Slashdot Mirror
Climatologist Speaks On the Effects of Geoengineering
Lasrick writes: In this interview with Rutgers University climatologist Alan Robock, he discusses geoengineering and nuclear winter. Robock believes that geoengineering is not the solution to global warming because of its many risks and unknowns. He notes that some of the technology that would be required to implement geoengineering has not been developed and that many socio-political questions would have to be resolved before it could be put into practice. To start with, the world would have to reach agreement on a target temperature and on what entity should do the implementing. Robock's biggest fear with regard to geoengineering is that disputes over these questions could escalate into nuclear war which in turn could cause nuclear winter, producing global famine among other effects. Fascinating, wide-ranging interview with one of the world's top climatologists.
To paper over a deep problem with a shallow solution.
While I see many challenges to geoengineering, talks breaking down into nuclear war is not one of them. I mean, I have challenging talks with my wife all the time about the budget, but I never think going into it that she's going to burn down the house in response to a dispute.
When climatologists say geo-engineering is not the solution, they mean a political solution to drastically and immediately reduce CO2 emissions, is a better choice. Of course, that is NOT going to happen. So the choice is not between geo-engineering and some theoretical perfect solution, but between geo-engineering and doing almost nothing. I don't think we are to the point where we should roll out large scale geo-engineering, but we certainly should be doing the research so it is an option in the future. Currently it is politically incorrect to do even minimal research.
At least with carbon reduction we're attempting to reverse climate changes through a mechanism believed to trigger those changes. However, with new intervention mechanisms that aren't fully understood, I don't trust anybody's model of what they think will happen.
My (likely) worst case scenario: an ice age in 100 years. That would be worse than global warming.
Sorry, but you can't equate a nations survival against a different nation with an argument with your wife. Not even close to the same thing, and much more is at stake. Take his biggest example, what should Earth's surface temperature target? Any fixed rate will impact someone's growing seasons and food production. Somebody has to lose something, or perhaps it's best to term it "sacrifice" something. Does Asia lose rice production, or does Europe/North America lose grain production?
The article does not even tough the bigger issues. The particles that have been patented for use in GeoEngineering are hazardous. Perhaps there are other patents we don't know about, but the ones we do know about are primarily barium and aluminum. Neither humans or animals process large amounts of metals very well, and metals have a toxic effect over time because we can't process them out of our systems. Somebody has to take the blame when people start dropping, and war is probably going seen as the only option to fight off "those evil poisoner people".
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
You've got that backwards: there can be no solution to global warming, as too many wealthy people have too much to lose from their industries, so fund the constant obfuscation.
I've seen multimillionaires threaten entire city councils over environmental action that doesn't suit them.