs of the coming apocalypse and man-made pollution was blamed as the cause. Environmental extremists called for everything from outlawing the internal combustion engine to communist style population controls.
Now ... from around 1980 mainstream media all over sudden changed to narrative of global warming and for the past 30 years it was banging about it none stop.
So last couple of years mainstream media skipped from global warming to Climate change and here we are fixing something that was never there with this insane idea.
The fact is Climate never stays the same .... it always changes and it always will. With help of few sell out scientists who knowingly and deliberately tempered with temperature data of the planet humanity was duped into believing that somehow its our fault that the climate is changing and we have to do something about it. Brilliant let's fight it with pumping millions of metric tons of toxic stratospheric aerosols. Absolutely amazing idea from our psychopathic scientist community. Humanity at its best. Curtains.
Something doesn't add up. Who could possibly benefit from it.
2
The key sentence in the article: "Keith is not trained as an atmospheric scientist."
8
Geoengineering, overpopulation, the monetary system, and massive unemployment should all be considered at the same time by all governments of the entire world.
And then we also have minor bumps on the road such as North Korea.
As Bill Gates used to say: bandwidth!!!
And then we also have minor bumps on the road such as North Korea.
As Bill Gates used to say: bandwidth!!!
2
God help us all.
3
A volcano in Pompeii did just that. And we know what happened. And long before Pompeii, another particulate killed off the dinosaurs. Don't mess with mother nature. Learn to live with her as she goes through a natural change that keeps it balanced and in check. Or inhabit the moon.
2
Yep, civil engineered the dams; and geoengineered the salmon's limited salvation with fish hatcheries.
Yep, nuclear engineered the bombs, the waste; and geoengineered an "infallible" system of transport and storage.
Yep, ag engineered the frankincorn, the hormonemilk, the antibioticchicken; and geoengineered the lobby to produce the "it's not only safe, but it's good for you" research.
Yep, mining engineered the respiratory disease, the acid rain; and geoengineered these lands back to flattened mountains, contained slurries, and tar sands pits.
But wait, ooh ooh, here's a revelation, we can also geoengineer a politically acceptable solution for mankind's greenhouse gases, using some new power of science, problem will be solved!
Or .. To these "What else can rescue us" articles (well-intended, I'm sure), I say that we must always attach a neon sign solidifying our resolve that "We cannot give-up nor give-in to a vague solution on the horizon".
Keep focusing on the fact that mankind is facing challenges that already require the courage to curb our appetite and the collective willpower to learn to live with restricted activities.
Yep, nuclear engineered the bombs, the waste; and geoengineered an "infallible" system of transport and storage.
Yep, ag engineered the frankincorn, the hormonemilk, the antibioticchicken; and geoengineered the lobby to produce the "it's not only safe, but it's good for you" research.
Yep, mining engineered the respiratory disease, the acid rain; and geoengineered these lands back to flattened mountains, contained slurries, and tar sands pits.
But wait, ooh ooh, here's a revelation, we can also geoengineer a politically acceptable solution for mankind's greenhouse gases, using some new power of science, problem will be solved!
Or .. To these "What else can rescue us" articles (well-intended, I'm sure), I say that we must always attach a neon sign solidifying our resolve that "We cannot give-up nor give-in to a vague solution on the horizon".
Keep focusing on the fact that mankind is facing challenges that already require the courage to curb our appetite and the collective willpower to learn to live with restricted activities.
6
We need to put our trust in science and the scientists. Knowledge and facts are paramount to the longevity of the human race. Beware of those that claim God and religion will save this planet and its inhabitants. The end of times will be on us only if we continue to abuse and disrespect this planet that we inhabit.
Facts over faith and myths will prove the right way to proceed. Our continued existence depends on it.
Facts over faith and myths will prove the right way to proceed. Our continued existence depends on it.
It comes down to this: There are just too darned many of us. We need to lose three or four billion people living off of this planet. It won't happen voluntarily and so there are only three ways it can otherwise happen and that is by war, pestilence or starvation, singly or in combination.
We haven't learned to work together as a planetary species in all of human history and there doesn't seem to be any indication we can.
Paul Erlich talked and wrote about the population crisis 50 years ago and we all laughed at him. Nothing new there!
We haven't learned to work together as a planetary species in all of human history and there doesn't seem to be any indication we can.
Paul Erlich talked and wrote about the population crisis 50 years ago and we all laughed at him. Nothing new there!
5
Not to worry. It increasingly looks like two lunatics are increasingly moving towards the ultimate in geoengineering - nuclear winter
2
This sounds too much like what the Humans tried in the Matrix series to defeat the machines
1
Why do humans continue to think that they are in charge of the earth’s life cycle? Are we not incredibly egocentric because we want to manipulate the planet to our own advantage? The cycle of evolution will continue to go on no matter how much we try to affect it. We are simply trying to preserve ourselves…not the earth. The earth is making its own genetic changes and responses to the stimulus of plants, animals, the sun and it’s inner core. We are only one factor in the animal world. Much as we would like to think it, we cannot control what happens in and around our planet. While I am just as concerned about my children and children’s children future, I would be very careful about messing around with a basic component of life. Apart from its potential success or not, there will be unintended consequences that cannot be foreseen. It is a moral question that I hope the climate scientists will very cautiously consider.
2
These moral concerns are all well and good as thought experiments in academia, but the day is not far when such techniques might be the the action of choice for tropical countries to preserve any chance for them to continue to fight poverty.
Countries in temperate zone started fueling their industrial revolution by burning fossil fuels that cause global warming which, on balance, benefits many temperate countries (Russia, Canada and Northern Europe) and leaves many others minimally affected (USA, Japan, China) while hurting tropical countries (India, sub-saharan Africa, middle-east). European temperate countries also used the technological advances of of industrialization to expand out of Europe and colonize all the desirable temperate lands in the outer continents of Americas, Africa and the Russian far east. Tropical countries belatedly joined the industrialization bandwagon, but the carbon budget to keep the tropical climate manageable has already been used up, all desirable lands have already been colonized and walled off to immigration, and even Antarctica has been banned from colonization.
If humans don't find a way to expand and settle other planets, is geoengineering not an attractive choice for a poor tropical country seeking economic development without runaway warming?
Countries in temperate zone started fueling their industrial revolution by burning fossil fuels that cause global warming which, on balance, benefits many temperate countries (Russia, Canada and Northern Europe) and leaves many others minimally affected (USA, Japan, China) while hurting tropical countries (India, sub-saharan Africa, middle-east). European temperate countries also used the technological advances of of industrialization to expand out of Europe and colonize all the desirable temperate lands in the outer continents of Americas, Africa and the Russian far east. Tropical countries belatedly joined the industrialization bandwagon, but the carbon budget to keep the tropical climate manageable has already been used up, all desirable lands have already been colonized and walled off to immigration, and even Antarctica has been banned from colonization.
If humans don't find a way to expand and settle other planets, is geoengineering not an attractive choice for a poor tropical country seeking economic development without runaway warming?
The old adage "You break it - you buy it" applies to geoengineering to a huge extent. With large scale projects like this there will be unintended effects that harm people more than anticipated.
If our recent history of trying to influence complicated systems is of any use (think healthcare reform, tax reform, international trade deals) we will not be able to set up sufficiently robust risk mitigation to deal with all the unplanned side effects.
As a result while most people will see a small benefit, some people will see a huge loss and those people will freeze the project in its tracks.
We need to get a heck of a lot better at planning and managing changes to interconnected systems before we try external fixes to the climate.
If our recent history of trying to influence complicated systems is of any use (think healthcare reform, tax reform, international trade deals) we will not be able to set up sufficiently robust risk mitigation to deal with all the unplanned side effects.
As a result while most people will see a small benefit, some people will see a huge loss and those people will freeze the project in its tracks.
We need to get a heck of a lot better at planning and managing changes to interconnected systems before we try external fixes to the climate.
3
In 1969, one of the first objections to the supersonic transport was that adding particles in the stratosphere would trigger the next ice age. This was before the chemical effects of nitrogen oxides were considered. As an IPCC reviewer, I can say that global warming is real and might make us skip the next ice age. However, we still do not understand this mechanism and my opinion is that tinkering before we can validate a forecast for the next 100 to 1000 years would be foolish. This does not prevent us to follow all parameters as this cooling dust could be natural (as the Pinatubo volcano of 1992) or could come from a revival of supersonic transport.
1
Humans are already doing a "particle geoengineering" experiment. It involves black particles and white particles, accumulating in the stratosphere, and the source is rocket launches. Rocket engines emit particles like soot and alumina throughout the atmosphere; indeed all the way into orbit. The physics of rocket exhaust particles is the same as for the proposed geoengineering particles and the rocket business is poised for rapid, perhaps very rapid, growth in coming years. Rocket particles will accumulate in the stratosphere, doing their own solar radiation management, at an increasing pace, with Mars bound "super" boosters on the horizon. Rocket exhaust is geoengineering. The idea cannot be made more simple. It seems reasonable to suggest that the rocket geoengineering experiment should be well understood before taking on another one.
Promoting geoengineering is like telling a patient with heart disease that he has two choices: either he can radically change his diet, in which case he may even reverse his heart disease and live out his normal lifespan; the other is to take a variety of drugs, but the side effects are unpredictable, and his longevity may or may not improve.
The healthy choice is obvious; but unfortunately we're addicted to the Standard American Diet in the same way we're addicted to fossil fuels.
We'd rather gamble on techno-medicine over switching the fuel that powers our planet, or ourselves, because that's what addicts do.
The healthy choice is obvious; but unfortunately we're addicted to the Standard American Diet in the same way we're addicted to fossil fuels.
We'd rather gamble on techno-medicine over switching the fuel that powers our planet, or ourselves, because that's what addicts do.
4
Aside of the "lock-in" effect and unintended consequences; what organizational entity would oversee and authorize such actions.
The dichotomy of global forces of technology and increased social tribalism makes this seem an illusion.
Nation states, democratic or autocratic, will not be able to deal with this problem. Just look at the Paris accord, albeit good it is far too little too late to save the current Homo sapiens population.
Homo sapiens will emerge somehow but socially completely differently organized than we can imagine at the moment.
The dichotomy of global forces of technology and increased social tribalism makes this seem an illusion.
Nation states, democratic or autocratic, will not be able to deal with this problem. Just look at the Paris accord, albeit good it is far too little too late to save the current Homo sapiens population.
Homo sapiens will emerge somehow but socially completely differently organized than we can imagine at the moment.
1
The CO2 increase has already provided a major benefit in providing about 20-30% of the increase in food production over the last decade. More than 50% of the planet has greened compared to <5% that has browned. Many economists agree that the next 1 degree or so of warming will be a net benefit. Since it will take a century to achieve another degree of warming, there is time to consider geoengineering very carefully before it will be needed in the 22nd century.
