Good news everyone!
Can climate change be changed back again? Maybe, say boffins
Climate boffins now reckon that solar geoengineering could be done safely by targeting specific regions. Sunset in the Arctic Solar geoengineering basically works by reflecting sunshine back into space, thereby offsetting global warming. Scientists would pump aerosols into the stratosphere or create low altitude marine …
-
-
-
-
Monday 22nd October 2012 17:55 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Nigel 11
Well, not the end result. The short term or mid term result is deliberate. It's the end result that gets you in... well, the "end". Unless those aiming for short term goals at the risk of complete catastrophe are aiming for a long term catastrophe.
Nuclear Explosion, because they had unintended long term results too.
PS, no comments on GW here, just the general "eating all the fish in the pond leaves you with no fish" warning. :P
-
-
-
-
-
Monday 22nd October 2012 15:52 GMT Anonymous Coward
Even if it did work...
... you'd have to constantly use it more and more to offset the constant rise in CO2 and eventually it WOULD become a problem in its own right. For example, if you reflect enough sunlight back into space then plants and algae don't photosynthesize as much and so don't pull as much CO2 out of the atmosphere. Geoengineering is just some 1950s style engineering quick fix with the same naive assumption of that era than we can engineer our way out of every problem. Sorry , life isn't that simple.
-
Monday 22nd October 2012 21:15 GMT solidsoup
Re: Even if it did work...
The issue with CO2 concentrations and global warming as presented by IPCC are positive feedback loops. If you maintain the temperature, even as the CO2 concentrations increase, then positive feedback loops don't occur - it's the position of your own camp. Familiarize yourself with it. Note that negative feedback loops tied to CO2 concentrations still take place, making ocean acidification less of an issue. As to sustaining biosphere with higher CO2 levels, since you guys are so fond of charts, here's one: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png We're increasing our CO2 concentration at a rate of 1ppmv/year. Count for yourself how long that would take.
-
Tuesday 23rd October 2012 09:12 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Even if it did work...
"it's the position of your own camp."
FYI I'm not part of any camp , I make up my own mind rather than get into silly religious style wars about it.
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png We're increasing our CO2 concentration at a rate of 1ppmv/year. Count for yourself how long that would take."
Who cares? Earths past is irrelevant , its the future that matters and there is no way human civilisation as it is today could exist in the sort of hothouse enviroment that existed 500m years ago. So I'm afraid using the "Look! It was worse in the past so we're not really doing anything different!" argument is specious and just a little bit childish.
Lets get this straight - there is NO danger to earth from what we're doing. Its survived 4 billion years being hit by asteroids and all sorts of climate cycles so it'll survive us. The danger is to us! If we fuck up our enviroment WE will be the ones who suffer. Or more specifically following generations as most people reading this will probably be dead before anything really bad on a global scale happens.
-
-
-
-
-
Monday 22nd October 2012 16:27 GMT Ben Tasker
Re: ... and if current global warming theory is wrong and we cool our planet down too much.
Exactly my thoughts.
Problem: We might be influencing the climate through emissions etc
Solution: Let's deliberately mess with the climate
The only thing that this will definitely achieve is an end to the debate on whether or not man is influencing the climate in any great manner. Of course, it won't answer whether we were beforehand, but we definitely will have if we start tinkering.
There were a lot of conspiracy loons worrying about the LHC destroying the earth. Won't seem nearly as crazy if they were to oppose the very idea of this, hell I'd probably join them.
Still, at least they're not saying that they plan to do it.
-
Monday 22nd October 2012 17:01 GMT NomNomNom
Re: ... and if current global warming theory is wrong and we cool our planet down too much.
"The only thing that this will definitely achieve is an end to the debate on whether or not man is influencing the climate in any great manner."
No it won't. Geo-engineering is based on the same kind of models that show we are influencing the climate through greenhouse gas emissions. If the evidence from the models isn't good enough to end the debate on one, it can't be good enough for the other either.
For example, if these mad scientists do start a geo-engineering scheme and the world starts cooling, how do you prove the cooling is due to the geo-engineering and not a coincidence due to natural causes?
Consider that following predictions in the 80s that the world would warm due to human emissions the world has warmed, but a lot of people are unconvinced and think it might have just been a coincidence due to natural causes.
-
Tuesday 23rd October 2012 11:53 GMT Ben Tasker
Re: ... and if current global warming theory is wrong and we cool our planet down too much.
I think you missed my point...
At the moment we might be influencing the climate.
