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..."
This is cane toads. The best intentions and not enough information make a destructive combination.
Don't think so. That sounded like a good question, so I looked it up. Here's a Vice link where Vice goes after Cracked.
History of Vice
History of Cracked
They're equally clickbaity and empty, but I don't think there is any real relation.
Launch about 10 million square km worth of aluminum foil into mid-earth orbit. The foil will be small, one-square-foot pieces that can move about freely. At any instant, some will be facing into the sun and blocking out light, while others are facing the sun edge-on and letting light through. Together, they will permanently block out 1% of the sun and reduce surface temperatures to a manageable level.
Yes, it'll be expensive, but it might not be so bad compared to the cost of ending all CO2 production. It's also a one-time investment so nobody can change their mind afterwards (or need to, since the cost is sunk). There are no undesirable side effects on the ground, and if you position it right, you can cool the equator much more than the poles, turning much more of the earth into livable habitat.
Some might say this is Kessler Syndrome on steroids, but if all of the foils are within a relatively small range of orbits, it wouldn't be all that hard to avoid. Aluminum is also highly reflective and easy to see with radar, so if one does come your way, you can easily see and dodge it.
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.
Instead of try a chemistry experiment of unprecedented proportions, it would be much better if we simply addressed the problem directly: remove the excess CO2 from the air. It will take years and millions of CO2 reclamation plants but it will get the job done! The question is not if we can do it but if we will do it.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
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.
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.
Maybe you're on to something there: if global temperatures are the result of an equilibrium mostly governed by CO2 levels, and CO2 continues to build up, then I suppose a rapid rise to that equilibrium is plausible, after we remove the external attenuating factor. Even if we don't go back to our bad old ways. But I've no idea if that's how it actually works, and would love to see some research in that area.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Calm down, it's just a spill chucking error. They meant to say you could either do solar geoengineering fast or half-fast.
... agriculture goes down by 1% etc. 1% might not sound much but on a planetwide scale is huge.
I think the AC was simply reacting to the syntax of "scientists did X in 2020".
All of this, of course, is based on those oh-so-reliable models that can't account for the "pause" and generally fail to distinguish adequately between natural and anthropogenic warming. Just the kind of basis you want to use as the basis for a massive experiment with the planet's atmosphere.
First understand. Then tinker.
At the moment, the models generally fail to make any specific and falsifiable predictions. Where people have tried to make such predictions, based on the models, they have generally been wrong. It's not clear that current models are any better than the Farmer's Almanac.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Think "I'm lying down at home, and every several minutes I put another blanket over me" vs. "I suddenly put a whole bunch of blankets at once ". Do you really think you'll warm up at the same rate when you've just added a whole bunch of blankets at once as you would have when you added them incrementally? Of course not, and then all of the sudden you rapidly warm up to nearly the temperature you'd have been had you put them on incrementally.
The driver of Earth's climate - sunlight reacts effectively instantly to changes in the atmosphere. Earth's primary greenhouse gas - water vapor - adjusts to changes in longer-term forcing factors (such as methane, CO2, Milankovitch cycles, etc) in a matter of days to weeks. The only thing making said change not catch up almost instantly is the thermal inertia of Earth's surface (land, ocean). The land's thermal inertia won't last long; it doesn't convect, and the upper layers insulate the lower layers, so any moderating impact it has rapidly decreases over time (e.g. you may note how the land may melt the first snowfall or two of the winter, but then cools down to the point where it can't anymore; its ability to affect surface temperature changes is limited). The real question is the ocean. You need proper models to represent it - hence the reason for this study. I suspect that the reason that they got the results that they did is that the timescales involved aren't sufficient for significant movement of heat to the deep ocean.
Science doesn't work based on "hunches". You make models and you test them, then submit your results for peer review. Like they did.
The "block the sun" proposals to prevent warming have always sounded counterintuitive. Ignoring the acid rain risks, if you're reducing sunlight, you're reducing photosynthesis; this is not a good thing. You're also doing nothing to stop ocean acidification - if anything, you might make it worse. And of course, it's just hiding the problem - sweeping dirt under the rug.
