Several British scientists have apparently decided that geo-engineering is better than nothing.
(Posted by John Goetz)
Extreme and risky action the only way to tackle global warming, say scientists
From The Guardian
Monday September 1 2008
David Adam, environment correspondent
Political inaction on global warming has become so dire that nations must now consider extreme technical solutions – such as blocking out the sun – to address catastrophic temperature rises, scientists from around the world warn today.
The experts say a reluctance “at virtually all levels” to address soaring greenhouse gas emissions means carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are on track to pass 650 parts-per-million (ppm), which could bring an average global temperature rise of 4C. They call for more research on geo-engineering options to cool the Earth, such as dumping massive quantities of iron into oceans to boost plankton growth, and seeding artificial clouds over oceans to reflect sunlight back into space.
Writing the introduction to a special collection of scientific papers on the subject, published today by the Royal Society, Brian Launder of the University of Manchester and Michael Thompson of the University of Cambridge say: “While such geoscale interventions may be risky, the time may well come when they are accepted as less risky than doing nothing.”
They add: “There is increasingly the sense that governments are failing to come to grips with the urgency of setting in place measures that will assuredly lead to our planet reaching a safe equilibrium.”
Well, we certainly know just how risky geo-engineering was for the terraformers on LV-426.
Professor Launder, a mechanical engineer, told the Guardian: “The carbon numbers just don’t add up and we need to be looking at other options, namely geo-engineering, to give us time to let the world come to its senses.” He said it was important to research and develop the technologies so that they could be deployed if necessary. “At the moment it’s almost like talking about how we could stop world war two with an atomic bomb, but we haven’t done the research to develop nuclear fission.”
Such geo-engineering options have been talked about for years as a possible last-ditch attempt to control global temperatures, if efforts to constrain emissions fail. Critics argue they are a dangerous distraction from attempts to limit carbon pollution, and that they could have disastrous side-effects. They would also do nothing to prevent ecological damage caused by the growing acidification of the oceans, caused when carbon dioxide dissolves in seawater. Last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change dismissed geo-engineering as “largely speculative and unproven and with the risk of unknown side-effects”.
Dr Alice Bows of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Manchester said: “I’m not a huge fan of messing with the atmosphere in an geo-engineering sense because there could be unpredictable consequences. But there are also a lot of unpredictable consequences of temperature increase. It does appear that we’re failing to act [on emissions]. And if we are failing to act, then we have to consider some of the other options.”
In a strongly worded paper with colleague Kevin Anderson in today’s special edition of the society’s Philosophical Transactions journal, Bows says politicians have significantly underestimated the scale of the climate challenge. They say this year’s G8 pledge to cut global emissions 50% by 2050, in an effort to limit global warming to 2C, has no scientific basis and could lead to “dangerously misguided” policies.
The scientists say global carbon emissions are rising so fast that they would need to peak by 2015 and then decrease by up to 6.5% each year for atmospheric CO2 levels to stabilise at 450ppm, which might limit temperature rise to 2C. Even a goal of 650ppm – way above most government projections – would need world emissions to peak in 2020 and then reduce 3% each year.
Globally, a 4C temperature rise would have a catastrophic impact. According to the government’s Stern review on the economics of climate change in 2006, between 7 million and 300 million more people would be affected by coastal flooding each year, there would be a 30-50% reduction in water availability in southern Africa and the Mediterranean, agricultural yields would decline 15-35% in Africa and 20-50% of animal and plant species would face extinction.
Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, said: “It’s not clear which of these geo-engineering technologies might work, still less what environmental and social impacts they might have, or whether it could ever be prudent or politically acceptable to adopt any of them. But it is worth devoting effort to clarifying both the feasibility and any potential downsides of the various options. None of these technologies will provide a ‘get out of jail free card’ and they must not divert attention away from efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.”
Mike Childs of Friends of the Earth said: “We can’t afford to wait for magical geo-engineering solutions to get us out of the hole we have dug ourselves into. The solutions that exist now, such as a large-scale energy efficiency programme and investment in wind, wave and solar power, can do the job if we deploy them at the scale and urgency that is needed.”
It is refreshing to see someone at an environmentalist organization with a cool-enough head to point out what we actually should be doing.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
For those of you ‘abroad’ who wonder why some here (like me) on these shores refer to England OR Britain, it’s because there is a slow but sure break-up of our union going on. Scotland and England will break – and it’s nothing to do with geological climate change! So some of us (like me) are beginning to refer to our country, rather than our island. And for those still reading: ‘Great Britain’ is England, Scotland, and the principality of Wales. ‘Britain’ is England & Wales. ‘United Kingdom’ is England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Wales is included, but was never a ‘Kingdom’. Ireland was included until 1921. Within 15 years Scotland will have gone their own way – the ground work is going on right now amongst patriotic Scots, and why not? The pricipality of Wales will almost certainly stay joined to England (we think). Hope that’s cleared any confusion. Or did I just create it where it didn’t exist before?
Here in the UK we already have cutting edge technology blocking out the sun and it’s been working well all year.