If we fuck with the climate, then the one thing we can say for sure is that we are influencing the climate. If we fill the sky with clouds (for example) and cooling occurs, on the balance of probability it's fair to say we probably were responsible. You could, of course, argue about whether those clouds actually appeared as the result of our efforts, or some major coincidence, but I know which way I'd swing.
Consider that following predictions in the 80s that the world would warm due to human emissions the world has warmed, but a lot of people are unconvinced and think it might have just been a coincidence due to natural causes.
It could well be natural causes, it could also be due to human emissions. In the absence of strong evidence for the latter, however, fucking with the climate is a truly horrific idea. It's also not entirely beyond the realms of possibility that someone saw a warming trend, predicted things would warm further and decided to pin it on human emissions (whether by mistake, or with some other agenda) just as it's possible they were right and it is emissions. What's still lacking is reasonable debate on the subject, there's just too many entrenched views on either side. I'm becoming increasingly convinced the only way we're ever going to know now is when the worst happens (whether because warmists were right, or because they do decide to geo-engineer and fuck everything up).
-
-
-
-
-
Monday 22nd October 2012 18:29 GMT Lars
My thoughts too, still there is this "perhaps" in the header, the ever forgiving word, in the mouth of boffins. Planting trees, I suppose, is geoengineering too, and I am well with that. But when it comes to really large scale stuff, the Soviet Union comes to my mind, they tried to achieve very likable results in Siberia and elsewhere but the result was always a complete disaster. Geoengineering Mars could be more interesting as it cannot get worse. (I think).
-
Monday 22nd October 2012 16:53 GMT NomNomNom
I shouldn't think climate skeptics will have a problem with changing the climate through geo-engineering.
After-all the climate has changed in the past long before geo-engineering even existed and supposedly that means any changes man causes are irrelevant.
Also of course claims that geo-engineering is dangerous are pure chicken little alarmism. The fact is it hasn't been 100% proven that geo-engineering will even alter the climate in any perceivable way. It's just guesswork by academics based on "theories and models". Therefore there's no cause for concern that geo-engineering is dangerous and no reason to stop them getting on with it if they want.
And even if geo-engineering is found eventually to cause climate change, it could just as well be a good thing! So what's the problem?
-
-
Monday 22nd October 2012 17:06 GMT NomNomNom
I am making a serious point through sarcasm. The non-sarcastic mode would be:
How can climate skeptics be worried about proposed geo-engineering schemes such as these when they are so calm about a much larger and uncontrolled CO2 based geo-engineering experiment that is already happening?
I mean sure they can, but my "there's an inconsistency" detector is beeping.
-
Tuesday 23rd October 2012 08:17 GMT Anonymous Coward
To Nom
Your straw man is on fire. I assume you are aware of parts of the world flooding (its normal). Now most of us (who dont blame a deity) say it is natural, but that doesnt mean I am happy to see people intentionally flood or drain water sources.
If you seriously believe that about skeptics then you further my belief that you have no idea what your talking about. A real skeptic wants the truth. However a cult will label any non-believer a skeptic regardless of the real position.
So your cult labels us skeptics and tells you we are morons who believe the rubbish you spouted. You are wrong (no offence but the point is made). So hopefully you will accept there are skeptics who aint deniers, they are realists. And we realistically dont want cults ruining the country or the world because their deity (spoken by prophets and profit) insist the end is nigh.
-
Tuesday 23rd October 2012 10:47 GMT NomNomNom
Re: To Nom
"Your straw man is on fire."
Not at all, a popular argument by climate skeptics is that "climate change happens all the time, it's normal" as if that is some kind of argument against human caused climate change. It's not a strawman to point this out is it?
As for your flood example, that's an impact not a cause. The propre analogy with regard to floods in this case is that there's no evidence geo-engineering will cause more floods. Sounding alarm about potential impacts from geo-engineering while dismissing potential impacts from emissions is inconsistent. I see skeptics do it anyway.
-
Tuesday 23rd October 2012 12:03 GMT Ben Tasker
Re: To Nom
There's a big difference between our emissions which might be causing climate change and deliberately doing something that we believe will cause climate change.
Pumping aerosols into the atmosphere deliberately.... couldn't possibly go wrong.
It's quite possible to believe that man can change the climate whilst also believing that we currently aren't (or that greater evidence is needed). We know we could change the climate by way of nuclear winter (not that we particularly want to), so it's no great stretch to believe would could also do it through (potentially) less destructive methods.
It's quite possible that we do lack the ability to change the climate (ignoring nuking things), but as we don't know what the effect of any attempts will be it would be absolutely mental to try.
