A geoengineering scheme to solve climate change could hurt the Antarctic ozone layer, while recovery of the ozone hole could increase Antarctic warming, new research suggests. A study published Thursday in Science decries suggestions to solve climate change by spewing sulfur into the atmosphere, saying that such a scheme would wipe out the Arctic ozone layer and delay the healing of the ozone hole over Antarctica for up to seven decades. But hey, maybe that's not all bad: A paper to be published in Geophysical Research Letters suggests that a full recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole could amplify warming in that region. So ... basically, we've just really screwed things up.
source: MSNBC
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Threaded
dobermanmacleod Posted 3:26 pm
24 Apr 2008
In fact, there is evidence that an engineered sun dimming aerosol that wouldn't chemically interact with the ozone would be more efficient to use (and therefore cheaper).
If you read carefully what the scientists are saying, it is only that an ill-considered attempt at geo-engineering should be cautioned against.
"I'm going to tell you something I probably shouldn't: we may not be able to stop global warming. We need to begin curbing global greenhouse emissions right now, but more than a decade after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, the world has utterly failed to do so. Unless the geopolitics of global arming change soon, the Hail Mary pass of geoengineering might become our best shot." --Bryan Walsh, Time Magazine, 17 March 2008
The Greens' resistance to geo-engineering sits very uncomfortably with its message that the planet is screwed and we're all going to die. It suggests that Environmentalism has less to do with saving the planet than it does with reining in human aspirations. It suggests that they don't actually believe their own press releases, and that they know the situation is not as dire as they would like the rest of us to think it is. And that Environmentalists are cutting off their noses to spite their faces - "we'll save the planet our way or not at all." It suggests that Environmentalists regard science and engineering as the cause of problems, and not the solution. --Climate Resistance, 24 March 2008
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 4:30 pm
24 Apr 2008
Try not to listen to people who refute geoengineering by enumerating cat-swallowing options and never mention the others.
How shall driving gain nuclear cachet?
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:23 am
25 Apr 2008
I propose we save the earth by resuming atomic testing. A ring of mushroom clouds could easily save us by pushing up enough particulates to simulate the global cooling of 1940-1970.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:00 am
25 Apr 2008
Those of us who advocate for the natural environment do not oppose human activities in order to harm or inconvenience humans, but instead because those activities harm the natural environment.
As to the reasons for opposing this proposed idiocy, this is a perfect example of why technology will not solve any ecological problems, though less harmful technologies such as solar power could significantly lessen some of them. Technology itself is a big part of the problem. The only things that will solve human-caused ecological problems is lowering human population and lowering human consumption, the latter beginning with things humans shouldn't be consuming in the first place like oil, coal, and uranium.
Permalink
erniecaldwell Posted 4:03 am
25 Apr 2008
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 5:01 am
25 Apr 2008
Notice the absence of natural gas from the list of prohibited fuels. It is, of course, inimical to people and climate alike, but it's not inimical to all people, because at $11 per mmBTU, it's extremely lucrative for government.
Royalties on the order of $1/mmBTU for all uses largely exceed, by themselves, uranium's present $0.30/mmBTU price, and in many of the above-linked disasters the gas users were also paying special large consumption taxes. Unfortunately I don't know much about these taxes. (Who does?)
Let the baby light matches in the fuel storage room!
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 7:02 am
25 Apr 2008
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 8:18 am
25 Apr 2008
and get frostbite on your knuckles. Your agreement that underground gas should be let lie means you oppose all fossil fuel use, even the most publically lucrative ones. Good to know.
How the car gets decarbonized
Permalink
usandthem Posted 1:49 am
26 Apr 2008
In one of the Matrix movies the computer character said that people are like bacteria or virus(can't remember which).We move in,we consume and destroy and then we move on.Said in this way,Where do we move on to when we destroy this planet.Mars has been suggested.Hmmmmm!
Permalink
Pathos Posted 3:16 pm
29 Apr 2008
Back to the original subject of this thread, the general sentiment among environmentalists that geoengineering is unnatural and likely to have unpleasant consequences is... Absolutely right.
That said, it's dangerous to dismiss it categorically. There are dozens of geoengineering options on the table. Not one of them has been proved effective. Every single one of them would be dangerous to dive into blindly. Every single one of them would almost certainly have some unintended consequences, no matter how carefully considered.
But every single one of them merits exploration.