2
I realize that I am coming to the debate late, but do we have a choice? The US is about to rollback environmental laws, China, India an others are coal fueled economies, and it appears that we are moving from the slow growth part of the temperature curve to exponential progression. We are going to blow by the 2 deg. C raise in global mean temperature. We will be lucky if we can cap it at 4. That will have catastrophic effects.
We are going to have to look at many different technologies, aerosol, iron seeding in the ocean, carbon sequestration, maybe even something as radical as reforestation to lock up carbon. We will have to do this knowing that we do not understand and cannot predict all of the consequences of our actions. The problem is, we are out of time and do not have the option of being slow and methodical.
We are going to have to look at many different technologies, aerosol, iron seeding in the ocean, carbon sequestration, maybe even something as radical as reforestation to lock up carbon. We will have to do this knowing that we do not understand and cannot predict all of the consequences of our actions. The problem is, we are out of time and do not have the option of being slow and methodical.
2
We can - and must - point the fingers at corporate self-interest, at political corruption (aka 'Lobbying') - but we must point the finger at ourselves:
If we feed the spiral of endless production, waste, and the capitalist mantra of 'growth' the corporations will continue to churn out wares, depleting resources and polluting as they go along.
Can each of you pledge to cut your consumption? To wear your clothes until they break, to eat all foods in your fridge, to use your gadgets until they break, to turn off all unnecessary energy sources, to use bikes + public transport where possible, to limit meat consumption to 1 x a week (if you can't go vegetarian/vegan)
to turn you thermostat up by 5' in summer, and down by 5' in winter?
All these measures only require awareness, no investment, no new tech.
Of course the new technology is also needed - from solar panels to electric cars. But many of us stop at doing a little recycling + wait for government + corporations to change.
WHY DON'T WE START WITH OURSELVES and follow a principle of L.E.S.S. (Less of Everything. Esthetics of Sharing + Sustainability)
If we feed the spiral of endless production, waste, and the capitalist mantra of 'growth' the corporations will continue to churn out wares, depleting resources and polluting as they go along.
Can each of you pledge to cut your consumption? To wear your clothes until they break, to eat all foods in your fridge, to use your gadgets until they break, to turn off all unnecessary energy sources, to use bikes + public transport where possible, to limit meat consumption to 1 x a week (if you can't go vegetarian/vegan)
to turn you thermostat up by 5' in summer, and down by 5' in winter?
All these measures only require awareness, no investment, no new tech.
Of course the new technology is also needed - from solar panels to electric cars. But many of us stop at doing a little recycling + wait for government + corporations to change.
WHY DON'T WE START WITH OURSELVES and follow a principle of L.E.S.S. (Less of Everything. Esthetics of Sharing + Sustainability)
2
Climate Engineering does not address the root cause, it only addresses the patient's symptom... a rising fever. However, as any nurse knows, the fever can kill the patient long before the disease can be cured. We have waited too long and have shown no political will to address the root cause of global warming, so our only alternative is to treat the symptoms until we can stop and reverse the levels of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere. The planet will solve this problem in a few 10,000's of years. Human beings will be threatened by disruption to agricultural systems and food supplies long before. Climate engineering through atmospheric aerosols is the only quick way to address hundreds of years of climate engineering through greenhouse gas emissions.
Unbelievable. A lengthy article on climate change and the possibility that novel and untested geoengineering solutions can buy us time. But not a word about the quadrupling of the planet's poorest 3rd world countries and the disappearing rainforests which act as a carbon sink. Besides consumption of fossil fuels, other commenters have mentioned meat eating as a large factor. Surely one or two paragraphs could have addressed this. Does anyone realistically think we're going to attempt unproven radical solutions like spraying the atmosphere with particulates, which might be even more irreversible than rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere, while the planet surges from 7 billion plus to UN estimates of 11 billion at the end of this century?
Pogo was right. "We have met the enemy, and he is us." Too bad so much innocent flora and fauna will suffer, while our leaders stumble around in the dark as though they don't have children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, . . . to contemplate.
Pogo was right. "We have met the enemy, and he is us." Too bad so much innocent flora and fauna will suffer, while our leaders stumble around in the dark as though they don't have children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, . . . to contemplate.
5
"Fairly cheap from a cost-benefit perspective" is a horrible thing to read in an article talking about a global weather hack. It implies we can buy time cheaply, the way asbestos was a cheap fire retardant, coal without scrubbers was a cheap abundant fuel, and all the "cost" side of the equation was conveniently brushed aside.
Picture Earth. There's been enough sulfur dioxide produced by regular flights to cool the planet for two years, even if further flights stop. Nobody told the volcanoes, and a large one erupts, cooling the planet even more for two or three years, while the engineers realize they can't un-spray their emissions.
We've seen what large volcanic eruptions can do to global harvests for a year or two, and here we discuss giving them a boost?
The worst part is that the people who claim we don't know enough about climate will be precisely the people to get behind this "fairly cheap" panacea. Think about that - "We don't know enough about climate to say we're warming it, but since people seem worried, let's use this cheap way to cool it."
I'm not comforted. Attempting to cool the planet while continuing to disrupt ocean chemistry, by spraying what becomes a toxic compound into the air, doesn't sound like what should be even the tenth option for geoengineering. Steven Chu pointed out the cooling benefits if we simply painted our pavements white - why not start there?
Picture Earth. There's been enough sulfur dioxide produced by regular flights to cool the planet for two years, even if further flights stop. Nobody told the volcanoes, and a large one erupts, cooling the planet even more for two or three years, while the engineers realize they can't un-spray their emissions.
We've seen what large volcanic eruptions can do to global harvests for a year or two, and here we discuss giving them a boost?
The worst part is that the people who claim we don't know enough about climate will be precisely the people to get behind this "fairly cheap" panacea. Think about that - "We don't know enough about climate to say we're warming it, but since people seem worried, let's use this cheap way to cool it."
I'm not comforted. Attempting to cool the planet while continuing to disrupt ocean chemistry, by spraying what becomes a toxic compound into the air, doesn't sound like what should be even the tenth option for geoengineering. Steven Chu pointed out the cooling benefits if we simply painted our pavements white - why not start there?
4
News flash, humans have been tinker the with environment since we started hunting mega fauna and burning grasslands. Our land use practices, especially farming, cities and flood control have materially influenced out environment.. We have little choice but to try to halt global warming through active means.
But, our efforts need not be high tech. Just modifying our farming practices by using cover crops and inter-cropping to prevent soil erosion, oxidation and sequester carbon could reduce warming and reduce atmospheric carbon. Restoring our crop land to to just three and a half percent (3 ½ %) would sequester 27.28 billion tons of carbon, slightly less than fifteen years of US CO2 fossil fuel emissions. Likewise, a cow can sequester 3 tons of carbon per year with intensive managed grazing Even if only half of the 84.9 million cattle were managed to maximize carbon capture, they would sequester 127.35 million tons of carbon about 2% of our total annual emissions. .
But, our efforts need not be high tech. Just modifying our farming practices by using cover crops and inter-cropping to prevent soil erosion, oxidation and sequester carbon could reduce warming and reduce atmospheric carbon. Restoring our crop land to to just three and a half percent (3 ½ %) would sequester 27.28 billion tons of carbon, slightly less than fifteen years of US CO2 fossil fuel emissions. Likewise, a cow can sequester 3 tons of carbon per year with intensive managed grazing Even if only half of the 84.9 million cattle were managed to maximize carbon capture, they would sequester 127.35 million tons of carbon about 2% of our total annual emissions. .
1
Well done article. As we wade into the swamp of geoengineering, we should consider the well-thought-out "earth system engineering" principles proposed by Brad Allenby in 1999 (see: "Earth Systems Engineering...", Journal of Industrial Ecology, at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.901.6408&re... which urge caution in a "do no harm" type fashion but recognize that, as Dr. Keith does, we are likely better off exploring all the options even if to disprove their viability (as all the money going into carbon sequestrations seems to be doing - proving that it won't work very well). Keith is walking a fine line but if you read his works, he believe climate change is very dangerous and humans should be doing everything possible to avoid it before using any geoengineering solutions. In this sense, he's a hero of the type who says "let's settle this peacefully" but can provide the violent solution to wipe out the bad guys if necessary. Like US foreign policy is supposed to be - except that US foreign policy is becoming random, and that's precisely what could happen to geoengineering solutions as well - desperate people will do desperate things.
I know some particulates that would be put to best use, by floating about in the atmosphere. I'll give you the list, of their names.
1
Most of the comments are anti-geoengineering for many good reasons. A few think geoengineering is a good idea, because ...what do we have to loose? In the end it will be the people who see a chance to gain a lot and make money on our fears who will end up making the decision for us. The same ones who got us into this mess in the first place.
Use space-based "mirrors" to bounce light photons back out into space.
This would not be particularly expensive, because Mylar or some other highly-reflective fabric can deflect just as much light back out into space as a huge mirror. A large, smooth, carefully-aligned mirror is only needed if one wishes to aim the reflected light onto a certain target, like a modern telescope is designed to do.
But here, the goal is merely to reflect light away from earth, in any direction. Lightweight, low-tech frames with vast sheets of reflective Mylar (etc.) would constitute reflective "islands" that repel the sun's light photons before they have a chance to enter our atmosphere. These islands would be assembled quickly in space, obit without guidance or propulsion systems, and theoretically last "forever." Instead of geosynchronous orbits, they would circle the earth once every 24 hours, so they always remain directly between the earth and the sun.
The plan to "dope" the atmosphere is risky, like introducing a new species into an alien ecosystem, and its costs are neverending -- say, a billion dollars a year, in perpetuity.
This would not be particularly expensive, because Mylar or some other highly-reflective fabric can deflect just as much light back out into space as a huge mirror. A large, smooth, carefully-aligned mirror is only needed if one wishes to aim the reflected light onto a certain target, like a modern telescope is designed to do.
But here, the goal is merely to reflect light away from earth, in any direction. Lightweight, low-tech frames with vast sheets of reflective Mylar (etc.) would constitute reflective "islands" that repel the sun's light photons before they have a chance to enter our atmosphere. These islands would be assembled quickly in space, obit without guidance or propulsion systems, and theoretically last "forever." Instead of geosynchronous orbits, they would circle the earth once every 24 hours, so they always remain directly between the earth and the sun.
The plan to "dope" the atmosphere is risky, like introducing a new species into an alien ecosystem, and its costs are neverending -- say, a billion dollars a year, in perpetuity.
3
I completely support Prof David Keith and his team's work. We need to explore all options, including SRM. Those that opposed SRM are buying their heads in the sand. Present NDCs under the Paris Agreement are not enough. And there are no guarantees Parties will meet their NDCs by 2030. And we have been down this road before (UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol voluntary commitments). We have nothing to lose.