So yeah, I agree, your strawman is ablaze
-
Tuesday 23rd October 2012 12:13 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: To Nom
So lets look at the skeptic point of view (realist not denialist) there is no conclusive evidence beyond doubt that it is us, and even less evidence of how much is us if it is at all. I say this accepting the possibility of MMCC while holding as much belief in it as a deity (I dont). That is purely down to proof and evidence. The only proof and evidence we conclusively have is what you claim is the skeptic view you stated of "climate change happens all the time, it's normal". I hope MMCC believers accept this too otherwise they are making stuff up outright.
So based on proof and evidence there is a claim that we can artificially cool the climate (this topic) while having little to no evidence of what is happening to the climate. Simply if this is a natural or outside effect which could change at any point then we may cause too much cooling while being clueless. Look at the many missing pieces coming to light which revise down the models greatly.
In short you cant fix a problem until you know what the problem is. If you treat the symptoms you may make the problem worse or disguise it.
If we accept the cult of the MMCC the question is who's figures do we use? So far the hockey stick and similarly revised up figures are pushed as proof. The actual records seem to suggest a steady and normal temperature rise, especially when not using cherry picked information. This could still turn out to be bad in the long run (or maybe even good). So while the alarmist graphs seem to be constantly revised down, such geo-engineering as this surely wants to assume a very revised down graph which we can incrementally change for safety.
Yet doing that act assumes that a) a problem exists and b) it would be a problem. Both are huge assumptions which unfortunately suffer from cults of believers and non-believers overshadowing science.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Monday 22nd October 2012 18:03 GMT Nigel 11
Re: But what happens if
It's actually quite possible that the interglacial period during which humankind developed civilisation wold naturally have come to an end a couple of hundred years ago, or a few thousand ... and it's us burning fossil fuels, or us burning forests for agriculture, that is the reason we're not fighting the next ice age. But if we over-do it, the ice goes away altogether, and that's also a bad thing.
We don't know what we're doing. We're trampling on an unstable natural system. The one thing we can be sure of is than an interglacial period is a global climate system NOT in long-term stable equilibrium. "Stable" is either an ice age, or an ice-free planet. One is too cold for humanity, and the other is too hot.
-
-
Monday 22nd October 2012 18:41 GMT Dan Paul
Cant apply corrective action w/out complete understanding of what happened in the first place
Folks,
All this sounds good in theory but I've spent enough time in the process control business and if you want to correct overshoot you have to apply the corrections in exactly the right way or your system goes completely unstable.
We can't even agree on what is causing global warming so therefore we cannot agree on what is the equal but opposite action required to reverse it's affects.
Chances are that putting enormous sheets of mirrored mylar at low eath orbit to reduce incoming solar radiation could cause WAY more problems than doing nothing at all.
We do know that weather operates on the principle of temperature differential and large differentials have the most energy. We are only beginning to understand what happens at the upper reaches of the atmosphere.
Can anyone say "Super Hurricane"?????
-
Monday 22nd October 2012 19:35 GMT Anonymous Coward
what climate change
pretty cold here so why make it any colder?
that will s***w up the jet-stream once and for all...
maybe we should remember, that the models are incomplete (and we know all about coding errors don't we?) and the saying:
"an infinite number of experiments will never prove (you) right, it takes only one to prove (you) wrong"
(yep I'm heading back under the duvet - until the next Solar Maxima)
-
Monday 22nd October 2012 21:22 GMT Goat Jam
These People Are Nuts
Firstly, there is zero evidence that there is any significant man mad climate change at all. Secondly, doing insane crap like this is likely to cause massive problems in its own right, orders of magnitude worse than any perceived problems we might have today.
As mentioned by another commenter, the sheer arrogance of these people is astounding. Thinking they can manipulate a planetary eco-system on such a grand scale without any adverse affects whatsoever and expecting it to behave exactly as they predict is bat shit insane.
For fucks sake, the computer models that they use to try and predict Earths existing climate variations don't even come close to working, yet they think they understand enough to do shit like this?
-
Monday 22nd October 2012 21:47 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Man Mad Climate Change
Whether it exists or not, you are absolutely right. Bat-shit insane.
What's insane about bat shit? Why should shit fly off a shovel? What's angry about ape shit? How about some accurate day to day global weather forecasting? --- and other stuff they (whoever they are) should find answers to before trying anything like this.
