Comments on: Modelling Geoengineering

By: Patrick R

Patrick R — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:41:33 +0000

Kate,

The 21 August 2012 post at Science of Doom has some images of a physical “pan” model of polar atmospheric circulation. I thought you might find these of interest.

Patrick

By: climatehawk1

climatehawk1 — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 20:36:48 +0000

Excellent points–that’s why we should scale back on our current geoengineering by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Kim Stanley Robinson has written a trilogy on global warming (first book is “Forty Signs of Rain”). The two takeaways for me were: 1) Nothing happens on the policy front until the temperature in DC falls to 50 degrees F below 0 (due to a shift in ocean currents) and 2) Ultimately we do geoengineering, not because it is safe (it definitely isn’t), but because we have nothing left to lose.

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 17:24:51 +0000

Richard Pauli touched on some of what I wanted to mention. I’ll just add what happens if some nation or nations suffer because larger, richer nations geoengineered the climate? We may stop heat waves and drought in our nations, but suppose that creates problems in other nations? They may have wanted the climate regime shift as it might have meant more reliable precipitation events. Instead, they’re now suffering drought and famine which brings in ethical issues along with all the geopolitical and economic issues (not to mention complications arising if the suffering nations possess nuclear weapons—how far would you go to provide food to your family and protect your people?).

By: Anders Lorenzen

Anders Lorenzen — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 21:49:13 +0000

Interesting observations. I however still have a stance against geoengineering, but we have to be clear about different kinds of methods. For instance by starting to paint houses and buildings white to reflect sunlight I see more as a building technique and something we for sure should start implementing on all buildings new and old. But when it comes to stuff like putting mirros up into space I’m highly critical of it, the truth is we dont really know what would happen and if it backfires it could be extremely risky. Still think geo-engineering should be the very last resort and it’s also very expensive.

By: Cugel

Cugel — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:04:16 +0000

“Responsible use” is not something we can take for granted.

By: Ellen Bryant

Ellen Bryant — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:10:25 +0000

I am very concerned about Weather Modification that has been taking place by our Gov’t. Global Dimming is stopping Sun on Water Natural Evaporation for natural rain clouds. The Sun’s rays are being reflected back into the Universe and now there is talk of other Planets heating up, too. All Oil Activities are heating up the Arctic; Ice Breakers work 24/7 to chip up what should remain frozen. DOE, DARPA, HAARP, etc., for control & profit is a serious threat against all life on Earth. It is the epitome of Gov’t pollution. Weather is a Commodity traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange… You can stop Climate Change by keeping Gov’t, Business, profiteers, etc., from screwing with Nature.

By: Nathan Urban

Nathan Urban — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 20:41:50 +0000

There’s still debate in the literature as to whether carbon capture ought to be classified as “geoengineering”. Regardless, it’s too glib to just say that SRM will be paired with CDR. If CDR were that easy, we’d be doing it now, geoengineering or not. It’s still a massive undertaking (on par with extracting all the fossil fuels in the first place, except without so many economic benefits), and would have to be spread out over a very long time period until CO2 declines to pre-industrial (during which time the “failure of SRM” arguments would still apply). And I feel I’m not as optimistic as you as to the certainty with which a “responsible” strategy would be employed.

By: Nathan Urban

Nathan Urban — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 19:51:55 +0000

So are you hoping to specialize in particularly policy-relevant science in your future career? Geoengineering is certainly one (very controversial) candidate. Regional/decadal prediction, extremes, sea level rise, and climate or carbon cycle thresholds are other currently popular areas. The first few are aimed more at adaptation than prevention. (Arguably we're more likely to have to do that than either GHG emissions abatement or geoengineering.) I wouldn't set too strong expectations about what you'll be doing in the future, though; the convergence of interesting science and what policy-makers are interested in changes every 5 years. Damon has done a lot of excellent work on Earth system modeling, especially with the terrestrial carbon cycle. I can also attest that he's a great guy to collaborate with. (Unfortunately, his department only supports M.Sc. students, not Ph.D. students.) By the way, a couple papers on geoengineering that may interest you. The first one, concerning sea level rise, was also done with UVic. The second one looks at the economic impacts the of "failure to geoengineer forever" scenario you mention. "Tension between reducing sea-level rise and global warming through solar-radiation management" "The economics (or lack thereof) of aerosol geoengineering"

By: richard pauli

richard pauli — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:56:49 +0000

Geoengineering thinkers tend to resist acknowledging that we have been performing a real geoengineering experiment all along. It is just unintentional. So the easiest, and most proven method is to just reverse the experiment – halting all emissions and sequestering CO2. We know that works.

The unacceptability of this approach only reveals the true problem: Global warming is a human social problem – not really a climate science one, Climate change will unfold in physical ways you can nicely describe. More difficult is to say how we can unify human will to meet adaptation and mitigation problems.

I am glad you are looking in this direction, and heartened that you are pondering the ethics of the field. Indeed, once geoeingineering is started, it cannot be stopped, but what about unilateral actions? Should we stop a rogue nation from proceeding? Or even a wealthy individual? What about collateral damages? If warmer weather crops are suddenly shocked by geoengineered cold weather, is there a liability? What about increased flooding or drought? Who is liable for damages caused by intentional climate change? [since we are unable to assign liability to UNintentional change, I doubt this can be solved]

If you give an open sense of decision making to your models, what if they decide that human population should be radically decreased?

I would hope that you continue to study climate modeling, and we are blessed that you share so much of what you learn.

By: counters

counters — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:57:12 +0000

Since you mentioned Dr. Robock’s GeoMIP project, I thought I’d link you to another one of his publications – (http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/20Reasons.pdf). It’s interesting to study geo-engineering – for instance, in my own work in aerosol-cloud interactions/processes, studying marine cloud whitening and that general area of technologies and ideas is an attractive sort of case study or thought experiment. However, beyond just sheer cost, engineering effort, and logistical issues, it’s worth bearing in mind that at this juncture in time, any sort of large-scale geo-engineering strategy is likely illegal under the 1976 ENMOD treaty.

Geo-engineering is just too risky and too expensive. Unless it’s proposed by a pessimist who is frustrated with current efforts to implement serious mitigation strategies, I think it’s worth having a quizzical attitude when someone proposes geo-engineering as a solution to global warming. It’s right up there with thorium reactors (still decades away from commercialization) and nuclear fusion – too expensive and the technology won’t exist for quite some time.