The only geoengineering proposal that's ever sounded particularly interesting to me is iron seeding of the oceans. 1) It's actually removing CO2, not just hiding it (experiments differ on how much you sequester, from "little" to "vast amounts", but it definitely has effects), 2) It's quite affordable, and 3) It has the side effect of restoring and enhancing fisheries. When the Haida Gwaii did it (without permission, and were shut down), the results were amazing; salmon catches went up 400% and all indications were that other marine life populations were booming as well. The vast majority of Earth's oceans are like deserts, with very low densities of life because there's insufficient iron to allow for growth of autotrophs. Add the iron and life takes off; it doesn't require much.
You of course have to be careful - not to have too high of a density (out of risk of oxygen depletion), to consider downstream mineral concentrations (aka, how it affects minerals you're not supplementing), how the overall food chain balance is, etc. I always find the latter issue however overblown given how much we've drastically altered the oceans' food chains already with overfishing the top species, and this presents a chance to let them restore their numbers by increasing primary productivity needed for their numerous fry to reach adulthood - but that's neither here nor there. You do have to be careful; the process requires extensive study. And of course you need to be sure that it's actually working, that enough carbon from organic detritus is getting buried on the seabed to make a difference. But the main point is that it's not a band-aid; it's about taking carbon from the atmosphere, not trying to hide its effects.
How come things that happen to stupid people keep happening to me?
Science doesn't work based on "hunches". You make models and you test them, then submit your results for peer review. Like they did.
I never claimed it did. My question was if their models covered the mechanics of the sharp rise in temperature, or only the effects on the ecosystem. That wasn't clear from the article, and the paper's abstract suggests that they only studied the effects, basing the mechanics on other research (which I can't access).
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Making the popcorn as I await the handwringing, and finger pointing from both sides. Happy hump-day everybody!
Just another day in Paradise
Sulfor aerosols might be what caused the 1970s ice age alert (which was debunked right away, but people still believe it to day). During the 1970s we had some really cold winters in Europe and unfortunately: acid rain, forest/tree death all over the place and as a result coal plants got regulated to scrub exhaust and remove 99% of its emissions.
No idea what the people behind that aerosol idea think, but I guess they forgot about "acid rain".
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Plants are already very good at carbon sequestration. We just need nation-state level industrial projects to use solar to irrigate currently uninhabitable desert regions with desalinated sea water. Then, completely cover those regions in bamboo forests. Harvest the bamboo and bury it or use it for construction materials instead of cutting down pine treas. We already have the technology to do this on a grand scale.
Ignoring the acid rain risks, if you're reducing sunlight, you're reducing photosynthesis; this is not a good thing.
This begs the question, if you're reducing sunlight, are you reducing photosynthesis? And the answer is complicated. Over about 100 degrees, virtually all plants just shut down. They close their stomata so as to attempt to not lose water via respiration, which means they can't engage in photosynthesis either. In the kind of strong, direct sunlight which tends to produce those temperatures, many plants get burned. You can actually see the leaf damage. This tendency represents an upper limit on photosynthesis, since it is solar powered. It ultimately means that plants can only consume a certain maximum amount of CO2, which is based on the maximum amount of light they can receive and still function.
Reducing insolation at this point may well increase photosynthesis.
The only geoengineering proposal that's ever sounded particularly interesting to me is iron seeding of the oceans.
Agreed. Rust is cheap.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Right, because the water used by power plants is synthesized on-site.
And don't forget about the chemtrails. /s
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
TFA is just a stupid strawman argument. Sure, if we implement geoengineering in the stupidest possible way.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. "What could go wrong if we do this wrong" is an entirely valid question to study when you're at the back-of-the-envelope stage of a major project.
I'm not sure you understand what a straw man is. If the article concluded, "... and that's why we should rule out geoengineering approaches," then it would have been a straw man.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Oil is buried under assholes (more accurately, economies based on oil allow assholes to retain power) . If we make oil less valuable, assholes have less money, and therefore, less power. Even if there weren't environmental concerns, which there clearly are, we should put effort into ending our oil addiction just to starve the assholes.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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.
Somewhere along the lne, they kinda missed the business of what happens to those sulfur aerosols. Nothing like a little sulfuric acid rain to brighten up your metal stuff.
But yeah, attempts to modify the weather via chemical injection, like sulfur aerosols or seeding the oceans with iron, are just full of unintended consequences.