We all know the climate is changing now. We all know there's a tipping point somewhere, past which no amount of emissions cuts will prevent a truely catastrophic change. We all want to do assume we haven't reached that point yet, and do everything we can to avoid it by tampering with our environment less rather than more--and we're right to feel that way.
But there's a very real possibility that we've already reached the tipping point, or that if we haven't, we won't do enough to avoid it in time.
We need to have a Plan B.
As Bryan Walsh pointed out through the mouth of our friend Mr. McCleod, there may come a time when we need that "Hail Mary." We may have to either forcibly remove CO2 from our atmosphere by whatever means is available, or find a way to partially block the sun. Sound dangerous? It is.
But the answer to that isn't to keep dismissing geoengineering and calling anyone who advocates it "anti-environmentalist." The answer is to keep researching all the options at the table, so if--and only if--circumstances force us to, we can use the method that will do the most good for the least harm, and have some idea of what the potential consequences will be.
Because as much I'd like to believe otherwise--and I spend considerable time and money working on the assumption that things will turn out otherwise--it's possible that none of our conventional approaches will ever be enough.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 3:46 pm
29 Apr 2008
Next, don't imagine that you are going to fix things because as near as I can tell birth rates drop upon the construction of theme parks and opera houses. Look at any high birth rate country and you'll notice a definate lack of theme parks and opera houses.
It's not your responsibility.
So next time starvin Marvin shows up on TV just pick up the remote and hit a button at random; you don't have to watch. You can't feed them as fast as they can reproduce and trying will drive you nuts.
Death is part of the equation and the only sane way to deal with it is to give up on sanity a bit. We're in overshoot and people are going to die; in batch lots. Nobody with a realistic solution is allowed near the President, a congresscritter or a CNN livecast so just accept it.
I'm working on it myself.
Permalink
greenfire8 Posted 4:49 pm
29 Apr 2008
What about cultural carrying capacity? For a moment, forget the 7 billion we have currently. The debate on whether we can sustain such a number is endless. A more prudent question is, could the Earth sustain even 1/2 that number at current US living standards? Per capita consumption!
I mentioned the east coast oyster collapse in another thread. It is a situation where it made more cents to bring in an invasive, pollution tolerant species from Japan than to clean up the environmental damage that caused the collapse in the first place. One of the most contested aspects of the issue involved the hi-tec pens that would supposedly keep the invasive oysters from spreading. The geoengineering project cited in this thread seems analogous to the oyster remedy in as much as it is a bandaid on internal bleeding...a toxic bandaid at that.
"swallow-a-cat-to-catch-a-rat" ROFL
Permalink
Pathos Posted 6:23 pm
29 Apr 2008
I'm not saying we don't need to slow population growth in the developing world--largely for their sake, since it's the poorest countries that get hit the hardest by global warming. But it's better to slow population growth in places where there are not only theme parks and opera houses, but also air-conditioned SUV's to get you to them.
And yes, you can feed everyone in the developing world; it just takes time and will, and it will hinge on whether we can stop global warming. But while we're working to feed them, we also need to make sure they get access to things like education and health care--and under "education," make damn sure to include "sex education," and under "health care," make damn sure to include "birth control."
The India model doesn't do anyone any good.
Greenfire: Honestly, I'm not defending the project cited in this thread, and neither are Dobermanmacleod or GRLCowan. Sulfuric geoengineering comes up all the damn time, and there seem to be hundreds of reasons why it would do more harm than good. That's fine; maybe it's not the solution we need. That said, there are dozens of options that have yet to be satisfactorily researched (many of which are being worked on as we speak, granted; I've listed concepts and posted links elsewhere on Gristmill before). And I have a feeling that about half the predjudice against geoengineering in general comes from "guilt by association" from this idea and perhaps a few others like it.
All that said, I still wouldn't mind finishing the research into this idea and those other "swallow-a-cat" ideas, just to be sure.
Permalink
greenfire8 Posted 7:21 pm
29 Apr 2008
You might be right. I tend to think skepticism is warranted where so many known remedies closer to the source exist. You'll certainly have my attention...just keep the colorful metaphors comin' 8)
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:51 pm
29 Apr 2008
The metaphor is from what an equestrian does to stop a horse: by pulling on the reins; hence, "reining in."
Yesterday, I think, or the day before, on another Gristmill thread, I noticed that somebody had incorrectly inserted a "g" into "reining."
"To reign," of course, is a totally different image, and has a totally different meaning: sitting on a country's throne, displaying whatever power, authority and splendor are thereto proper.
Permalink