Group Seeks Test For Geoengineering Tool To Fight Climate Change

An anonymous reader writes: A group of retired engineers and scientists has been meeting for several years to develop techniques to fight climate change. They've now reached the point where they want to actively test a machine that shoots water droplets into the sky in order to supplement existing clouds and increase the planet's albedo. The group is not aiming for full deployment — in fact, it's not even unanimous in support for prevailing theories in climate science. But they all agree that it's important to learn about such technologies before the situation becomes a crisis. "We need to understand whether this approach is even possible and what the risks are, in the event that we find ourselves looking for ways to extend time and mitigate warming damage."

If we're eventually forced to deploy large-scale geoengineering projects to combat climate change, it's not a good idea to grab whatever technology is cheapest or most readily available without knowing how well it works. The group is aware of the ethical concerns surrounding such research, but its director notes, "The fact is humanity is already engaged in unplanned climate engineering. We're doing it through coal plant and shipping emissions every day without understanding it very well."

Comments

Re:Same agencies.

[Penguinisto]

Nobody is asking for governmental control... they're asking to perform an experiment. Geez.

In all seriousness, I like that they're just looking at the technology, and studiously avoiding any attempt to take a political side in any of this. There are practical applications for this in the macro sense that have approximately bupkis to do with the whole debate, after all.

We already have a great tool

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Plants... they consume CO2, which seems to be the big issue in climate change.

How about projects to plant more plants in cities globally? Like forcing coal-powered power plants to surround their plant with plants? Plan to plant more plants in your plants.

How is it that anyone supports this?

[Rei]

* Does absolutely nothing to prevent ocean acidification
* Provides only masking - if they ever stop (lack of funding, discovery of profound negative consequences, or whatever), all the warming that they've been hiding comes rushing back
* They're just as likely to increase temperatures by increasing IR reflectance as they are to decrease it by increasing albedo. The least well understood aspect of the planet's climate, by a large margin, is clouds; they make up the vast majority of the error bars in the IPCC projections.
* There's a whole raft of staggeringly huge potential downstream disruptions, many of which could increase the problem - for example, reduction of photosynthesis.

I'm actually a moderate to slightly pro-geoengineering. But this is one of the dumbest geoengineering ideas out there. No, I don't think it's worth even wasting the money to try, that money should go to other more worthwhile projects.

Re:How is it that anyone supports this?

[swillden]

* Does absolutely nothing to prevent ocean acidification

The fact that one technology doesn't address all the problems doesn't make it worthless.

* Provides only masking - if they ever stop (lack of funding, discovery of profound negative consequences, or whatever), all the warming that they've been hiding comes rushing back

Nonsense. Decreasing insolation doesn't "hide" warming, it reduces energy input into the system. Sure, when you stop blocking the energy you'll begin warming again, but the energy you reflected away will not come "rushing back". Vacuuming my floor only keeps the floor clean as long as I continue doing it regularly, and when I stop the dust and dirt will begin to accumulate -- but the crud I removed is gone and not coming back.

Artificially and temporarily boosting the albedo isn't a permanent solution -- but there is no permanent solution. The climate is not stable even without geoengineering, intentional or unintentional. If we want it to remain comfortable for us, we're eventually going to have to take a hand in it, and any technique we use is going to be temporary in nature. Actually, I'd argue that's a feature, not a bug; less chance of a runaway effect.

* They're just as likely to increase temperatures by increasing IR reflectance as they are to decrease it by increasing albedo. The least well understood aspect of the planet's climate, by a large margin, is clouds; they make up the vast majority of the error bars in the IPCC projections.

That just increases the value of studying it.

* There's a whole raft of staggeringly huge potential downstream disruptions, many of which could increase the problem - for example, reduction of photosynthesis.

Again, that just means we need to study it rather than guess. You can acquire scientific knowledge through careful passive observation or through active experimentation but the latter is much faster and more effective.

I'm actually a moderate to slightly pro-geoengineering. But this is one of the dumbest geoengineering ideas out there. No, I don't think it's worth even wasting the money to try, that money should go to other more worthwhile projects.

That's an argument I could buy. However, I don't see anyone else actually proposing to do anything. What we should be doing is funding many different areas of research. More promising avenues should get more funding, but we shouldn't dismiss anything that is potentially useful out of hand.