Climate change is a classic "wicked problem". Homo Saps do not understand the complexities of global climate, the attempt to provide a technological fix to technological problems in a complex system is likely to produce yet more problems. There are certain to be unintended consequences.
2
Mankind has been spewing billions of tons of toxic waste, CO², radioactive materials into the atmosphere for centuries, and we are debating whether spraying some aerosols into the air is morally defensible? This is utterly ridiculous.
Even if it is a really bad idea and somehow turns out to be very damaging, the impact of one such experiment will be absolutely miniscule compared to what humanity is doing every single day, and we will have learned something valuable from it. So by all means, this research should continue!
Even if it is a really bad idea and somehow turns out to be very damaging, the impact of one such experiment will be absolutely miniscule compared to what humanity is doing every single day, and we will have learned something valuable from it. So by all means, this research should continue!
The human race has backed themselves into a corner with our years of fouling its own nest, the earth that we all depend on for our very existence.
We really have no choice but to invent and discover cures and remedies and stop-gap measures and solutions to try to continue and sustain our survival on this planet that we have so egregiously abused.
Let us hope that the discoveries made are enough and in time, and that they don't simply speed up the destruction that we started.
We have no choice but to try.
We really have no choice but to invent and discover cures and remedies and stop-gap measures and solutions to try to continue and sustain our survival on this planet that we have so egregiously abused.
Let us hope that the discoveries made are enough and in time, and that they don't simply speed up the destruction that we started.
We have no choice but to try.
It's almost laughable. In any case, before global warming, we need to address the fact that phytoplankton is now ingesting PCB-laced marine microplastic and is in a 40% decline. Phytoplankton sequesters the CO2 and converts it into most of the air we breathe and is the beginning of the food chain. We are facing a triple armageddon, one toxic, one hypoxic, and one warming, in that order.
1
1. We need to stop emitting greenhouse gases
2. We also need to pull the CO2 back out of the atmosphere permanently.
3. These efforts will take 50-100+ years to accomplish.
4. We will need a way to stabilize the temperature of the planet in the meantime to avoid a run-away greenhouse effect.
Humans are nothing if not geoengineers. We have changed our environment to suit our needs for thousands of years and we have been very successful as a result. We must continue to innovate and refine our technologies and employ them with purpose. Failure to do so would be the end of our civilization. We would once again be reduced to small tribes subject to the vagaries of nature, fighting for scraps in a diminished world with no hope to get back what many now take for granted.
2. We also need to pull the CO2 back out of the atmosphere permanently.
3. These efforts will take 50-100+ years to accomplish.
4. We will need a way to stabilize the temperature of the planet in the meantime to avoid a run-away greenhouse effect.
Humans are nothing if not geoengineers. We have changed our environment to suit our needs for thousands of years and we have been very successful as a result. We must continue to innovate and refine our technologies and employ them with purpose. Failure to do so would be the end of our civilization. We would once again be reduced to small tribes subject to the vagaries of nature, fighting for scraps in a diminished world with no hope to get back what many now take for granted.
One can only hope this "research lab" gets taken out by a meteorite or something. I suggest this guy create a closed earth-like environment in which he lives in and commences to do the experiment on himself, in the fashion of true pioneering scientists, who experiment on themselves first (like the dr who swallowed h.pylori). There are too many unknowns and unintended consequences with geoengineering. It also creates incentives not to address root causes of human origin. And lastly, how do we know "global warming" isnt part of longer cycles of the Earth, ones lasting 10,000, 20,000, 100,000 years? Geoengineering wont do much if the cause of global warming is the latter. There is just too much we do not know. Judging from mankind's track record, anything we do will most likely create more problems. It would be refreshing if some of these scientists would check their egos and god-complexes at the door and take on some humbleness in admitting they do not have all the amswers.
1
Fro anyone interested in learning more about this subject, the National Academies' Committee on Geoengineering Climate has issued a comprehensive and highly readable report, "Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth" The report was published in 2015. David Keith was one of the report's reviewers. See
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18988/climate-intervention-reflecting-sunlig....
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18988/climate-intervention-reflecting-sunlig....
that is a patently stupid thing to do. We know how to sequester carbon out of the air in ways that nature is designed to work. http://www.arc2020.eu/whats-up-with-frances-soil-carbon-initiative-4-pou...
Soil carbonization is the most easily accomplished and absolutely proven method to sequester carbon in sufficient volumes. This proposal does nothing to address the continuing carbon output of the economy, in fact it may encourage it. It is an intervention into the workings of nature that we are at this time unprepared to conduct. It is simply not proven, and the computer models are not yet advanced enough to reliably simulate the externalities such action would cause.
We have to change. Agriculture has to go organic, this is not even a question. Wee have to drastically reduce our meat consumption, but that is so easy if we put our mind to it. Take a look at this, menus of change: http://www.menusofchange.org
Let's make that link, and we can create a revolution in no time at all.
Soil carbonization is the most easily accomplished and absolutely proven method to sequester carbon in sufficient volumes. This proposal does nothing to address the continuing carbon output of the economy, in fact it may encourage it. It is an intervention into the workings of nature that we are at this time unprepared to conduct. It is simply not proven, and the computer models are not yet advanced enough to reliably simulate the externalities such action would cause.
We have to change. Agriculture has to go organic, this is not even a question. Wee have to drastically reduce our meat consumption, but that is so easy if we put our mind to it. Take a look at this, menus of change: http://www.menusofchange.org
Let's make that link, and we can create a revolution in no time at all.
1
Sulphur? Are these people crazy? We spent billions to scrub sulphur emissions from coal-fired power plants and switch to low-sulfur coal, and now they propose deliberately creating acid rain on a global scale??
When I managed an Engineering department, I had two rules on my whiteboard. One was coined by Eric Sevareid, who reported news for CBS for 38 years. I called it Sevareid's Law:
"The chief cause of problems is solutions."
When I managed an Engineering department, I had two rules on my whiteboard. One was coined by Eric Sevareid, who reported news for CBS for 38 years. I called it Sevareid's Law:
"The chief cause of problems is solutions."
2
It can work, and it then places the management burden on us. The potential benefits and pitfalls are both explored in novel form complete with references to the research literature here: https://www.amazon.com/Degrees-Book-Devon-G-Crowe/dp/0692408924
1
Ahhhhh stage three of denial:
1-There is no climate change,
2-Man is not the cause of climate change,
3-We can fix that by tinkering with nature.
1-There is no climate change,
2-Man is not the cause of climate change,
3-We can fix that by tinkering with nature.
2
Is it okay to make a terribly messy and growing disaster of the only environment we have, and not TRY to clean or fix it?
I don't understand why the question is even posited.
Please, rephrase your question?
I don't understand why the question is even posited.
Please, rephrase your question?
1
We, that is the US Government, individual states, local populations, and even individuals have not even tried seriously to do what is easily within reach - reduce C release on reasonable time scale.
Thus I unequivocally oppose geo-engineering until the units I name above review what experience in the Nordic countries have shown is possible.
I have written so often about what is possible yet have never seen a single OpEd let alone a Climate Issue report here in the Times on what the Nordic countries show is possible that I will not waste my time reiterating.
The NYT approach symbolizes the American dilemma, one of them, the refusal to educate about readily available alternatives.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
Thus I unequivocally oppose geo-engineering until the units I name above review what experience in the Nordic countries have shown is possible.
I have written so often about what is possible yet have never seen a single OpEd let alone a Climate Issue report here in the Times on what the Nordic countries show is possible that I will not waste my time reiterating.
The NYT approach symbolizes the American dilemma, one of them, the refusal to educate about readily available alternatives.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
I think geoengineering is essential to combat global warming.
Even if it was possible to stop burning all coal/gas/wood right now, the CO2 already released will result in rising temperatures.
If we want to return to how the climate was decades ago, we need geoengineering. Sure, reducing carbon emissions should happen as well, but it isn't enough.
Even if it was possible to stop burning all coal/gas/wood right now, the CO2 already released will result in rising temperatures.
If we want to return to how the climate was decades ago, we need geoengineering. Sure, reducing carbon emissions should happen as well, but it isn't enough.
14
"Hacking the planet is [dangerous and] barking mad:
"You can’t fix the Earth with these geoengineering proposals, but you can sure make it worse."
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/nrc_geo...
***sure make it worse*** is serious! Think about dimming the sun, what that will do to crops. It won't help with ocean acidifcation. Just scads of unintended consequences.
The fact that we don't want to face the changes we need to make is no excuse for magic thinking that ends up with making things worse.
"You can’t fix the Earth with these geoengineering proposals, but you can sure make it worse."
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/nrc_geo...
***sure make it worse*** is serious! Think about dimming the sun, what that will do to crops. It won't help with ocean acidifcation. Just scads of unintended consequences.
The fact that we don't want to face the changes we need to make is no excuse for magic thinking that ends up with making things worse.
11
Read my points below. it is not possible to 'return to how the climate (or environment) was decades ago" ... by soiling the stratosphere with aerosols.
1
It is "barking mad" beyond imagination.
There is no going back to an agrarian economy unless you're willing to accept a precipitous plunge in the world's population to 1900 levels.
And geoengineering is the "barking mad" aspect when it dawns on our grandchildren that to survive a dangerous planet they will have to spend sums of money that will cause a plunge in the world's population.
Opportunity cost is the inflexible economic principle that determines on what and where you can spend a limited amount of money and resources. Populations will drop when both are spent in large sums to manage the Earth's energy, gas and vapor cycles. Add to that the huge sums to also manage whole ecosystems around the world and populations drop even further.
Choices will then have to be made on which species are allowed to survive, "triage" practiced on a planetary scale.
There is no escape indoors either from a more dangerous Earth. That would also use up significant sums of money and resources as well
Any solution will have a planetary and genetic impact affecting the evolutionary path of both human and habitat.
Nature gives us nothing for free. There is always a cost and a risk.
There is no going back to an agrarian economy unless you're willing to accept a precipitous plunge in the world's population to 1900 levels.
And geoengineering is the "barking mad" aspect when it dawns on our grandchildren that to survive a dangerous planet they will have to spend sums of money that will cause a plunge in the world's population.
Opportunity cost is the inflexible economic principle that determines on what and where you can spend a limited amount of money and resources. Populations will drop when both are spent in large sums to manage the Earth's energy, gas and vapor cycles. Add to that the huge sums to also manage whole ecosystems around the world and populations drop even further.
Choices will then have to be made on which species are allowed to survive, "triage" practiced on a planetary scale.
There is no escape indoors either from a more dangerous Earth. That would also use up significant sums of money and resources as well
Any solution will have a planetary and genetic impact affecting the evolutionary path of both human and habitat.
Nature gives us nothing for free. There is always a cost and a risk.
