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.

Comments

Geo-engineering is intrinsically riskier

[sideslash]

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.

Re:Never a good idea

[Saanvik]

Actually, the IPCC models have been very good at predicting the changes.

• IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think
• Contrary To Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate
• Models successfully reproduce global temperature since 1900.
• Validation and forecasting accuracy in models of climate change
• New Paper “Validation And Forecasting Accuracy In Models Of Climate Change” By Fildes and Kourentzes