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.
Well, as a dissent to the chorus I would like to say that from all the solutions the most inoccuous and also not very expensive is the one with the self propelled ships that will seed extra clouds.
Inoccuous because:
1) H2O iand salt are natural and not pollutants.
2) Direct control: too much albedo stop the ship.
3) If not needed ships can be used for other purposes.
Not very expensive because they are talking of 20 ships up and down the tropical the waves.
Actually, here we are considering ourselves the only clear thinkers while the mass of governments is ready to impose carbon taxes, sell hot air and destroy third worlds prospects, tomorrow. It may be we cannot stop the momentum of this behemoth that has been generated and sustained by a lot of politics and economic interests. A solution like the ships that can demonstrate that heating will stop if you believe in heating, buys time, saves economies and will give a handle to reasonable politicians to get out of the mess, at not such a big expense.
I would suggest to go ahead and build five ships to test them with the next El Nino. Maybe the cooling continuous, but maybe there will be a next El Nino to feed the AGW frenzy. Give them the ships, is my vote.
When a boat is sinking, it is not the time to apportion blame, but it is the time to find ways to stop it from sinking, even if it is manipulative.
Tony Edwards, 13:52:46
You are 100% on target, the problem is that we have let the power slip into the hands of the ignorant, unfortunately todays academia has 0% of practical Knowledge, and to much money to develope any, ( do you know anybody thats good at hanging pictures, I will pay them ) History is full of idiots, but we are now overflowing.
Monty Python has nothing on AGW.
Has anybody else noticed how much the word ‘expert’ gets thrown around these days? Hell, even Domino’s Pizza claim to be “the pizza delivery experts”. I think a new general rule is forming whereby anybody who is referred to as an ‘expert’ with no evidence to back up the claim is about as far away from a real expert as it’s possible to get.
Clearly, as this story suggests, the ‘experts’ at the Royal Society need to climb down from their Ivory Tower and realise that, after their latest proposals, they risk leaving themselves with about as much scientific credibility as Al Gore.
Quite how this AGW farce continues is beyond me. The alarmist camp continues to completely ignore scientific debate and instead opt for verbal abuse and sensationalism. For example, a recent pointless article on the UK Daily Mail website coughing up the old rhetoric about Arctic ice melting was thankfully greeted by a whirlwind of fact correction by enlightened readers. Unfortunately, there were still one or two alarmists in the comments section who claimed everybody who didn’t buy the AGW con was “uneducated” and “should do some research”. Irony has really been redefined over the past few years.
Check out climate audit. Mann is at it again, he made some amazing quotes about the accuracy of his old hockey stick graph 🙂
Also I had to write about it below.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/climate-hottest-for-1300-years-the-second-coming/
A few random thoughts
Leon Brozyna – “Expert”: an “ex” is a has-been, a “spurt” is a drip under pressure. 😉
Various – artificially modifying western economies that have evolved over centuries is eco-engineering, where the ‘eco’ means economics. And everyone (including voters) can see what that will do to our world.
My area of expertise is psychology. Once someone takes a public position on something, and gets widely and publicly quoted on it, it is extremely difficult for them go back on it or switch sides later. We live in emotional worlds of our own creation, and accept or reject (or filter) events and evidence based on what it does to our inner state.
Our inner state is the source of that very first “gut” reaction to new information. The gut reaction happens first, and those powerful intellects don’t kick in until immediately afterward. When they do, they invariably work to justify/defend whatever the gut reaction dictates. It takes a HUGE amount of emotional maturity to change your mind once you’ve been cited as an authority on one side or another of any issue.
Where there is bias in science, it often comes from what we pay attention to, and what we deem worthy of research funding. That’s why scare tactics work, for a while. The danger with scare tactics, and the beauty of science, is that if the scare is not 100% legit it will attract a growing chorus of dissent that will only increase as time passes without the scary scenarios taking place. Funding attracts the prying of eyes of scientists, who will pick at details that the orginal scare-mongers never even considered. We’re seeing that now w/respect to climate science.
Finally, two more definitions:
Science: …”knowledge (of something) acquired by study”
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Science
Skeptic: …lit. “inquiring, reflective,” the name taken by the disciples of the Gk. philosopher Pyrrho (c.360-c.270 B.C.E.), from skeptesthai “to reflect, look, view”…”Skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found.” [Miguel de Unamuno, “Essays and Soliloquies,” 1924]
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=skeptic
from James griffin
“The general popultaion is not fooled I can tell you!”
not at the moment, but talk to the younger generation and you will find a different story! So much indoctrination in schools will mean that if the AGW people can hold out for a bit longer they will have a generation who believe in it absolutely!