The damage has already been done, so we just need to sit back and enjoy the roller coaster ride. Besides, most of the deniers I know actually like the warmer weather, and to hell with everyone else.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
The sulfur aerosols act to counteract the energy retention effects of CO2 and methane. But it iis a short lived effect, as the aerosols are flushed out of the atmosphere as sulfuric acid rain. At that point, more aerosols need to be pumped into the atmosphere. It is a very short lived effect, and once you stop the effect ends. The bounceback would be strong, which I suppose is their point. Well duh.
Now if we were to sensibly do this, it would be a tapering of aerosol injection over a few thousand years or so to allow a gradual re-heating. Even then, it's a stupid idea. Sulfuric acid smog for one thing.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center needs to realize that National Socialism one of the shortest-lived and most hated political movements on this planet. And if we depending on that for a solution, we are screwed. The only way to make a solution stick is to develop a technology that has an economic up-side which will make it 'stick' in the long term.
Have gnu, will travel.
Direct sequestration of CO2?
All that's required is a nuclear plant and access to water.
Pumping CO2 into volcanic rock to create limestone?
Or any of how many other technologies?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Why is Slashdot publishing a bad science FICTION story?
I thought "peer review" was all bullshit nowadays? At least that's what all the articles on science's bias and replication issues are telling me.
It's because the aerosols leave the atmosphere quickly (relatively) once you stop producing them. So imagine humans added enough CO2 to the atmosphere to warm the earth 5 degrees, but then also added aerosols so it balanced out. If humans stopped producing aerosols, then the temperature would rise that much within a decade or two.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Temperatures are adjusted because raw values are always wrong. Raw values of measurements are only correlated with the real values. You need to adjust for known errors in the measurements. Known errors change over time and the resulting values need to be updated to reflect new knowledge.
Actual data is showing worse warming that predicted by those models. If anything, they were wrong in that they didn't show enough warming.
Even if AWG is wrong, then we've only made the World a better place to live for no good reason. Assuming we're talking about non-drastic changes, like better renewable power sources, not geoengineering.
Generally agreed...there's nothing convincing to me on the science for me yet.
Compelling yes, not convincing.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Well, if you want to go that way with the meaning of profane (towards the religious definition), then anything not sacred would be profane, so every headline /. ever had would be profane.
"raw" values are fundamentally impossible. Do you actually think when you read data from a harddrive that there's literally zeros and ones? Probably trolling. I should stop feeding you. But it does bring up an interesting topic of numbers being an abstract concept that are open to interpretation, even though we like to think of them as "concrete". Numbers are not real. They're a concept made up by humans as a flawed, but useful, way to describe the "real" world. Until you understand what I said, you don't know what a number actually is. Dunning Kruger effect strikes again. Dunning Kruger effect is actually a symptom of a lack of meta-cognition, which is an effect of a lack of abstract reasoning.
I'm not going to click your spam link, but why not add an idea with your spam next time? If you comprehend the point you wanted to see made, it would even be easy to do!
While I agree there is some compelling evidence, your argument that "it's true because thousands of climatologists" is complete garbage. The majority of scientists have *often* been wrong about things in the past: low-fat diets, exoplanets being rare, dinosaurs being reptiles that lived in swamps, neanderthals not existing alongside humans, AGW leading to an ice age, dietary cholesterol, Moore's law ending umpteen times in the last 20 years, etc etc etc. Experts are wrong about things surprisingly often. What do you think about economist predictions? Statistically they're no better than random chance. If you want to make an argument, make the argument. Don't just say who agrees with you.
A fetus with fetal alcohol syndrome
You still have bitcoins? Damn that must suck. I mined them back when GPUs were practical, and sold them when they were valued at 17k. Today they're just something you buy when you're feeling charitable to random people on the internet.
Funny that this got modded down, since the headline was copied verbatim from the Vice headline.
FWIW, I don't currently have a huge problem with Vice (unless someone wants to educate me), but they are likely to use profanity, which is, directly, how the profanity ended up on Slashdot.
Sure. There's other heat sinks. When they've got all the excess heat they can handle, they stop working as heat sinks.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It's far from perfect, but a single peer-reviewed paper isn't the foundation for a piece of science. Only when confirmation of some sort comes in will people feel comfortable about it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
So, we are being told that small steps are worse than no steps at all? That'll discourage everyone. I wish they would just accept that nuclear power is clean and cheap and easy.