-
Tuesday 23rd October 2012 11:17 GMT NomNomNom
Re: These People Are Nuts
Goat jam you start by saying "there is zero evidence that there is any significant man mad climate change at all"
I disagree, I think there is evidence of significant man made climate change, the evidence being primarily models and theory. I am assuming you don’t consider these constitute evidence. In which case on what basis are you worried about geo-engineering? The evidence that geo-engineering will work (ie significantly affect climate) is based on models and theory too. If that evidence isn’t good enough to worry about CO2 emissions why should it be good enough to worry about geo-engineering?
“Thinking they can manipulate a planetary eco-system on such a grand scale without any adverse affects whatsoever and expecting it to behave exactly as they predict is bat shit insane”
But in the case of CO2 emissions you evidentially DO think we can manipulate a planetary eco-system on such a grand scale without any adverse affects.
Imagine I had said:
"The sheer arrogance of these climate skeptics is astounding. Thinking they can manipulate a planetary eco-system on such a grand scale by emitting billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere without any adverse affects whatsoever is bat shit insane.
For fucks sake, the computer models scientists use to try and predict Earths existing climate variations don't even come close to working, yet climate skeptics think we understand enough to do shit like doubling Earth's atmospheric CO2 level?"
I can well imagine you would accuse me of alarmism.
-
Wednesday 24th October 2012 10:21 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: These People Are Nuts
Good morning Nom! How are we today?
" I think there is evidence of significant man made climate change, the evidence being primarily models and theory"
Two small points. (1) It's irrefutable that we are impacting upon climate and the environment in general. The problem is, many a Sun or Daily Star reader read 'a significant' as 'root'. (2) I would have to argue that theory alone does not constitute absolute proof, but is more a body of evidence based upon current knowledge.
Whilst it would be foolish to ignore such theory it is also premature to proclaim or present such theory as fact. What I'm trying to say here is that imho we need to be wary of any knee-jerk reaction. But as Goat jam states it is highly arrogant of science to claim it can alleviate the global environmental ills of mankind when such science admits to not having a complete picture at this time. Not only is it arrogant, it is potentially dangerous.
The past 7,000 or so years have seen a somewhat stable climate. Long term climate stability is an oddity. Firstly we have to accept that if we were not here the climate would still vary and oscillate. Variability in climate is the norm. We need to be cautious in labelling all current variability as anthropogenically driven. There's enough evidence on the table to say that the global climate is changing, but it is not yet proven that we are the root cause. To do anything other than further analyse data and theory whilst lowering CO2 (and other) emissions is partial folly. To attempt to reverse-engineer climate change at the current time would be a display of unbelievable scientific arrogance.
But as for global warming (in the general sense, not anthropogenically driven), well, it will lead to regional cooling for some of us for a time - especially those of us in parts of Europe. It's pretty well established that a warmer arctic ocean and less arctic ice messes with the jet stream. The net result being that more cold air from Siberia is drawn over Europe leading to regional cooling (at least, for a time). So, whatever happens, those of us in Europe and the northern US may fry a little later than Canada and the Med for example :)
-
Wednesday 24th October 2012 19:27 GMT Nigel 11
Re: These People Are Nuts
Actually long-term stable climate is the norm, for most of the last few hundred million years.
The trouble is, it's a state that we don't want ever to see. No sea-level ice anywhere on the planet, and far too hot for large warm-blooded creatures like humans. The stability is created by cloud cover. It gets hotter, more water evaporates, more clouds form, more sunlight is reflected into space. Negative feedback (up to the point where the cloud cover reaches 100% and global warming soars to Venusian levels, which will happen in another few hundred million years because our Sun is getting older and hotter.)
Ice, on the other hand, creates instability: it's cold that creates more ice, which reflects more sunlight .... but it also traps methane, which causes rapid global warming should the ice ever melt .... We live in that least stable of global climates, an interglacial era between ice-ages. Once upon a time, just before multicellular life evolved, the global cooling ran away and the whole earth became a snowball. It's probably a good thing that the sun is now a bit older! Though the difficulty of surviving under a kilometer of ice might have been the trigger that got multicellular life started in the first place.
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 23rd October 2012 07:55 GMT Anonymous Coward
I have thought ever since climate change and global warming terms have been banded about, that the stupidest idea would be
"Oh it looks like we humans might have screwed up the climate with all our technology etc, it seems to be getting warmer, so how about we piss about with it and try and push it back the other way ?"
when weather reporters cannot even tell you when a hurricane is coming.
Genius.
I find it interesting that no one seems to link the fact that we have 5 to 6 billion more people breathing out CO2 these days than we had in the 1800's is part of the issue ? how about some ethnic cleansing to save the planet ?