It is curious that schoolchildren find the laws of physics a mystery when they have to study the subject, yet are quite prepared to accept the views of anybody about AGW.
My only hope is that they will realise that this has become such an “establishment” viewpoint that they will reject it all on that princple.
[…] Watts Up With That? ________________________________________ This will be a vast relief to those of the northern hemisphere who have been feeling a trifle chilly this northern summer. Brrr… imagine if it had got colder; or… Dang! Mr Pielke Sr. would have to go and fact-check it and spoil a delightful end-of-the-world-is-nigh story. What is it with people like him that they will not let us get a good healthy panic going? They must have useful, satisfying lives and simply not undestand how the rest of us need to generate a good panic just to give us something to live for. […]
“On Easter island they built large stone heads until the economy apparently failed and they were unable to build more…”
Perhaps this is the idea?
I don’t know if anyone is a fan of graphic novels, but I just re-read “Watchman” by Alan Moore. Maybe the goal (for a few) is to create a crisis so bid that humanity will unite behind the effort to avert it, saving us from ourselves? There are certainly enough big egos engaged on the AGW side to envision themselves as the savior of mankind.
Nah… What am I thinking? They (the lucky few) just want to impose a New World Order using carbon-taxes to cripple the economies of the industrialized (Western) nations while setting up a caste system with them on top, the true believers in the middle and the average Jane and Joe as surfs. Skeptics as threats to their perfect order will be the neo-witches and other similar outcasts who will be put to death by burning (using carbon-capture technology).
I will repeat once more:
We have to be pragmatic. To sit on the sidelines claiming wisdom and correct science is personally satisfying, but it is not changing the AGW momentum, at least in Europe. It is practically a mantra all governments and government officials are parroting. Unless the coming winter is very severe in western europe ( the last one was mild) the army will continue marching to he AGW beat.
Pragmatic means: if you cannot beat them, join them so you can change things from within.
Let us for the sake of argument accept that there is anthropogenic warming . Governments accept it and skeptics are not making headway there.
What is the anthropogenic solution? All those idiot methods of sequestration and taxing and carbon credits that will destroy the third world economy and kill millions?
Seeding clouds is a much better tool and I do not think the ships seeding the clouds is bad geo-engineering, because it is completely under control, on/off, and the material is harmless. Instead of expensive sequestration of CO2, and destructive taxes and CO2 markets it offers a harmless cure for warming, if warming there is.
AGW adherents are mainly eugenicists and back to the stone age idealists whose real aim is not control of the weather but control of the people. They certainly will fight against any engineering solutions. If skeptics join them in this, they will be doing a disservice to the planet.
I believe if politicians are offered an economical alternative that will achieve the same goals as the CO2 gimmicks,( even though they are unnecessary) they will prefer it because: a) they will be seen as caring for the planet b) they can put off decisions to a better date.
Doctors know this better . If you have a patient who is convinced he/she has a specific disease, the easiest solution is to give a placebo and the patient gets well. The next is to give medicine even though it is not needed. The patient gets well because he believes he will get well.
Choosing a geoengineering solution works as medicine more than as placebo, but unless we get next year icebergs in the aegian I cannot see how the mesmerized hoi polloi will wake up from the AGW trance.
I’d like to see a better study of ‘solar powered’ ships to seed clouds. Somewhat contradictory, as solar power doesn’t work when you have clouds. Collection area is also a problem. Solar isn’t that efficient. I’ve seen a lot of efficiency claims of 20+%, but you can’t actually buy any. How much energy will they need and how big? Autonomous? The AI folks have told us that was just around the corner, for the last 50 years.
The other problem is one of scale: The earth is rather large. To have any measurable effect, you need to change a large area. That may take more than five ships.
Sorry, Anna, but I put this in the Solar Power Satellite bag. It looks good until you do more of the calculations. Us grumpy old engineers have a bad habit of raining on parades.
anna v
There is a lot to be said for what you recommend. Someone who is already a trusted “insider” will have to do it though.
Wiki has a good description of “Group Think”:
“Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas. During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink)
That article is a good read. Many here will recognize what we’re really up against w/respect to climate change ‘consensus’.
