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..."
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.
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?
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.'"
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.'"
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...
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.