Honestly, at this point what have we got to lose? The situation is already on the brink of hopeless. We need geoengineering as a stop gap. Preliminary research can minimize the risks. If this can be done for a billion dollars per year, there is nothing else we can do for so little cost and we are too collectively stupid to make the investments needed to produce an optimal solution. We'd much rather spend our money on preparing to fight with each other and we are not good at optimal, complex solutions. We're much more likely to have at least some success with simple and cheap.
Further, we still have at least another 2 billion people to add to our population this century, and even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases tomorrow, our climate would continue to warm until a new equilibrium is reached. This is referred to committed warming. As the article points out, the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere NOW is equal to the amount 3 million years ago when camels roamed the arctic. Yet we are far from done mining carbon from the Earth's crust and pumping it into the atmosphere. Without geoengineering, the best we can do in the process of converting to renewable energy sources is slow down warming somewhat, but that is not nearly enough.
Further, we still have at least another 2 billion people to add to our population this century, and even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases tomorrow, our climate would continue to warm until a new equilibrium is reached. This is referred to committed warming. As the article points out, the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere NOW is equal to the amount 3 million years ago when camels roamed the arctic. Yet we are far from done mining carbon from the Earth's crust and pumping it into the atmosphere. Without geoengineering, the best we can do in the process of converting to renewable energy sources is slow down warming somewhat, but that is not nearly enough.
18
We have a lot to lose with geoengineering. Though we've made significant progress understanding some of what seem to be drivers of climate, we are very far from understanding or even identifying what comprises the whole system. To try geoengineering at this point would be akin to giving a 3 yr old a screwdriver and a stepstool, opening the hood of a car and telling the child to play with the engine. Only in reality it's worse because while competent mechanic might be able to return the automobile engine to working condition, we would be far less able to undo unwanted effects of our tinkering than we would be able to recreate a former 1000 piece kaleidoscope pattern by shaking the lens. Tampering with the atmosphere through geoengineering at this point is crazy! And since we are yet to stop doing the human activities that clearly are contributing to climate change, yes we are that collectively stupid.
1
We have no choice and inaction is not an option.
If you understand how we got to where we are now you would see that it has all to do with our attempts to control the natural environment. The solution is to accept the limits of growth rather then continue to push them. I am opposed to Geoengineering because it is based on the assumption that we can continue on business as usual and the technological fix is just around the corner and just in time. There is also the problem of the more we control the planet the more problems of social justice and inequity stress the social structures. In contrast if we accept the limits of growth we will reduce the social pressures created by inequity and lack of social justice. It is not just about the climate.
23
To me, that is standing on principle regardless of the situation.
Paraphrasing Yuval Harari: we shouldn't put technology in charge of solving climate change any more than we should put someone who believes in a heavenly afterlife in charge of nuclear weapons.
30
Too Late! I would guess that most of the people whose fingers are actually on the nuclear triggers are religious conservatives.
I'm trying hard to not fall into the slippery slope fallacy, but I worry this is solving the symptoms, and not the causes. Also, rather than being possible, is it sustainable? Can we come to rely on the positives of this for all time?
I fear this approach allows the morally corrupt to continue to exploit Mother Nature, and even increase the pace. However, since the people as a whole show no signs of wanting to form together to get the elites to stop, it may be that geoengineering may be necessary to keep us from death, rather than bring about Eden.
I fear this approach allows the morally corrupt to continue to exploit Mother Nature, and even increase the pace. However, since the people as a whole show no signs of wanting to form together to get the elites to stop, it may be that geoengineering may be necessary to keep us from death, rather than bring about Eden.
8
Brilliant idea, sounds like a coke addict who chooses to have a few drinks to calm down his wrecked nerves, so he can continue binging some more.
39
To paraphrase a marketing line from the 70's
" Its not nice to try to fool Mother Nature"
Geo-engineering on the type described in this article is little more than an attempt to ignore the significant lifestyle changes required in our profligate use of fossil fuels. As a geologist, I shudder at the concept of altering the atmosphere above our fragile planet. Think of Murphy's Law and the global consequences when, not if, this doesn't work out exactly as designed.
" Its not nice to try to fool Mother Nature"
Geo-engineering on the type described in this article is little more than an attempt to ignore the significant lifestyle changes required in our profligate use of fossil fuels. As a geologist, I shudder at the concept of altering the atmosphere above our fragile planet. Think of Murphy's Law and the global consequences when, not if, this doesn't work out exactly as designed.
17
The project described in this article does not sound promising; and of course switching to renewable sources of power is what SHOULD happen.
However, we have a climate-denying president and congress right now, and time is growing increasingly short to prevent catastrophic climate change. So human-made climate engineering may be the only alternative means to keep our planet livable. More research now would be prudent.
However, we have a climate-denying president and congress right now, and time is growing increasingly short to prevent catastrophic climate change. So human-made climate engineering may be the only alternative means to keep our planet livable. More research now would be prudent.
1
buy a few years by making things worse?
By the way, the research is under way now. We will, no doubt, be stuck with finding out what happens after we do the stupid. That's who we are, the earth's apex predator, too big for our once hospitable home.
By the way, the research is under way now. We will, no doubt, be stuck with finding out what happens after we do the stupid. That's who we are, the earth's apex predator, too big for our once hospitable home.
2
We've been "tinkering" with the atmosphere for more than 200 years by releasing massive amounts of carbon dioxide, so articles like this one shouldn't be cast from the perspective that geoengineering proponents are proposing something radically new. The difference is that they are proposing engineered manipulations, rather than the haphazard process that has led us to our current plight. That said, the potential for unintended consequences on a global scale of some of these proposals is of concern.
18
The Times' subhed says about solar-radiation management (SRM) geoengineering, "Not everyone thinks this is a good idea." That characterization is a gross distortion of the state of discussion about such techniques. In point of fact, among the climate-science community, there are very, very few who think that disrupting solar radiation at the current state off understanding is in any way a "good idea."
Even among those who are calling for careful study of SRM — such as, say, Ken Caldeira, Carnegie Institution for Science, Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University — are cautiously advising that much more needs to be known about such a radical, global effort before rational actors should even begin any level of planning, let alone implementation.
The Times' headline writers do the public a disservice through their flippant characterization of a deeply controversial and poorly understood branch of climate-change mitigation.
Even among those who are calling for careful study of SRM — such as, say, Ken Caldeira, Carnegie Institution for Science, Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University — are cautiously advising that much more needs to be known about such a radical, global effort before rational actors should even begin any level of planning, let alone implementation.
The Times' headline writers do the public a disservice through their flippant characterization of a deeply controversial and poorly understood branch of climate-change mitigation.
35
More than changing the temperatures, geo-engineering nurtures hope. And hope allows us to ignore the deeper human problems that require self-examination and thoughtful action. The big test has already begun and we are still looking for the starting gate.
4
While spending time and effort thinking about geoengineering is not a bad idea, one major problem it will not address is the reduction in the temperature differentials between the polar and tropical regions caused by the uniform distribution of heat trapping gasses. While seeding and the like might reduce overall global temperatures and related issues like sea level rises from melting glaciers, it will not restore the latitude based temperature differentials that drive our weather and climate patterns.
Reductions in current emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses remain a very important concern.
Reductions in current emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses remain a very important concern.
5
Dear NYT,
Geoengineering is an excellent example of using the same kind of thinking that created the problem in an attempt to "solve" it. Please stop spending time and resources to give it more publicity than it deserves (as you did with Trump... and we all know how that ended). Instead, perhaps you could lend greater coverage to popular movements (such as No DAPL, or your great piece on the Ramapough) and select examples of communities making economic and ecological innovations to reduce consumption, restore ecosystems, and change our society?
Thanks!
A
Geoengineering is an excellent example of using the same kind of thinking that created the problem in an attempt to "solve" it. Please stop spending time and resources to give it more publicity than it deserves (as you did with Trump... and we all know how that ended). Instead, perhaps you could lend greater coverage to popular movements (such as No DAPL, or your great piece on the Ramapough) and select examples of communities making economic and ecological innovations to reduce consumption, restore ecosystems, and change our society?
Thanks!
A
14
GEO engineering in the form of Chem spraying has been going on for years now. Just look up and see it. I cannot believe that this entire article refers to Possibly doing this with Sulfur without mentioning that it's being done with aluminum and barium right now. There's a tremendous amount of info on chem spray out there. This article acts like it's something sci-fi we might do in the future. Well it's being done now and NEVER has the public been asked about it and NEVER has the government acknowledged it to we the people. It's all the withholding of information like this article does along with outright lying which is destroying the fabric of our civilization.
8
There isn't any alternative to "tinkering with the climate" if we want the earth to continue to be inhabitable by human beings. There is no will to change human activity in order to stabilize the climate, and even if there were the change that is already in the system will inexorably alter the climate too drastically to for any but a small number of us to survive.
4
If the engineer holds a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Our best chance is curtailing industrial CO2 emissions, aggressively pursuing clean energy technologies and adapting to the climate changes that are already underway. I think this is the best nail to put in an engineer's sights, and I hope David Keith's investigations will thoroughly refute any benefits his technology can provide, and cap any further serious study along these lines.
A majority of those influential people resisting actions to curb CO2 emissions won't be around when the negative effects of these industries really hit the fan. And I really hope our next generation won't be paying for these resister's narrow thinking, and won't be tempted to reach for the kind of technological band-aid Keith is investigating.
Our best chance is curtailing industrial CO2 emissions, aggressively pursuing clean energy technologies and adapting to the climate changes that are already underway. I think this is the best nail to put in an engineer's sights, and I hope David Keith's investigations will thoroughly refute any benefits his technology can provide, and cap any further serious study along these lines.
A majority of those influential people resisting actions to curb CO2 emissions won't be around when the negative effects of these industries really hit the fan. And I really hope our next generation won't be paying for these resister's narrow thinking, and won't be tempted to reach for the kind of technological band-aid Keith is investigating.
9
Mankind will continue to use technology to work around nature's limits in our quest for perpetual economic growth on a finite planet. Its what we do. It seems to me that polluting the air to mitigate the effects of polluted air seems akin to drinking to cure a hangover. However, I have to assume mankind will continue to do whatever it takes to keep the party going and delay collapse as long as possible.
1
Well there is the considered view that MORE (not less ) water might have been the solution to save the passengers on the Titanic by using the technique of counterflooding! Thinking outside the box is useful sometimes in an emergency...
I didn't like 'Chem-Trails' when they were just a conspiracy theory, & I sure don't like them now!
Assuming we actually agree that it's time to stop burning 300 million years of stored fossil energy releasing all that carbon all at once...
I always thought 'The Man Who Planted Trees' was on to something:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTvYh8ar3tc
How about making every day arbor day, & ban all logging of the Old Growth Forests, which are a tremendously effective sink for carbon dioxide, & save thousands of species from extinction as a byproduct.
