Dan: My bet is that there is not going to be signifiant field testing (full scale) until the temperatures go up to a significant level (e.g., 1.5 deg C). Prior to that, there simply won't be sufficient concern. In addition, that 1.5 deg C increase is going to have to happen quickly (within 3 years) to be considered the kind of spike that will drive action. A slow risk to 1.5 (say over 50 years) is not going to be sufficient.
d. On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Dan Whaley <[email protected]> wrote: > This article was orignally here: > > http://motherjones.com/environment/2009/12/copenhagen-geoengineerings-big-break > > But also here: > > http://www.alternet.org/story/144575/will_copenhagen_lead_to_radical_climate_experiments?page=entire > > And then cited here. > > http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2009-12/first-geoengineering-field-trial-carried-out-russia-0# > > > > On Dec 15, 12:55 pm, Dan Whaley <[email protected]> wrote: > > Will Copenhagen Lead to Radical Climate Experiments? > > > > By Chris Mooney, Mother Jones Online. Posted December 15, 2009. > > > > If the summit fails, controversial geo-engineering projects may get a > > boost. > > > > You won't find geoengineering on the official agenda at the climate > > summit in Copenhagen. But for anyone watching the trajectory of the > > climate change debate, the controversial notion of intentionally > > modifying the planet or its climate system to counteract the effects > > of global warming is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. > > Attracting almost no attention, Russia may have already conducted the > > first-ever geoengineering field trial. And if the climate talks at > > Copenhagen fail, it could give geoengineering advocates the lucky > > break they've been waiting for. > > > > While it hasn't been featured in the formal negotiations, > > geoengineering has been a significant sub-theme in Copenhagen -- the > > subject of numerous side events, protests, and a documentary film > > screening. Robert Greene's Owning the Weather, which aired here Sunday > > night in a venue off the spectacularly lit City Hall Square, paints > > the longstanding history of human attempts to control and modify the > > weather -- through anything ranging from rain dances to quack cloud > > seeding efforts and hail cannon fusillades. The film ends with the > > observation that we are moving ever closer to making this ancient > > dream (or nightmare, if you prefer) a reality. > > > > Indeed, scientists say there is little doubt that we could bring about > > an artificial planetary cooling by, say, seeding the Earth's > > stratosphere with reflective particles, called sulfate aerosols, that > > would act as an artificial global parasol and cool us down. Such an > > act would amount to mimicking the climatic effects of a large volcanic > > eruption, such as the explosion of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines in > > 1991 -- whose 22 mile high stream of ash, subsequently dispersed > > across the globe, resulted in half a degree Celsius of global cooling > > over the course of the following year. > > > > Granted, the unintended consequences of such an action (such as > > decreased global precipitation) might be significant. But, goes the > > thinking among some scientists, if we're facing a climate catastrophe > > -- if we're really going to bake; if Greenland is really going to go > > -- then wouldn't a few side effects be worth it to maintain our > > fundamental way of life? And the less that is achieved in Copenhagen > > -- the more agreements fall short of absolutely ruling out climate > > catastrophe by, say, returning global carbon dioxide concentrations to > > something like 350 parts per million -- the more attractive > > geoengineering sounds, at least as a last resort. > > > > Perhaps the most lamentable indication that geoengineering is going > > mainstream is the fact that political conservatives and contrarians > > have increasingly begun to embrace it as an alternative to the central > > project of COP 15 -- namely, halting and then decreasing global > > greenhouse gas emissions. Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish environmental > > contrarian and infamous author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, > > loves the idea. So do Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, authors of the > > bestselling SuperFreakonomics, whose chapter on how we can address > > global warming through geoengineering (rather than emissions cuts) has > > been eviscerated by environmentalists and some scientists due to its > > many inaccuracies and misrepresentations. > > > > Meanwhile, at the other end of the spectrum, anti-geoengineering > > activists have begun raising hell in an attempt to stop this growing > > momentum in favor of climate tinkering, before it gets any stronger. > > They don't trust scientific hubris; they abhor messing with nature. > > This movement centers on the Canada-based ETC. Group ( it stands for > > "Etcetera"), whose head, Pat Mooney, opines in Owning the Weather that > > scientists are "warm, cuddly, and naive." > > > > However, the mainstream climate scientists who are willing to at least > > consider geoengineering as a possibility constantly emphasize that > > such measures should not be an alternative