The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments

Jason Koebler writes The Royal Society of London, the world's oldest scientific publisher, has unveiled a proposal to create the first serious framework for future geoengineering experiments. It's a sign that what are still considered drastic and risky measures to combat climate change are drifting further into the purview of mainstream science. The scientific body has issued a call to create "an open and transparent review process that ensures such experiments have the necessary social license to operate."

Comments

You get nothing. Good day, sir!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

If I were a schill for big business, I'd be all, "Yeah yeah! Do it! Let's compensate by geoengineering!"

DO NOT DO THIS. If it works and you overshoot, you'll induce another ice age, which can happen in as few as a couple of years. Unlike moving in from the oceans over 100-300 years (a nuisance, and less damaging to human life than slowing technological advancement by massive intervention in the economy) an ice age will indeed, and actually, and rapidly kill billions of people.

Lik Willy Wonka, I will sigh and burble flatedly, "No. Stop. Don't do it." but the children won't listen.

Transparent?

[Pino Grigio]

When they say "open and transparent" what they mean is that anyone who's even vaguely sceptical will be hounded out at the first opportunity.

Re:Transparent?

[sumdumass]

It doesn't matter if anthropogenic CO2 causes warming or not (although there has yet to be any empiracle evidence of such). What matters is the costs with correcting it verses enduring it. So far, enduring it seems to be more cost effective than the plans to correct it that are being considered by governments. And most if them seem to have the end result of enduring us added costs.

Its more complicated than denialists which seems to be anyone who doesn't toe the line exactly how it is preached.

Re:Transparent?

[dave420]

You didn't have any logic or facts either, just your opinion. He chose to highlight the fact that your opinion is not based on the scientific findings of the decades of research on climate change by simply pointing to your name, which is incredibly apt. Don't confuse brevity with laziness :)

I am skeptical

[jfengel]

I'm skeptical about the ability of geoengineering to solve the problems created by climate change. The climate is chaotic: obviously in its form as weather, but longer-term as well. Is it going to be possible at all to un-stir that pot?

Climate effects of CO2 go well beyond the change in temperature. It also acidifies the ocean, to the detriment of the life there. It also shifts weather patterns: even if we manage the temperature of the globe on average, it won't fix the alternations made to rainfall patterns and local temperatures, which will affect plant and animal life and require changes (perhaps drastic) to the way farming is done. I worry that geoengineering would fight global warming but cause even more climate change.

I guess we won't know if we don't do the research, but it concerns me that it could be seen as "Don't worry, we'll just put everything back, so go ahead and dig up that last ounce of fossil fuel." Even if the geoengineering approach can do more good than harm, it doesn't let us off the hook to produce less carbon, which will mitigate the damage. And we're having a hard enough time getting anything done on that score without adding a new phase to climate change denialism: "We can fix it."

Re:I am skeptical

[khallow]

I guess we won't know if we don't do the research, but it concerns me that it could be seen as "Don't worry, we'll just put everything back, so go ahead and dig up that last ounce of fossil fuel." Even if the geoengineering approach can do more good than harm, it doesn't let us off the hook to produce less carbon, which will mitigate the damage. And we're having a hard enough time getting anything done on that score without adding a new phase to climate change denialism: "We can fix it."

While the moral hazard of geoengineering is rather obvious as a problem, so is the assumption that humanity only has one purpose, to keep the climate the same as it was in 1850.

Re:I have a better idea

[HornWumpus]

You could propose that as a geoengineering experiment.

But the short term costs are horrendous. Billions dead. Unlikely to be a good tradeoff.

Re:You get nothing. Good day, sir!

[Berkyjay]

A scientist who doesn't consider all paths to solving a problem is not a very good scientist. Let me emphasise.....CONSIDER all paths. To ignore geoengineering as a possible solution to what is happening NOW would be foolish and irresponsible.

Re:Durrrr.

[bobbied]

Not even close to what I said because I don't believe climate change is "settled science". Actually, to me, it's a boondoggle that is a lot like a boat. It's a hole in the water that you dump your money into. We are barking up the wrong tree, in the wrong forest, in the wrong country, on the wrong planet.

Re:I have a better idea

[Citizen of Earth]

To paraphrase, "How about just shutting down all industry and going back to the caves?" A de-industrialized civilization could only support billions fewer people than are alive today. You would need to 'cull' all of the excess. But really, westerns will never voluntarily accept even energy poverty, so your mass-extermination plan is a no-starter.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[riverat1]

I like planting trees but I'm under no illusion that it will solve the problem. We're burning fossil fuels in a few centuries that took 10's to 100's of thousands to millions of years to lay down. I would expect it to take a similar amount of time to reverse the CO2 levels.