But then of course we'd have to convince Scott Pruitt that life on earth wasn't given to humans in Genesis to have Dominion over & use up during our short stay on earth before the forever Hereafter above the clouds.
When your policy-makers are convinced the earth will be 'cleansed' by fire upon the Second-Coming & believers will be bodily brought above the fray to return to a renewed heaven on earth, it's kind of hard to get them to stop burning everything up just to ingratiate themselves in god's eyes ahead of inevitable biblical prophesy (while making a darn good profit in the process).
Assuming we actually agree that it's time to stop burning 300 million years of stored fossil energy releasing all that carbon all at once...
I always thought 'The Man Who Planted Trees' was on to something:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTvYh8ar3tc
How about making every day arbor day, & ban all logging of the Old Growth Forests, which are a tremendously effective sink for carbon dioxide, & save thousands of species from extinction as a byproduct.
But then of course we'd have to convince Scott Pruitt that life on earth wasn't given to humans in Genesis to have Dominion over & use up during our short stay on earth before the forever Hereafter above the clouds.
When your policy-makers are convinced the earth will be 'cleansed' by fire upon the Second-Coming & believers will be bodily brought above the fray to return to a renewed heaven on earth, it's kind of hard to get them to stop burning everything up just to ingratiate themselves in god's eyes ahead of inevitable biblical prophesy (while making a darn good profit in the process).
8
Just like pushing nuclear power to reduce CO2 emissions, this is a 'solution' that could well end up being worse than the problem. There will always be engineering hacks who will claim to be able to provide technical fixes for predominantly social problems, with little or no understanding of or regard for the long-term consequences.
4
This is a natural next step to liberal control of everything we know. Liberals think government is the answer to EVERYTHING. Its a man-centered and, therefore, foolish plan to "tinker" with the Earth's eco system. How many times has government policy caused more harm than good when it was decided that a new "program" will "help" the situation. There are ALWAYS unintended consequences when the government gets involved with ANYTHING. Look at the gypsy moth debacle on the east coast to see how government's "help" to solve a problem caused a MUCH bigger one. And all we heard was, "we didn't know that would happen".
Okay, so let's do *nothing*...is that your 'plan'?
I first spotted this article today in Environmental Health News entitled "Is it O.K. to engineer the environment to fight climate change?" The 2011 photo stuns me in that it shows persistent contrails (chemtrails) in the skies behind the bicycle rider. It's not water vapor as you will be told. Without our consent, the solar radiation management program has been ongoing for decades and the distinguished prof knows this. This experiment is not new or just a proposal. Readers should look at Geoengineering Watch for what is going on in the air we all breathe.
6
Who gets to decide where and how the environment gets hacked?
(Who gets to be the winners and losers?)
(Who gets to be the winners and losers?)
9
I'm sure it will be those with the most money. Isn't that the way it always is?
When has transforming the Earth on a large scale ever been a good idea? The echoes of our actions resonate far beyond the West Virginian mountainside leveled for a coal seam or the California fields overirrigated for water-hungry crops that wouldn't grow in Mediterranean climates normally.
Geo-engineering the climate or the planet to suit our needs demonstrates the supreme arrogance of Homo sapiens. Rather than scale back our activities to minimize our footprint, we embrace any option that allows us to continue our gluttonous lifestyles without thought for consequences five, ten, or twenty years down the road.
How is it we can talk about raising islands and capturing melting ice caps when a river vanished in the Yukon territory, and thousands of South Sudanese and Somalis starve in another widespread drought? We daydream about terraforming swathes of land to suit our rapacious needs and yet we can't figure out how to boost infrastructure on Portland roads where marijuana plants are being planted in holes ("pot" holes, get it?) or assure Flint gets unpoisoned, lead-free water from Lake Huron or the Detroit water system.
Never has our meddling been for good. Scientists can fantasize and authors can spin their tales, but no policy analyst ought to put a cent into these proposals. We have no concept whatsoever of how most of Earth's main systems interact and our ignorance may be our own demise.
But then, if we proceed, we most definitely deserved it.
Geo-engineering the climate or the planet to suit our needs demonstrates the supreme arrogance of Homo sapiens. Rather than scale back our activities to minimize our footprint, we embrace any option that allows us to continue our gluttonous lifestyles without thought for consequences five, ten, or twenty years down the road.
How is it we can talk about raising islands and capturing melting ice caps when a river vanished in the Yukon territory, and thousands of South Sudanese and Somalis starve in another widespread drought? We daydream about terraforming swathes of land to suit our rapacious needs and yet we can't figure out how to boost infrastructure on Portland roads where marijuana plants are being planted in holes ("pot" holes, get it?) or assure Flint gets unpoisoned, lead-free water from Lake Huron or the Detroit water system.
Never has our meddling been for good. Scientists can fantasize and authors can spin their tales, but no policy analyst ought to put a cent into these proposals. We have no concept whatsoever of how most of Earth's main systems interact and our ignorance may be our own demise.
But then, if we proceed, we most definitely deserved it.
2
Lunatic fringe is what this is. Better to act in a manner befitting of such a planet. Stop procreating and using up resources at such a devastating rate. Gotta love those scientists. It might also be good to close schools that give us yet more scientists. They come out and need to make a living. But what then? Gotta come up with something to sell, right? Hey, let's get Mikey to try this. I am so tired of the so-called scientific approach to curing past problems. For instance, the Green Revolution was invented to cure the lack of food for the growing population. Then the Gene Revolution. But the Green Revolution created a problem of highly toxic pesticides and fertilizers that are still effecting us. And the Gene Revolution compounded the problems of the Green Revolution. Roundup is significantly less effective today, but they are tripling the doe and adding back into it the toxic pesticides that Roundup was supposed to replace.
Fugetaboutit and get real Mr. Scientist. Get Real!
Fugetaboutit and get real Mr. Scientist. Get Real!
2
It is absolutely impermissible to “tinker” with the environment in this manner.
The scientific community has a feeble understanding of the relationships among internal earth processes, the dynamic relationship between natural surface and atmospheric processes, and the constantly changing relationship between the sun’s radiation processes that affect our planet.
Example: in 1815, the volcano Mount Tambora in Indonesia exploded, sending vast amounts of particulate into the atmosphere. In 1816, many parts of the world experienced snow in the summer, ruining harvests and leading to starvation in many countries, including the USA. Now what if there were similar volcanism during these attempts at ‘geo-engineering?’
The consensus is that anthropomorphic activity has resulted in global warming (strange, but Vancouver Canada had two major snow storms this winter, first time in a decade). This being the case, then the scientific community would get much better results at removing the sources of the warming rather than further intervention into natural processes. The proposals of David Keith and others can only compound the destruction that we do to ourselves.
Greek mythology (the legend of Arachne) and the Christian bible (the Tower of Babel) should have taught us well about the human weakness of hubris. Society should be a long way from loading our precious atmosphere with more junk, and equally, we should reject such junk thinking.
The scientific community has a feeble understanding of the relationships among internal earth processes, the dynamic relationship between natural surface and atmospheric processes, and the constantly changing relationship between the sun’s radiation processes that affect our planet.
Example: in 1815, the volcano Mount Tambora in Indonesia exploded, sending vast amounts of particulate into the atmosphere. In 1816, many parts of the world experienced snow in the summer, ruining harvests and leading to starvation in many countries, including the USA. Now what if there were similar volcanism during these attempts at ‘geo-engineering?’
The consensus is that anthropomorphic activity has resulted in global warming (strange, but Vancouver Canada had two major snow storms this winter, first time in a decade). This being the case, then the scientific community would get much better results at removing the sources of the warming rather than further intervention into natural processes. The proposals of David Keith and others can only compound the destruction that we do to ourselves.
Greek mythology (the legend of Arachne) and the Christian bible (the Tower of Babel) should have taught us well about the human weakness of hubris. Society should be a long way from loading our precious atmosphere with more junk, and equally, we should reject such junk thinking.
2
Professor Keith should be honest about what he is proposing; it is called an experiment.
2
no- we should only tinker with the environment to create climate change. keep on keepin on!
Aside from all the other horrible problems with a world at > 600 ppm CO2 (that sure looks to be where we are headed unless CO2 mitigation gets far more serious than anything happening now) remember that there are detectable effects on cognition at 600+ ppm, and that everything indoors is always at higher CO2 concentrations than outside.
Vulnerable people also have problems with blood chemistry (acidosis).
Vulnerable people also have problems with blood chemistry (acidosis).
3
I think it is too early to produce judgement on whether this idea is too crazy to carry out, but given that we are already indulging in a certain experimentation of climate alteration (pumping carbon into the atmosphere in mass quantities), I believe it would be prudent to at least do more research into whether this new experimentation could stave off some of the worse effects of climate change.
This, of course, needs to be followed up politically with efforts to eliminate fossil fuel usage in the next 10-30 years.
It is the ultimate irony, however, that the places with most to lose from climate change are places distant from the humans who are most to blame for emission releases. I predict humans will not do well in the fight against climate change for this reason. The overwhelming damage will be done to the very poor black and brown people of South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. The wealthy countries of the world only seem capable of taking action when the white people are threatened. Look at our responses to ebola, opioids, etc. Only when white Americans were at risk did we suddenly identify these things as crisis-level. The same will likely occur with climate change.
There are still things we can do as individuals. March for Science on Saturday. Work with compassion and love for humans and the environment, and absolutely become single issue voters - on environmental issues. We can wait to solve all of our societal problems, but we cannot wait on climate change.
This, of course, needs to be followed up politically with efforts to eliminate fossil fuel usage in the next 10-30 years.
It is the ultimate irony, however, that the places with most to lose from climate change are places distant from the humans who are most to blame for emission releases. I predict humans will not do well in the fight against climate change for this reason. The overwhelming damage will be done to the very poor black and brown people of South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. The wealthy countries of the world only seem capable of taking action when the white people are threatened. Look at our responses to ebola, opioids, etc. Only when white Americans were at risk did we suddenly identify these things as crisis-level. The same will likely occur with climate change.
There are still things we can do as individuals. March for Science on Saturday. Work with compassion and love for humans and the environment, and absolutely become single issue voters - on environmental issues. We can wait to solve all of our societal problems, but we cannot wait on climate change.
1
simple comment: eventually, at this rate, we'll have to.
1
And, surely, it will end up making things a whole lot worse. Think about it!