Re:How is it that anyone supports this?

[Rei]

The fact that one technology doesn't address all the problems doesn't make it worthless.

When its alternatives do address acidification, yes, that is an argument against it.

Nonsense. Decreasing insolation doesn't "hide" warming, it reduces energy input into the system. Sure, when you stop blocking the energy you'll begin warming again, but the energy you reflected away will not come "rushing back".

Wrong. Earth is at 400ppm milestone, and we're doing on artificial albedo increases. We'll call this status X. Now let's say we begin this process tomorrow. Earth's CO2 keeps rising... 450... 500... 550... 600. But we keep increasing the albedo so that the temperature stays the same as it is today.

What happens when the machines get shut off?

Water vapor has a very short atmospheric residence time. Everything will be back to its no-albedo-boosted state within a couple weeks. So all of the sudden we go from 400ppm temperatures to 600ppm temperatures. There will be some delay because of thermal inertia of course, but the issue is, you're just hiding the problem, not actually doing anything about it. And when you stop hiding it, it comes running back.

Again, that just means we need to study it rather than guess.

Every dollar spent on one thing is a dollar not spent on something else. There are geoengineering processes which don't have all of these problems and are more worthy of study, and need more study (I'd put forth, as one example among many, ocean seeding). And that money could also go toward advancing the technology to reduce carbon emissions or capture emitted carbon.

However, I don't see anyone else actually proposing to do anything.

That's just advertising how little you follow this topic.

sincere skepticism.

[nimbius]

climate change is the manifestation of the global use of fossil fuels at an unprecedented rate, releasing millions of tons of greenhouse gasses. in Cloud Reflectivity Modification, these devices being proposed would also contribute to global warming in that they are, in models, driven by plane and ships. I support the science. we need to learn more about how this affects or impacts a controlled environment. but to insinuate its somehow going to solve a problem of this magnitude is sophomoric on a number of levels, not the least of which economic.

Easier more practical solutions like alternative energy and curbing emissions in the first place are a better application of the finite resources we have to address climate change. To expound upon the articles premise, If we're eventually forced to deploy large-scale geoengineering projects to combat climate change, its already too late.

Re:sincere skepticism.

[chilenexus]

Being too late to stop changes from happening is not a good reason to stop efforts to limit how bad it gets. That's like saying "I'm already going to hit the car in front of me, so why use my brakes before impact?"

Well, it could spell the difference between a dented bumper and slaughtering everyone in both cars.

Re:Actually you can

[Rei]

Seriously though, for all we know, historically Earth has seen higher temperatures and much higher CO2 levels, and life on the planet was flourishing, much bigger and much more diverse than it is today.

And we also know that when the planet has rapidly transitioned between climactic periods, it's been associated with mass extinctions. So I'm not really sure what your point is.

To reiterate, the issue is not that the planet is changing, but how fast the planet is changing. Life takes time to adapt.

Carbon is vital to all life, and sitting in the depths of the planet it ain't doing anyone any good.

Boron is also needed by all complex life, but that doesn't mean we should be digging up huge amounts of it and dumping it into our air, either.

what we can do now to make a big difference

[swschrad]

is silence the deluded gasbags spewing lies on behalf of dirty energy, and move ahead on alternatives on a wartime basis. between coal spew and the denial industry's hot air, that's half the problem solved.

Re:Again, false solutions ...

[ThosLives]

The big problem with addressing global warming is that the ability (and cost) associated with mitigating global warming is not located in the same places that are most likely to be adversely affected by global warming.

Asking individuals to change their behavior (or pay a tax) for social programs even in their own backyard is hard enough, yet the climate change folks want to impose costs for people literally on the other side of the globe.

Now I'm not saying that trying to mitigate effects of climate change isn't worthy - it's just that the way people go about trying to get people to make changes is missing the boat as far as how to convince people to make a difference goes. Instead of encouraging, educating, and unifying people, mostly what we see is almost-dictatorial decrees about "you must stop X" and is very vilifying and divisive. Even the jabs thrown between the "deniers" and "supporters" don't actually get anything done.

Make efforts that are appealing now (both personally and economically) without vilifying people, and we'll get some traction. Saying "we're doomed, and you're evil because you don't want to change X in your life!" isn't a helpful approach.