Let us for the sake of argument accept that there is anthropogenic warming . No, anna, this battle is too important. The enemy can not be given into, not on anything, not in any way. The stakes are too high. Agreeing with liars and frauds would be to become liars and frauds ourselves. The truth is always more powerful than lies, it’s just that the truth has to be fought for, especially once a lie as huge as AGW becomes entrenched.
Retired Engineer (07:31:23) :
“I’d like to see a better study of ’solar powered’ ships to seed clouds. Somewhat contradictory, as solar power doesn’t work when you have clouds. Collection area is also a problem. Solar isn’t that efficient. I’ve seen a lot of efficiency claims of 20+%, but you can’t actually buy any. How much energy will they need and how big? Autonomous? The AI folks have told us that was just around the corner, for the last 50 years.”
There is a study and work done on this, it is not just an idea in the air. Some months ago I had posted a link because I saw a documentary about it.
“The other problem is one of scale: The earth is rather large. To have any measurable effect, you need to change a large area. That may take more than five ships.”
They say they can do the job with twenty ships on the tropical oceans. They have some sophisticated engineering. I said give them 5 ships for the next El Nino because a quarter of the effect should be measurable.
Bruce Cobb (08:47:10) :
AV:Let us for the sake of argument accept that there is anthropogenic warming .
BC: No, anna, this battle is too important. The enemy can not be given into, not on anything, not in any way. The stakes are too high. Agreeing with liars and frauds would be to become liars and frauds ourselves. The truth is always more powerful than lies, it’s just that the truth has to be fought for, especially once a lie as huge as AGW becomes entrenched.
We shall fight for truth and die in the effort? Is that the attitude?
The fate of western civilization, and indeed global civilization, is too important to be played at such puerille games. It is much more important that the CO2 trading and other nonsense is deflated and becomes ineffective so as not to reproduce on a huge scale the disaster of ethanol, than to have Hansen admit “me culpa, mea maxima culpa”.
You are making the same mistake of confusing politics and science. To change policies one has to be flexible and diplomatic and yielding where necessary in order to reach the true goal. It is not necessary to convert the governments and the politicians to the true science. It is enough to give them non destructive solutions to their perceived and delusional problems.
[…] Calls for Geo-Engineering at the Royal Society […]
Tony Edwards (13:52:46) :
has an error in it, I meant to write 5.15 billion tonnes of CO2 is ONE part per million, not .15. Not that anyone noticed.
Sigh.
Anthony, where’s an edit button when you need one?
anna v: The fate of western civilization, and indeed global civilization, is too important to be played at such puerille games.
Exactly. And gaming the enemy is exactly what you are proposing. Admitting to a falsehood is the same as lying. The ends never justify the means, and have a way of backfiring.
To Rick,
Other success stories are the rabbits in Australia and the Indian Mongoose in Hawaii.
To Ray,
I find the term “scientific ignorance” to be an oxymoron. The goal of science is to dispel ignorance, not propagate ignorance as the media and scientists, who whore out their disciplines, are doing. On second thought, perhaps a new area of study can evolve from the current situation. A new science, the science of ignorance, may be developed. There is a plethora of cases available to study for the development of theory and avenues of research.
To All,
The problem in science now is the excess of solutions and a paucity of problems. The grant money will go to the scientist who will invent the best problem for his solution.
To David Gladstone,
Social engineering is a euphemism for government control.
To retired engineer,
I see that you recognize that the environmentalists use the Fearless Fosdick method: Destroy, in order to protect.
To All Agin,
The solution to global warming/climate change that I favor are a multitude of gold-coated Mylar umbrellas, several miles in diameter and in geo-synchronous orbit, that can be opened and closed on command by ground control, with a number in lower orbit that can be applied to local hot-spots.
Professor Launder, just face it, “Game over man! Game over!”
[…] Calls for Geo-Engineering at the Royal Society […]
[…] Calls for Geo-Engineering at the Royal Society […]
Sorry, but we shouldn’t be doing anything “urgently” since there is no evidence of a catastrophe. What we SHOULD be doing is developing alternate energy options rationally, not through hyperbole and scaremongering. Forcing unreliable energy systems into the grid will cause more problems than they supposedly solve.
T. Boone Pickens actually makes sense. Not with wind, really, but with Natural Gas.
[…] Calls for Geo-Engineering at the Royal Society […]
[…] Calls for Geo-Engineering at the Royal Society […]