Slashdot Mirror
Half-Assed Solar Geoengineering Is Worse Than Climate Change Itself (vice.com)
New submitter beccaf writes: Ecologists and climate scientists investigated the consequences of rapid initiation of solar geoengineering (pumping sulfuric aerosols into the atmosphere) in 2020 and then rapid termination of this solar geoengineering fifty years later. It provides only short-term benefits to biodiversity, and, if stopped abruptly, temperatures will soar faster than they would with climate change alone and the consequences to all living things will be even worse than if humans had never interfered in Earth's natural processes at all. The study has been published in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution. Rebecca Flowers via Motherboard summarizes the effects of solar geoengineering, according to research conducted by Christopher Trisos, an ecologist at the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, and his colleagues: "Initially, organisms stop having to change habitats in response to rising temperatures. Highly mobile species that had already moved, like migratory birds, might return to their original ecosystems, and species that were too slow to move before, like corals, have a higher chance of survival than they did before the geoengineering project began. After mere decades, though, living things in highly biodiverse areas like the Amazon Basin have to start moving again, as much as they would have to in a non-geoengineering scenario."
"Suddenly, it's 2070," Flowers continues. "Governments begin to disagree on how to handle climate change, and, besides, they can no longer afford to pump aerosols into the atmosphere. As a result, we stop pumping aerosols into the atmosphere. Then things really go to hell. The amount of warming that would have happened without geoengineering over fifty years is essentially squished into a decade..."
"Suddenly, it's 2070," Flowers continues. "Governments begin to disagree on how to handle climate change, and, besides, they can no longer afford to pump aerosols into the atmosphere. As a result, we stop pumping aerosols into the atmosphere. Then things really go to hell. The amount of warming that would have happened without geoengineering over fifty years is essentially squished into a decade..."
TFA is just a stupid strawman argument. Sure, if we implement geoengineering in the stupidest possible way, and then suddenly stop again, then that would be stupid.
That says nothing about whether geoengineering is good or bad in general, or even whether sulfur aerosols are good or bad. In fact, TFA seems to say that sulfur aerosols work pretty well, and it is only stopping them that is bad.
Tomorrow morning, I am going to dump my bitcoins and invest in sulfur futures.
... and, besides, they can no longer afford to pump aerosols into the atmosphere.
The cost of such a program, especially after it's been going for decades, is minuscule compared to the cost of carbon reduction. The idea that we'll suddenly not be able to afford it is nuts, but moreover, it's applicable a fortiori to any other plan. Who would claim that "well, we could cut carbon emissions, but then in 2050 we might no longer be able to afford it and go back to coal, which would be worse" is a legitimate argument against carbon reduction?
There are a million legitimate objections to geo-engineering. This one, however, is total nonsense.
It's not at all clear just what the research was about, exactly. Judging from the journal it was published in (Nature ecology and evolution), perhaps all they did was study the effects of a rapid rise in global temperatures on the ecosystem, and how various species would deal with that.
The heart of the matter is this notion that temperatures will rise rapidly after we stop releasing sulphur aerosols. I'm not a climate scientist, but it doesn't make a lot of sense that the climate would "try to catch up" in this case. Earth is not like your house on a hot summer day, warming rapidly when you turn off the aircon in the afternoon. The sun and space aren't getting any warmer. Intuitively, it seems likelier for Earth to continue warming up at present day rates after all the aerosols have dissipated. Did they actually research the working of this geoengineering method, or did they only study the effects of one scenario based on assumptions?
Perhaps it has more to do with the still rising CO2 levels over the period of aerosol release that would cause the sudden massive heat buildup. People are short sighted and if we were to halt rising temperatures using aerosols then quite a few people would go back to their old ways of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere (it's like people who win some money, pay off all their debts and then get loaded back up with debts bigger then before). If a solution to climate change only treats the symptoms and doesn't involve fixing the problems then it is just delaying the inevitable.
How long do you think it will take to build millions of CO2 reclamation plants, and actually have an impact? We've been hearing from many that we're already beyond the "tipping point", so what good would this do if we're already fucked?...could it be accomplished in time, or would we need a short term interim solution to hold us over? I'm no climatologist, but I don't think calling attempts at solutions (temporary or otherwise) "chemistry experiment" is helpful in any way.
Just another day in Paradise
It will take years and millions of CO2 reclamation plants but it will get the job done!
Those CO2 reclamation plants are called trees. However, for them to work, we not only have to plant them and care for them until they are self-sufficient, but we also have to stop emitting so much atmospheric carbon.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You mean it doesn't have to do with the fact that we're measuring in more places, more often, all of the time? Instead of the just occasionally some of the time?
No. It doesn't. The historical and modern records agree.
I mean come on now, we've already seen in the past with cherry picking of samples to "prove" global warming.
That's funny, I only remember denialists cherry-picking short periods for that purpose over and over again.
Or the fact that more people happen to live in areas prone to "worse weather" that makes them think that the end is neigh.
Willlllbuurrrrrrrr!
If you lived in Southern Ontario right now, you'd be thinking that.
Only if I were the kind of stupid asshole who thinks that only what happens to me is important.
Many people accept that there's "climate change" what people are disputing are the shit tier models,
All the models agree we're fucked, the only thing they disagree on is how fast we're going to all realize it.
It really "isn't that bad" or did you forget that the settlements in the 1500's and 1600's, the winters were so cold that entire settlements were wiped out simply from the weather.
Say it with me, son: weather is not climate. It is influenced by climate. Why is this so difficult for you and yours to grasp? Oh yeah, because if you do, you might have to behave differently, and that's the one thing you cannot accept.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
We don't need to halt all CO2 production to solve global warming. We just need to just need to equalise it.
We need to actually run it back the other way for a while. We're over 400 ppm CO2 now, we should be under 300 ppm...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The thousands of climatologists that actually study this stuff and know what they're talking about disagree with you. But I'm sure you know more about it...