Geo-engineering is "the intentional large scale manipulation of the global environment" (PDF) to counteract the effects of global warming, which itself was unintentional geo-engineering -- although today you'd have to say global warming is intentional, since everybody now knows what we're doing to the planet.
But I digress. We're screwing up the planet with unrestricted greenhouse-gas emissions, and the question is, do we want to try to fix that problem by gambling on some other large-scale effort to manipulate the climate, or should we just try to restrict emissions? It's as if the doctor says you have a disease that can definitely be cured by diet and exercise, but you opt for expensive chemotherapy -- even though the doctor can't guarantee the results but is pretty certain the side effects would be as bad as the disease.
A new study drives that home for the most discussed geo-engineering idea:
Pumping sulphur particles into the atmosphere to mimic the cooling effect of a large volcanic eruption has been proposed as a last-ditch solution to combating climate change -- but doing so would cause problems of its own, including potentially catastrophic drought, say researchers.
And if we pursued the sulphur strategy but then found out, say, a decade later, that the drought prediction was correct, we'd be stuck; if we discontinued injecting the sulphur shield, global temperatures would rebound rapidly, potentially triggering catastrophic effects. (And, of course, this shield does nothing to stop catastrophic ocean acidification.)
Here is the abstract to the study, "Effects of Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption on the hydrological cycle as an analog of geoengineering":
The problem of global warming arises from the buildup of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels and other human activities that change the composition of the atmosphere and alter outgoing longwave radiation (OLR). One geoengineering solution being proposed is to reduce the incoming sunshine by emulating a volcanic eruption. In between the incoming solar radiation and the OLR is the entire weather and climate system and the hydrological cycle. The precipitation and streamflow records from 1950 to 2004 are examined for the effects of volcanic eruptions from El Chichón in March 1982 and Pinatubo in June 1991, taking into account changes from El Niño-Southern Oscillation. Following the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in June 1991 there was a substantial decrease in precipitation over land and a record decrease in runoff and river discharge into the ocean from October 1991-September 1992. The results suggest that major adverse effects, including drought, could arise from geoengineering solutions.
This study underscores the conclusion of John Holdren, President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science: "The 'geo-engineering' approaches considered so far appear to be afflicted with some combination of high costs, low leverage, and a high likelihood of serious side effects."
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Climate-news poem: Breath-catching edition
Comments View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 8:54 am
15 Aug 2007
Dead on analogy
"It's as if the doctor says you have a disease that can definitely be cured by diet and exercise, but you opt for expensive chemotherapy -- even though the doctor can't guarantee the results but is pretty certain the side effects would be as bad as the disease."
Might steal it in the future.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
odograph Posted 12:54 pm
15 Aug 2007
geo
Seems to me, we are doing reckless geo-engineering on a global scale, and that is the GW problem in a nutshell.
In response to that ... can we really find an answer in semantics? Human activities that are not "geo-engineering" are good and sufficient to correct the damage? Or is that more a litmus test than an answer?
I mean, "halting deforestation" is geo-engineering in the strict definition ... is it "in" or "out?"
(maybe it's the "reckless" part that is the better discriminator.)
Permalink
odograph Posted 1:18 pm
15 Aug 2007
Yikes!
You quote Mr. Holden (though you did not include his previous sentence, recommending further study into geo-engineering) ... but what comes immediately after your quote?
Geez, not only is that geo-engineering, it runs a bit at odds with your "trees" post!
Permalink
odograph Posted 1:20 pm
15 Aug 2007
Actually
You broke a sentence to make your quote, you ... won't say it.
Hodren:
"The third approach is worthy of further study, but the "geo-engineering" approaches considered so far appear to be afflicted with some combination of high
costs, low leverage, and a high likelihood of serious side effects."
Romm quoting Hodren:
"The 'geo-engineering' approaches considered so far appear to be afflicted with some combination of high costs, low leverage, and a high likelihood of serious side effects."
How embarassing.
Permalink
sindark Posted 1:02 am
16 Aug 2007
Insurance
I agree that geo-engineering is a bad option. That said, it may still be worth investigating just in case we find ourselves in an accelerating climate change situation and no other options remain on the table.
If we cross a tipping point such that forests and oceans start emitting a lot more GHGs than they absorb, we may need some drastic options in reserve. Certainly, they will have adverse consequences - so does using electrical pulses to re-start someone's heart - but that doesn't mean there is no reason to investigate it.
Permalink
odograph Posted 1:19 am
16 Aug 2007
blankets
That's pretty much where I'm at sindark. I disagreed with the blanket headline, and then when I found how that sentence had been molded in the quote it became clear to me.
This is about whether we want to close the door on investigation, on all future study and invention, and create a religious injunction (against those things we categorize, politically, as "geo-engineering").
P.S. - remember Terra Preta soils? ... geo-engineering.
Permalink