As I look out of my study window I can see the grey shield in the sky. It’s much more sophisticated than the cheap Montgomery Burns style sun shield in that it blocks out all the nasty heat but lets in just enough light to see by, (at least during the day).
Rumour has it that it is made of some sort of water but I’m not sure about that. I do know that water often leaks from it, sometimes quite hard.
Of course, being new technology it doesn’t always work. I was playing golf the other day when the system broke down and some of that nasty global warming came through. It was quite a shock I can tell you. For several holes I was forced to strip off my waterproofs and even my sweater. One of my playing partners was even contemplating removing his thermal vest, but fortunately the technicians were able to fix the system and the terrible sun was hidden from sight.
As we sat in the clubhouse discussing our ordeal over a hot toddy, we were thankful that our great scientists were able to save us from this dreadful peril.
„…because government, as usual, is asleep at the switch and when it does wake up, it comes out of its slumber and says, “let’s pull this lever, let’s jerk that one, let’s do this.”
And that only makes everything worse.
(John Loeffler)
carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are on track to pass 650 parts-per-million (ppm)
Makes you wonder if these guys ever read the paper.
Peakoil is here: high oilprices already have effect on drivers and airlines.
In 5 years time, driving will be too expensve for millions; airlines are already canceling flights.
amazing stuff and how powerful man is…..wow, did man create the universe?
They should try this forst on another planet if they want to do geo-engineering. Let’s cool down Venus and warm up Mars. At least if they screw up Earth, we might have a place to go.
Whilst I sympathise with some of the comments it is worth pointing out that Sir Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society does say that
“It’s not clear which of these geo-engineering technologies might work, still less what environmental and social impacts they might have, or whether it could ever be prudent or politically acceptable to adopt any of them. But it is worth devoting effort to clarifying both the feasibility and any potential downsides of the various options”
Don’t see much wrong with that.
Yeah! Go Scottish Nationalism!
Seems like the Global Cooling machine is already working over my Texas home as it’s the 2nd of September and we are hovering in the mid 60s! Thankfully we have T. Boone to save us!
What is wrong with it is the words “it is worth devoting effort”. Not with my taxes it isn’t.
As there has been no global warming for nearly 10 years what the F… is going on? You simply cant believe that so many inteligent people can fall for so much bullshit for so long.
Given we have had the second lousy summer in succession and there are no sunspots on the sun for the first time sinc 1913 one would have thought the over-educated middle classes would at least question the AGW theory but alas it is not to be….just yet
The general popultaion is not fooled I can tell you!
This is realy so sad. And scary.
These peoble will do anything to get an explanation why the world cooled.
Terrible. I hope everyone will do everything in their power to let good sound arguments and common sence get out in the puplic.
K.R. Frank
Hans (12:12:04) :
carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are on track to pass 650 parts-per-million (ppm)
To which one might add, “So?”
One might also ask how long this likely to take? Would one to two hundred years seem right? The other thing that so many of these brilliant people seem to lose track of is the magnitude of the numbers involved. To sequester ONE part per million of CO2 means dealing with .15 billion tonnes of the stuff. Yes, that’s billion. To do any of these other geo-engineering lunacies would presumably involve dealing with similar orders of magnitude, whatever the chosen process is.
Incidentally, if you reduce that 1 ppm to dry ice it occupies a volume of 3.7 cubic kilometres, which is very similar to the volume of the human race alive today! Weird!
The first rule of engineering:
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
The second rule of engineering:
If you don’t know how it works, don’t touch it.
The third rule of engineering:
Doing nothing is often the best course.
CO2 is composed of the third and fourth most common elements in the universe. Good luck on getting rid of it.
This is so preposterous it beguiles the imagination anyone with a scintilla of intelligence would even consider it… especially in light of all the revelations made by the skeptics as of late. It also shows the desperation of the Pogies as their scam continues to unravel.
In case someone hasn’t been noticing, the rash of outrageous claims floating around over the past several months seem to have as their genesis the dwindling support for AGW claims. And as it becomes ever more apparent the AGW claims are a ruse, we’ll probably see even more outrageous statements and fear mongering.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
SteveSadlov (09:53:03) wrote: ” Also, iron seeding is approved as a method of investing carbon credits. It’s happening today, in international waters.”
If I’m not mistaken, that has been suspended due to the furor it caused.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
Off topic but just had to ask with the hurricanes and tropical storms we have had and are having I wonder how much longer it will be before the media starts talking about all these storms are caused by GLOBAL WARMING ????? It’s just a matter of time.
Sequestering CO2 = digging a hole in the ground to bury money in.
There are far more urgent needs to benefit mankind instead of burying its resources in the ground with no productive return.
See Copenhagen Consensus. 2008 Results
“Given we have had the second lousy summer in succession and there are no sunspots on the sun for the first time sinc 1913 one would have thought the over-educated middle classes would at least question the AGW theory but alas it is not to be….just yet”
The story of the emperor’s new clothes comes to mind.