1
Mr. Gertner,
This is an excellent article. I highly recommend that you contact Dr. James Powell, who has been researching this area for decades. Powell and the late Gordon Danby were the Brookhaven National Lab scientists who invented superconducting Maglev to carry trucks and passengers very efficiently at 300 mph. Powell and Maglev were introduced to me in 1987 when the late Senator. Moynihan held hearings on supplementing the Interstate Highway System by building a 300 mph Interstate Maglev network for this all electric carrier. I have been in energy and environmental policy since the oil embargo in 1970 and this was and still is the greatest idea that I have heard for reducing fossil fuel tailpipe emissions. See www.magneticglide.com for concept
Dr. Powell, also invented a Maglev Launch system that can place payload into orbit for only 1% of cost per ton for chemical rockets. He has proposed a pathway to avoid the global warming catastrophe by launching solar cell satellites to geosynchronous orbit to beam energy to the whole world. The low energy microwave energy has been tested and it works. Importantly, this system can provide energy to the Earth at 2 cents per kilowatt hour, only a fraction of the cost of current electric power. This pathway is described in "Silent Earth" by James Powell. The historic record of technology shows that it must improve the quality of life of people at a lower economic cost for it to be accepted.
The problem is urgent.
This is an excellent article. I highly recommend that you contact Dr. James Powell, who has been researching this area for decades. Powell and the late Gordon Danby were the Brookhaven National Lab scientists who invented superconducting Maglev to carry trucks and passengers very efficiently at 300 mph. Powell and Maglev were introduced to me in 1987 when the late Senator. Moynihan held hearings on supplementing the Interstate Highway System by building a 300 mph Interstate Maglev network for this all electric carrier. I have been in energy and environmental policy since the oil embargo in 1970 and this was and still is the greatest idea that I have heard for reducing fossil fuel tailpipe emissions. See www.magneticglide.com for concept
Dr. Powell, also invented a Maglev Launch system that can place payload into orbit for only 1% of cost per ton for chemical rockets. He has proposed a pathway to avoid the global warming catastrophe by launching solar cell satellites to geosynchronous orbit to beam energy to the whole world. The low energy microwave energy has been tested and it works. Importantly, this system can provide energy to the Earth at 2 cents per kilowatt hour, only a fraction of the cost of current electric power. This pathway is described in "Silent Earth" by James Powell. The historic record of technology shows that it must improve the quality of life of people at a lower economic cost for it to be accepted.
The problem is urgent.
2
As writer Eli Kintisch put it: geoengineering is "a bad idea whose time has come."
Geoengineering is not new. For more than a century, humans have been engineering the global climate by emitting enough CO2 and other greenhouse gasses to change the climate. Many of these gasses, including CO2, survive for decades in the atmosphere. The train has likely left the station.
So we just sit back and wait to fry? Drastically cutting back on CO2 is the obvious choice, but it ain't happening. And even if we did that, enough warming has been locked-in that some geoengineering mitigation will likely need to be used.
It's time to develop this technology along with global guidelines for its use. I don't see any other way.
Geoengineering is not new. For more than a century, humans have been engineering the global climate by emitting enough CO2 and other greenhouse gasses to change the climate. Many of these gasses, including CO2, survive for decades in the atmosphere. The train has likely left the station.
So we just sit back and wait to fry? Drastically cutting back on CO2 is the obvious choice, but it ain't happening. And even if we did that, enough warming has been locked-in that some geoengineering mitigation will likely need to be used.
It's time to develop this technology along with global guidelines for its use. I don't see any other way.
1
How quickly quack conspiracy theory turns into regular old news.
Only a little while ago the assertion that atmospheric spraying has been going on was met with derision, even despite the abundant evidence of photographs of aerial spraying platforms and ground samples showing aluminum oxides and other metals.
Now here it is in the NYT.
They are going to do this and we are all going to suffer a slow starvation because mold and mildew will overtake our food crops when they reduce the infra red spectrum that hits the ground. It is the long waves of light, the IR, that causes a crop to fruit. These same waves are the "heat" waves they want to preclude from the atmosphere.
When they filter out the red light the tomatoes and apples will not ripen because it is the IR light that signals the plant to start that part of its cycle.
Only a little while ago the assertion that atmospheric spraying has been going on was met with derision, even despite the abundant evidence of photographs of aerial spraying platforms and ground samples showing aluminum oxides and other metals.
Now here it is in the NYT.
They are going to do this and we are all going to suffer a slow starvation because mold and mildew will overtake our food crops when they reduce the infra red spectrum that hits the ground. It is the long waves of light, the IR, that causes a crop to fruit. These same waves are the "heat" waves they want to preclude from the atmosphere.
When they filter out the red light the tomatoes and apples will not ripen because it is the IR light that signals the plant to start that part of its cycle.
4
Sorry, clicked submit by accident on my previous comment.
Mr. Stern, you mention abundant evidence of atmospheric spraying. What are your sources of information? Why do you think they are credible, if you don't trust the peer-reviewed scientific literature on atmospheric and soil chemistry, in which no such evidence can be found?
BTW, are you aware that aluminum oxides are found in nearly every soil sample? Did you know that aluminum is the fourth most common element on Earth, and that oxygen is the first?
Mr. Stern, you mention abundant evidence of atmospheric spraying. What are your sources of information? Why do you think they are credible, if you don't trust the peer-reviewed scientific literature on atmospheric and soil chemistry, in which no such evidence can be found?
BTW, are you aware that aluminum oxides are found in nearly every soil sample? Did you know that aluminum is the fourth most common element on Earth, and that oxygen is the first?
The concerns over doing this are well founded but they ignore reality - we are already doing geoengineering by releasing gigatons of CO2 annually and huge parts of the United States, such as California and the desert Southwest would not house such a huge population if they had not been engineered to support a big population. It's best to carefully research this and have some backup options in case climate agreements fail and we are faced with tens of millions annually being displaced due to storms and inundation.
Only one problem, your naive belief that this will "fix" things. It will delay, for a while, some of the more obvious problems, while making others worse, and in a few short years the problems will be a lot worse because of the interference.
1
This article misrepresents Geoengineering as it is happening today. This is not something that is "just" being studied and tried. For well over the last decade, and in particular - the last 5 years - ENDLESS lines of jets fly daily - leaving a line of particulate behind them from horizon to horizon.
Nobody in Media or Government even acknowledged that this was happening. When questioned further, they said it was a normal "con-trail" (condensation & water vapor) behind the jet. That's a lie. Its a "Chem-trail", and from tested water and snow samples, it contains cadmium, barium, and huge amounts of micro particles of aluminum oxide. These jets fly above commercial aircraft altitude, and their chem-trails, on some days, look like someone is weaving a rug. It is rare to have a day of blue sky and normal clouds anymore.
And now, we get an article like this, saying that Harvard is just starting to think about this? Rubbish. Like GMO's in our food, Americans have the right to know the truth about Chem-trails; WHO is doing the spraying? WHAT exactly are they spraying, and why, and WHO is paying for it? My guess is Monsanto is making the spray compound, and us Taxpayers are paying for the flights.
Anyone who spends any time outdoors and looks up can usually see dozens of these flights every day. Many communities across America are organizing to stop these flights - Virginia City, Nevada, at the forefront.
Full truth and accountability is needed on this project, now.
Nobody in Media or Government even acknowledged that this was happening. When questioned further, they said it was a normal "con-trail" (condensation & water vapor) behind the jet. That's a lie. Its a "Chem-trail", and from tested water and snow samples, it contains cadmium, barium, and huge amounts of micro particles of aluminum oxide. These jets fly above commercial aircraft altitude, and their chem-trails, on some days, look like someone is weaving a rug. It is rare to have a day of blue sky and normal clouds anymore.
And now, we get an article like this, saying that Harvard is just starting to think about this? Rubbish. Like GMO's in our food, Americans have the right to know the truth about Chem-trails; WHO is doing the spraying? WHAT exactly are they spraying, and why, and WHO is paying for it? My guess is Monsanto is making the spray compound, and us Taxpayers are paying for the flights.
Anyone who spends any time outdoors and looks up can usually see dozens of these flights every day. Many communities across America are organizing to stop these flights - Virginia City, Nevada, at the forefront.
Full truth and accountability is needed on this project, now.
4
It seems to me that this view calls for an application of what Dr.Norman V Peale popularized as "The power of positive thinking". Could the commercial airlines not be given a role in this project and thus redeem for their sins by perhaps being tasked with disseminating these aerosols in the atmosphere? Perhaps it might not be beyond the bounds of possibilities to incorporate them into their fuels so that when you look up at the contrails in our blue skies in the future you can bless instead of cursing the commercial airlines?
W.Wolfe,
How did you find out about "chemtrails"? Why do you think your information is credible? If you don't trust "Media or Government", why do you trust any other information source? What makes you so certain about chemtrails or anything else you think you know?
How did you find out about "chemtrails"? Why do you think your information is credible? If you don't trust "Media or Government", why do you trust any other information source? What makes you so certain about chemtrails or anything else you think you know?
The Sourcerer's Apprentice has collided with the quest for the Silver Bullet.
We now live with the results.
The days of tinkering are over and the solutions reside with us already. We just need to be willing to implement them.
We now live with the results.
The days of tinkering are over and the solutions reside with us already. We just need to be willing to implement them.
6
It seems clear that we as human beings have no recourse other than develop viable options to the ever increasing hazards of climate change. Rationally mankind has not acted to reverse climate change since it was an evident problem as early as the Johnson era, is it nor irrational to fail to recognize that human engineering may be the only option for humans to use in order to buy enough time for clean energy technologies to reverse the present imbalance?
Now about the oceans. Acidification and temperature rise are huge risks to the viability of plant and animal life in the seas. If we geoengineer out temperature rise can we similarly reverse acidification by means of the addition of basic substances like sodium hydroxide to correct the pH?
Jesus Christ, mankind has really messed up and we better apply our best minds to solving these problems, rather than condemning and faulting governments and people for their past failures.
Now about the oceans. Acidification and temperature rise are huge risks to the viability of plant and animal life in the seas. If we geoengineer out temperature rise can we similarly reverse acidification by means of the addition of basic substances like sodium hydroxide to correct the pH?
Jesus Christ, mankind has really messed up and we better apply our best minds to solving these problems, rather than condemning and faulting governments and people for their past failures.
1
I believe we need David Keith to do these experiments, but we also need experts in other fields to weigh in with their thoughts on the geopolitical results of geoengineering. The fate of humanity is at stake.
Doomed if you do, doomed if you don't.
Doomed if you do, doomed if you don't.
This article ignores:
The effect of CO2, methane etc ("greenhouse gases") is to warm high latitudes more than low.
In sharp contrast, increasing the aerosol burden of the stratosphere (thereby increasing the planetary albedo at short wavelengths ... with 1/wavelength to the fourth-power dependence of small particles with low imaginary refractive indicies) cools the tropics most, and the poles the least.
So, what is your goal of such an engineered perturbation? If it is to reduce ice melting (and hence sea level rise) then the only way this could be done is to drastically "over cool" the tropics, making them colder than they were before mankind upset atmospheric CO2 ... this would be a global disaster in and of itself.