“The over-educated middle classes” will not like being seen as under-educated
Dave Andrews (13:10:03) wrote: “Whilst I sympathise with some of the comments it is worth pointing out that Sir Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society does say that “It’s not clear which of these geo-engineering technologies might work, still less what environmental and social impacts they might have, or whether it could ever be prudent or politically acceptable to adopt any of them. But it is worth devoting effort to clarifying both the feasibility and any potential downsides of the various options”
In the United States we call that pork barrel spending. In AGW circles, it’s called “sucking up the funds.” But in this situation, it’s simply so insane one has to question whether these bloaks escaped from a loony bin somewhere.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
Dave Andrews (13:10:03) : wrote:
“Whilst I sympathise with some of the comments it is worth pointing out that Sir Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society does say that
“It’s not clear which of these geo-engineering technologies might work, still less what environmental and social impacts they might have, or whether it could ever be prudent or politically acceptable to adopt any of them. But it is worth devoting effort to clarifying both the feasibility and any potential downsides of the various options”
Don’t see much wrong with that.”
Depends how accurate the quote is. You might be right, but the chap has form.
Also, although it sounds innocuously scientific, the (partial quote) statement “It’s not clear which of these geo-engineering technologies might work, …” suggests he thinks one or more might indeed ‘work’.
With so many past eco-control interventions that have resulted in unexpected and undesired consequences (in fact can anyone list a few things that have not had such results?) one is surprised that he seems to think ANYTHING could be managed to work successfully.
Well, can’t speak for the UK & Europe, but there won’t be any “geo-engineering” projects over here.
Politically, it’s a non-starter, but that’s not the reason.
It’s lawsuits.
Every adverse weather event will add another large group to the class-action against the “geo-engineers.”
Our congress could go nuts and try to enact lawsuit protection, as they tried to enact carbon taxes, but with potential liabilities in the trillions, tort lawyers would have their eyes on settlements thousands of times the size of the tobacco settlement (which was $206 Billion).
I blame this all on Francis bacon! But seriously, it has become clear that it is more important to fear what man does intentionaly rather than the unitended consequences of his actions.
Steve Berry (12:05:16) :
Funny you should mention some political impacts of climate change.
From the book Climate, History, and the Modern World by Lamb, in talking about the Little Ice Age:
A bizarre occurrence – serious for the individuals concerned – presumably resulting from the great southward spread of the polar water and ice was the arrival about the Orkney Islands a number of times between about 1690 and 1728, and once in the river Don near Aberdeen, of an Eskimo in his kayak.
…
The course of the development in Scotland and the periods of most severe climatic stress can be identified in the records of famines brought together in fig. 79. The information used in this diagram was mainly compiled from the economic records, annals and chronicles surveyed by Lythe and Smout. Although most of the data relate to eastern Scotland, there are indications that the situation was worse in the north and in the poorer Highland districts in the west. The experience of recurrent famines in the later decades of the sixteenth century was at work in the movement of emigration from Scotland, then beginning, which was destined to became a well-known theme in the following centuries. Smout writes that ‘the stimulus to leave Scotland was compounded of many factors, of which the general poverty and discomfort of the native land was the most obvious…Ulster and (later) America offered empty territory; Holland and England offered mercantile fleshpots; Russia, Sweden, Denmark, France and all the petty princedoms of Germany offered military opportunity’ (p. 90). The Scottish mercenary soldier who figures in the writings of Sir Walter Scott was a familiar figure in the wars which troubled Europe in the seventeenth century, particularly in service of Swedish king in central Europe in the Thirty Years War: ‘by 1660 the stream of military migration had fallen off…. Nevertheless even in 1700 there was hardly an army north of the Mediterranean without Scottish officers of some sort’ (Smout, p. 92). But the most serious legacy of this time survives to our own day in the ‘plantation’ in 1612 of Scots farmers in the richer lands and more sheltered climate of Ulster in northeast Ireland after first evicting the native Irish. This seems to have been a device of King James VI at one stroke to stabilize the Irish political and religious situation in his favour and to relieve the impact of harvest failures in Scotland, by taking advantage of the power over Ireland that fell to him on accession to the throne of England. In modern terms, it would surely be regarded as a model of how not to conduct international relations and a characteristic abuse of (near-)absolute power. It is estimated that by 1691 there were 100,000 Scots in Ulster, already about a tenth of the population of Scotland, and their numbers were soon to swollen again emigrants abandoning their Scottish homes in the disasters of the 1690s.
…
There are many accounts of those years parish by parish in the volumes of the Statistical Account of Scotland compiled by Sir John Sinclair a hundred years later. ‘The poorer sort of people frequented the churchyard to pull a mass of nettles, and frequently fought over it… which they greedily fed upon …’ (parish record of Duthil and Rothiemurchus in north central Scotland). Some were reported to have sold their children into slavery. In parishes all over the country from one-third to two-thirds fo the population died – a greater disaster in many places than the Black Death – and great was the fear of being buried in a mass grave.
…
To the Jacobites these were the ‘ill years of King William’s reign’, but to the rest of the population they probably made the union with England in 1707 seem inevitable.
…
Thus, in at least this aspect and perhaps in others, the Little Ice Age caused England to gain at the expense of her northern neighbours.
…
A parallel (but shorter distance) southward movement took place in Scotland and culminated in the union with England in 1707.
Is it April 1st or something???