The reduction in heat flux to the low latitudes is predicted to weaken, or even 'turn off' the monsoons. Africa, India and all of South Asia would see disastrous perturbations to hydrological cycle and agriculture. Badly weakened monsoons were observed following Krakatoa.
Loss of solar insolation, AND change to color balance (loss of blue light particularly) would have major impacts on photosynthesis -- our whole food chain. It will also change the diurnal cycle of boundary layer depths, mixing, air-pollution, a long list of effects associated effects. (And as said would also impact solar energy production)
It is beyond nuts to think that this "engineering" will allow us to avoid reducing CO2 (and methane)
The effect of CO2, methane etc ("greenhouse gases") is to warm high latitudes more than low.
In sharp contrast, increasing the aerosol burden of the stratosphere (thereby increasing the planetary albedo at short wavelengths ... with 1/wavelength to the fourth-power dependence of small particles with low imaginary refractive indicies) cools the tropics most, and the poles the least.
So, what is your goal of such an engineered perturbation? If it is to reduce ice melting (and hence sea level rise) then the only way this could be done is to drastically "over cool" the tropics, making them colder than they were before mankind upset atmospheric CO2 ... this would be a global disaster in and of itself.
The reduction in heat flux to the low latitudes is predicted to weaken, or even 'turn off' the monsoons. Africa, India and all of South Asia would see disastrous perturbations to hydrological cycle and agriculture. Badly weakened monsoons were observed following Krakatoa.
Loss of solar insolation, AND change to color balance (loss of blue light particularly) would have major impacts on photosynthesis -- our whole food chain. It will also change the diurnal cycle of boundary layer depths, mixing, air-pollution, a long list of effects associated effects. (And as said would also impact solar energy production)
It is beyond nuts to think that this "engineering" will allow us to avoid reducing CO2 (and methane)
10
We have already adversely geo-engineered our planet by our incessant and progressive destruction of our environment. To geo-engineer for for the betterment of the environment presupposes that we will stop destroying it. That has yet to be demonstrated. To think we may geo-engineer away our environmental problems without ending what caused them is nonsense.
11
Ordinarily prevention surpasses cure, but with climate change prevention seems doomed and hopeless given American politicians' greater desire to be re-elected than to study and to make informed and difficult choices on behalf of the planet and its citizens and given the profit-motives of industrialists who care more about today's profits than tomorrow's well-being. Even the most optimistic student of climate change has difficulty finding optimism in preventing further damage to the oceans, waterways, species on the verge of extinction and the health of our communities. With the expressed aversion of certain politicians toward the benefits of science, maybe cure remains as distant as a prevention. The clock ticks and the American voter base remains uninformed and unconcerned. Let's hope that European and Asian countries stay the course and find ways to manage and solve a problem that could have been addressed by so-called "good old American know-how."
2
Get used to the idea. Geoengineering is coming.
David
Sadly, geoengineering has moved into the lead as the preferred solution to all our global problems. Probably because it is another thing that can be put off indefinitely while offering easy assurance to those who do not care immediately to act. So, yes, it probably is coming.
And with it noble men and women moved as much by profit and power as they are by concern about some projected future. Some of them will be scientists. And that will be a problem.
But first, as a few have said already, we have to stop wrecking our only atmosphere. Until then, nothing we can imagine will have a lasting or meaningful effect.
Our planet's people are behaving just like a typical human being. Told to lose wait, we continue to gorge until the inevitable happens and then, if we survive, we get weight lost surgery and hire a gourmet vegan chef. Or just die.
At the moment even careful, considerate people cannot bring themselves to believe we are actually discussing the future of mankind, And even if they believe it, they're not likely to give up driving privileges, endless electricity, or bottled water.
Until we reach a critical mass of people who take this seriously, it's speculative at best, and a process peopled most aggressively by those who see a personal or financial benefit in doing so.
Not the crowd I would hire to conduct an all-or-nothing (oops...) experiment on my home planet, thank you.
Sadly, geoengineering has moved into the lead as the preferred solution to all our global problems. Probably because it is another thing that can be put off indefinitely while offering easy assurance to those who do not care immediately to act. So, yes, it probably is coming.
And with it noble men and women moved as much by profit and power as they are by concern about some projected future. Some of them will be scientists. And that will be a problem.
But first, as a few have said already, we have to stop wrecking our only atmosphere. Until then, nothing we can imagine will have a lasting or meaningful effect.
Our planet's people are behaving just like a typical human being. Told to lose wait, we continue to gorge until the inevitable happens and then, if we survive, we get weight lost surgery and hire a gourmet vegan chef. Or just die.
At the moment even careful, considerate people cannot bring themselves to believe we are actually discussing the future of mankind, And even if they believe it, they're not likely to give up driving privileges, endless electricity, or bottled water.
Until we reach a critical mass of people who take this seriously, it's speculative at best, and a process peopled most aggressively by those who see a personal or financial benefit in doing so.
Not the crowd I would hire to conduct an all-or-nothing (oops...) experiment on my home planet, thank you.
Trying to affect climate change is tinkering with the environment. That's putting the cart before the horse; it's the tinkering we've done burning fossil fuels that got the ball rolling!
1
The fact that shooting aerosols into the atmosphere to reduce warming largely fails to address the marine impacts (ocean warming yes, but not acidification) only serves to illustrate one dimension of the foolishness of this idea. The fact that you become hostage to continuous applications lest warming snap back in a catastrophic and unpredictable fashion, makes it downright monstrous. The time-honored "rule of holes" is that first, you stop digging. It's a delusion to think we can patch this over until a wiser and less selfish breed of humans comes along willing to do what's necessary. We fix this the right way or we're doomed. That's our choice.
3
Perhaps I would work harder to lose weight if I were not able to use medicine to reduce my blood pressure. Although that is almost certainly true, I suspect that I would not lose not much more weight and on balance I am healthier with the medicine.
We should approach any geoengineering strategies cautiously, but anything that can slow the rate of increasing damage should be welcomed.
We should approach any geoengineering strategies cautiously, but anything that can slow the rate of increasing damage should be welcomed.
4
Solar geoengineering is indeed a scary, audacious, and arguably insane idea. However, the risks of climate change are great, and there is no reason to think that cuts to greenhouse gas emissions will manifest suddenly after 25 years of international negotiations. (Although we should redouble our efforts on that front.) Solar geoengineering needs to be researched. At the very least, humans would be better off knowing than not knowing.
1
No, it is NOT OK.
1
Perhaps genetic engineering might provide us with the solution so as to enable the world's plant-life to make better use of over-abundant CO2? We should remember the origin of the expression " greenhouse effect"-the artificial enrichment of greenhouse C02 to promote plant growth; in addition some scientists have speculated that the "green revolution" of the 1960 might have a lot to owe to more abundant CO2 in the atmosphere.The obvious candidate for the tweaking of its genetic code would be enzyme responsible for catalysing photosynthesis -known by its abbreviated name RuBisCo. Unfortunately such an important enzyme is rather primitive and does its work extremely slowly as enzymes go. Who knows ..perhaps it could be transformed from a sluggard into a greyhound and help our plant-life mop up the planet's excess CO2?
Conversion of CO2 to carbohydrates is nutrient-limited. It works in greenhouses because you can increase nutrients; it doesn't work at large, where plants already grow as fast and as large as they can, and process CO2 accordingly.
It's laughable to worry about "the ethics of messing with nature," when we're facing an environmental catastrophe precisely because we HAVE been "messing with nature" for hundreds of years. At some point in the past, we could have corrected the climate change problem with modest changes in our energy policies, but it's too late for that. To actually LOWER the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere -- not just slow the increase -- would require unimaginable changes in world industrial policy and is not going to happen.
So geoengineering is humanity's only hope at this point, and it's high time we got going on it. The idea that this problem will be solved by everyone uniting and changing our greenhouse-gas output is a daydream we have to wake up from. This country has made a 180-degree turn in its environmental policies every eight years for as long as I can remember. When you keep doing that, you stay in the same place, and the water keeps rising.
So geoengineering is humanity's only hope at this point, and it's high time we got going on it. The idea that this problem will be solved by everyone uniting and changing our greenhouse-gas output is a daydream we have to wake up from. This country has made a 180-degree turn in its environmental policies every eight years for as long as I can remember. When you keep doing that, you stay in the same place, and the water keeps rising.
1
Only one problem. It won't work, it might provide some temporary relief of the symptoms, while making the basic problem worse.
1
Even if we worked out how to do this, geoengineering would create winners and losers. Maybe it would rain more in Kansas, and never again in Uganda. Maybe it would be nicer in Moscow and uninhabitable in Baghdad.
All of that would depend on which technique was used and how much of it.
So who would have a voice in making that decision? Assuredly not Uganda and Iraq. No, it would be mostly the US, with Exxon and Koch brothers' money pulling the strings and lying to the public about how much harm we were doing to those without political voices.
No doubt the "junk science" skeptic tanks would grow even more pervasive to silence any calls to compensate the victims of our "silver bullet". The resulting refugee crises would be put down to "incompetent leaders" in the victimized countries - as if any leader could adequately deal with the full wrath of nature denied.
If we want to see the complete unraveling of global civilization, let's continue to deny climate science, and procrastinate mitigation efforts until geoengineering is the only option.
All of that would depend on which technique was used and how much of it.
So who would have a voice in making that decision? Assuredly not Uganda and Iraq. No, it would be mostly the US, with Exxon and Koch brothers' money pulling the strings and lying to the public about how much harm we were doing to those without political voices.
No doubt the "junk science" skeptic tanks would grow even more pervasive to silence any calls to compensate the victims of our "silver bullet". The resulting refugee crises would be put down to "incompetent leaders" in the victimized countries - as if any leader could adequately deal with the full wrath of nature denied.
If we want to see the complete unraveling of global civilization, let's continue to deny climate science, and procrastinate mitigation efforts until geoengineering is the only option.
4
Doing nothing but following current practices has winners and losers. What is the ideal planetary temperature?
As someone with asthma that is very sensitive to atmospheric pollutants I am concerned about the particles that will be used in this process. Along with the feasibility of this research, the short and long term health impacts on people need to be considered.
1
It may not be "ethically" sound, but it's our only hope.
What is the carbon footprint of a fleet of airplanes dumping processed aerosols into the atmosphere? It's true that more greenhouse gases only change the atmosphere more in ways that hold more heat. But there will be no technological 'fix' to this. Scientists know what needs to be done, the problem is a lack of political will, imbeciles like Trump riding a xenophobic wave of misplaced outrage backwards into the 19th century.
As James Lovelock said, if humans don't take care of the planet, the planet will take care of humans. Sadly, that is probably the best outcome for Earth. The Industrial variant of the species has proved to be an unfit steward. Yet we still push 'development' as an industrial model to 'modernize' 'backwards' countries. Those 'backwards' societies had in many cases lived within their environmental means for centuries, becoming unsustainable when they could no longer rein in their appetites for energy. Ecologists and Paleontologists know how this story progresses.
Meanwhile, at Mar-a-Lago . . .
As James Lovelock said, if humans don't take care of the planet, the planet will take care of humans. Sadly, that is probably the best outcome for Earth. The Industrial variant of the species has proved to be an unfit steward. Yet we still push 'development' as an industrial model to 'modernize' 'backwards' countries. Those 'backwards' societies had in many cases lived within their environmental means for centuries, becoming unsustainable when they could no longer rein in their appetites for energy. Ecologists and Paleontologists know how this story progresses.
Meanwhile, at Mar-a-Lago . . .
11
Fight climate change, I would not call it fighting, maybe preparing for climate change. This includes moving away from the coasts, reducing carbon pollution, no matter what the short term costs maybe for your buds.
Everything can be accomplished, and yes it might prevent you from making the most money, but if you give a hoot for any of your offspring, it's the right thing to do.
Fossil Fuels need to stay put, in the ground...
Everything can be accomplished, and yes it might prevent you from making the most money, but if you give a hoot for any of your offspring, it's the right thing to do.
Fossil Fuels need to stay put, in the ground...
21
What about the Trump factor? This fine article omits a potentially important additional worry: our impulsive president. Some of President Trump's people have shown interest in climate engineering, which is generally perceived to be way cheaper than emissions reductions. What will this mean when the battle fronts shift in the climate wars? Might the administration move briskly toward geoengineering, even before people like Professor Keith have had a decent chance to run their experiments? Forgive the inherent self-promotion, but yesterday I posted some information and thoughts about this geoengineering Trump factor in my column at Physics Today Online: http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.8214/full/
4
I am pessimistic on this one. As noted in the article, solar geoengineering will do nothing to stop ocean acidification. It will, ironically, reduce solar power production. The water cycle may be affected (which, to be fair, is already happening with climate change). There will probably be some political conflicts over the technology. It seems like it would be better to have a massive effort to combat the root cause of climate change.
4
Almost all geophysicists agree that darkening the sky would cause considerable climate disruption. The problem is that it will probably be necessary because the USA fascist toddler tyrant has ended all hope of solving the crisis in time. Darkening the sky will likely become the only option left. No sane scientists want to do this, but it's better than doing nothing.
1
We need to think such manipulations through very carefully before doing anything that could possibly be worse than what it intends to treat. On the other hand, in the most freewheeling fashion possible, we have already 'hacked' the planet, and simply slowing our current rate of greenhouse gas emissions may not have much effect.
3
Hierarchy of Responses to Climate Change:
1. Mitigation (reduce emissions to acceptable levels). If that doesn't work (efforts to date have been pretty meager) then;
2. Adapt. This is already occurring, but if effects become too severe then;
3. Geoengineer. If that doesn't work, then;
4. ?
1. Mitigation (reduce emissions to acceptable levels). If that doesn't work (efforts to date have been pretty meager) then;
2. Adapt. This is already occurring, but if effects become too severe then;
3. Geoengineer. If that doesn't work, then;
4. ?
1
4. Doomsday Prep for the Super Rich
Apocalypse Preppers
10,000 Year Clock
Apocalypse Preppers
10,000 Year Clock
1
It would be much safer, cheaper, and solve many additional problems, to address the root cause of all global environmental problems including any effect of humans on the climate of the planet: overpopulation.
58
RC
Don't forget an equally important problem, one that may actually be more difficult to solve: rich population.
Don't forget an equally important problem, one that may actually be more difficult to solve: rich population.
Several science fiction writers and others, using the metaphorical power of science fiction to illustrate the dangers, have written about further poisoning the planet to "fix" it. It does not end well. Naomi Oreskes (The Collapse of Western Civilization) and Earth2100 both "game" out the likely result. Imagine widespread famine when you pollute the air and cut back on light.
I'm pretty sure we humans are selfish and stupid enough to go ahead with magical thinking and do this, and I'm almost 100% certain it will be suicidal. Crops will fail. The cost and difficult of continuing maintenance means it will collapse, having made the problem so much worse.
Have you all considered that infrastructure is already failing, and the willingness that built it has long vanished in the mists of tax cuts for the rich and quick-profit kleptocrats? Wannabe-a-billionaire-by-age-30 "disruption" which takes the value out of things for big money for the few is not helping either.
Here's a good article on the subject: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/nrc_geo...
"Hacking the planet is [dangerous and] barking mad:
"You can’t fix the Earth with these geoengineering proposals, but you can sure make it worse."
Pierrehumbert is an expert and knows what he's talking about.
Of course, it also does nothing about ocean acidification, which is almost a worse problem *right now*!!
I'm pretty sure we humans are selfish and stupid enough to go ahead with magical thinking and do this, and I'm almost 100% certain it will be suicidal. Crops will fail. The cost and difficult of continuing maintenance means it will collapse, having made the problem so much worse.
Have you all considered that infrastructure is already failing, and the willingness that built it has long vanished in the mists of tax cuts for the rich and quick-profit kleptocrats? Wannabe-a-billionaire-by-age-30 "disruption" which takes the value out of things for big money for the few is not helping either.
Here's a good article on the subject: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/nrc_geo...
"Hacking the planet is [dangerous and] barking mad:
"You can’t fix the Earth with these geoengineering proposals, but you can sure make it worse."
Pierrehumbert is an expert and knows what he's talking about.
Of course, it also does nothing about ocean acidification, which is almost a worse problem *right now*!!
33
My point about infrastructure was incomplete. With widespread flooding and extreme weather, the power infrastructure will collapse. Two week and longer power outages are already becoming more common.
That means the ability to manipulate will be harmed.
Here's a quote from Oreskes: "began to inject submicrometer-size sulfate particles into the stratosphere ... (meantime ... conversion to renewable energy could have been achieved) .... fourth year, an anticipated but discounted side effect ... shutdown of the Indian monsoon ... also decreased evaporation over the Indian Ocean ... As crop failures and famine swept across India ... called for ...cessation."
"a fatal chain of events had been set in motion. .... In the following 18 months, temperature rapidly rebounded, regaining not just the [reduced temp] ... but an additional [larger increase]."
These effects are predictable.
Our addiction to toys that cost a planetary hospitality we cannot afford to waste will make us act in desperation and with stupidity.
I despair, but have not yet given up, of humanity getting a brain and realizing that if we do not act together for the common good, we will all go down together (even the greedsters and their families will not be excepted from a planet that has been poisoned in so many ways with toxic waste as well as atmospheric dumping resulting in this mounting heating of the whole system, and its concomitant chaotic circulatory effects.
That means the ability to manipulate will be harmed.
Here's a quote from Oreskes: "began to inject submicrometer-size sulfate particles into the stratosphere ... (meantime ... conversion to renewable energy could have been achieved) .... fourth year, an anticipated but discounted side effect ... shutdown of the Indian monsoon ... also decreased evaporation over the Indian Ocean ... As crop failures and famine swept across India ... called for ...cessation."
"a fatal chain of events had been set in motion. .... In the following 18 months, temperature rapidly rebounded, regaining not just the [reduced temp] ... but an additional [larger increase]."
These effects are predictable.
Our addiction to toys that cost a planetary hospitality we cannot afford to waste will make us act in desperation and with stupidity.
I despair, but have not yet given up, of humanity getting a brain and realizing that if we do not act together for the common good, we will all go down together (even the greedsters and their families will not be excepted from a planet that has been poisoned in so many ways with toxic waste as well as atmospheric dumping resulting in this mounting heating of the whole system, and its concomitant chaotic circulatory effects.
13
The Law of Unintended Consequences flashes a lot of warning lights when the hubris of well intentioned- and some not so well intentioned- decide to mess around with our natural world. Humans have a long history of concluding they have things under control or all thought out only to find that they are babes playing with fire.
37
There are several dangers here, even if particles reduce temperatures substantially. As pointed out in the article, it does nothing to slow CO2 accumulation in the oceans, which could ultimately lead to a Canfield ocean. That would threaten all life, and form a giant feedback loop (CO2 would no longer be absorbed by now destroyed ocean biota).
Also, as the article mentions, we would become locked into particle spraying indefinitely. If side effects became too onerous, ceasing to shoot particulates into the atmosphere would cause a quite dangerous temperature spike, likely to create faster feedback loops.
There is also this nightmare scenario: Koch, Exxon, BHP and the rest of them would use geoengineering as an excuse to continue to burn fossil fuels. Tillerson even mentioned once in a speech that, while acknowledging global warming, he described it as "an engineering problem, with engineering solutions".
It would seem that everybody wants to do everything except what is called for in our global emergency: short term transition to renewable energy from the grid, and major carbon taxes on fossil fuels, meat consumption, and wood products. There should be immediate global removal of all government subsidies to industries that have created the coming global catastrophe: coal, oil, natural gas, meat, and wood products.
The banks that fund those industries, and the politicians who are paid by them, stand in the way. It's up to us to defeat them.
Also, as the article mentions, we would become locked into particle spraying indefinitely. If side effects became too onerous, ceasing to shoot particulates into the atmosphere would cause a quite dangerous temperature spike, likely to create faster feedback loops.
There is also this nightmare scenario: Koch, Exxon, BHP and the rest of them would use geoengineering as an excuse to continue to burn fossil fuels. Tillerson even mentioned once in a speech that, while acknowledging global warming, he described it as "an engineering problem, with engineering solutions".
It would seem that everybody wants to do everything except what is called for in our global emergency: short term transition to renewable energy from the grid, and major carbon taxes on fossil fuels, meat consumption, and wood products. There should be immediate global removal of all government subsidies to industries that have created the coming global catastrophe: coal, oil, natural gas, meat, and wood products.
The banks that fund those industries, and the politicians who are paid by them, stand in the way. It's up to us to defeat them.
70
You've mentioned meat consumption, what about dairy? cows have enormous amounts of methane laced flatulence too!
The amazing thing is that we have an easier time imagining the end of the world -- the death of nature, as we know it, the poisoning of the oceans -- than imagining the end of fossil-fueled mass consumption capitalism, which is at the root of the problem.
Yeah, this is completely insane. I agree with David Santillo. If you really want to test whether it's 'safe' to pollute the atmosphere even further, fill a room with the potion and send the positing 'scientist' into the room to see if they survive. Where do they think the chemicals will end up? Outer space?? Instead of hacks, let's solve the root cause, which is the use of other chemicals everywhere, animal agriculture, fracking, fossil fuels. Of course, pols and corps will never do the right thing. They'll just continue taking slices of pie served by consumers and taxpayers, who also will never do the right thing, but will continue doing the convenient thing.
42