to greenhouse gas > > reductions -- rather, they could serve as an additional safety valve. > > To that end, these scientists -- like Jason Blackstock, a research > > scholar at the Vienna-based International Institute for Applied > > Systems Analysis who, along with the British Royal Society, helped to > > organize three geoengineering events here in Copenhagen -- support > > ongoing geoengineering research, so as to determine with more > > precision what various types of interventions might do to the planet. > > > > At a panel discussion after the screening of Owning the Weather, > > Blackstock described geoengineering as "terrifying." But as he quickly > > added, "scientists are not into this because of hubris, but because of > > fear." Blackstock went on to make the case that there must be > > international regulations firmly in place before any rogue nation, or > > individual, attempts a geoengineering intervention of any significant > > scale. > > > > Such regulations appear increasingly urgent, since government-funded > > geoengineering research is already underway, although not yet in the > > United States (so far as we know). The European Commission has > > launched a project to study "implications and risks associated with > > engineering solar radiation to limit climate change." And the United > > Kingdom, through its Research Council's Energy Program, will also be > > funding geoengineering studies. > > > > And then, there's the Russian Federation. Geoengineering ideas have a > > long history in Russia -- and now, they appear to be moving to the > > next scientific level. > > > > Although so far it has received little or no attention, the journal > > Russian Meteorology and Hydrology recently published a new kind of > > geoengineering study whose lead author is the journal's editor, the > > prominent Russian scientist Yuri A. Izrael. Known for his opposition > > to the Kyoto Protocol, his skepticism of human-caused global warming, > > and his enthusiasm for geoengineering, Izrael also happens to be a top > > scientific adviser to Vladimir Putin. And now, his paper reports on > > what is probably the very first geoengineering field trial. Izrael and > > his team of scientists mounted aerosol generators on a helicopter and > > a car chassis, and proceeded to blast out particles at ground level > > and at heights of up to 200 meters. Then they attempted to measure > > just how much sunlight reaching the earth was reduced due to the > > aerosol plume. > > > > This small-scale intervention was effective, the Russian scientists > > say. And in an accompanying article on geoengineering alternatives, > > Izrael and colleagues note that "Already in the near future, the > > technological possibilities of a full scale use of [aerosol-based > > geoengineering] will be studied." > > > > Up until now, scientists have largely studied the possibilities of > > geoengineering in relatively unthreatening computer models -- not out > > in nature itself. They've just run a series of simulations to try to > > assess likely impacts. In this context, the apparent trajectory of > > Russian research sounds like something quite new. And it may prompt > > increasing calls for regulation of geoengineering interventions, even > > at the small scale research level where environmental consequences > > would be relatively minimal. > > > > Indeed, last night in Copenhagen after the Owning the Weather > > screening, the prominent climate scientist Stephen Schneider of > > Stanford University remarked that if any country engages in a > > geoengineering initiative that affects the people or environment of > > another country, it could be considered an "act of war." > > > > It is important to bear in mind that weather modification schemes have > > long been closely tied to the military. In the Vietnam War, the US > > military tried to seed clouds in an attempt to flood the Ho Chi Minh > > trail and impair the operations of the Viet Cong. And none other than > > nuclear scientist and Ronald Reagan adviser Edward Teller -- the model > > for "Dr. Strangelove" -- was one of the early US geoengineering > > proponents. > > > > If an international competition begins to advance farthest and fastest > > in geoengineering research formilitary reasons -- premised on the idea > > that one might used weather or climate modification as a strategic > > weapon -- that would likely render ongoing research classified, > > observes Blackstock. It would also surely lead to greater public > > backlash from organizations like the ETC. Group. > > > > That's the last thing scientists like Blackstock, who support ongoing > > public geoengineering research and dialogue, want to see. One thing is > > certain: Although a few years ago one might seriously make the > > argument that we shouldn't even discuss the possibility of > > geoengineering -- for doing so could weaken the case for quick and > > deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, and empower the Lomborgs, > > Levitts, and Dubners of the world -- that idea just sounds ludicrous > > now. The public conversation about geoengineering is steadily growing; > > the scientific research on the topic is steadily increasing. There is > > no putting this idea back in the box. > > > > Moreover, if it becomes increasingly clear that we can't control > > global warming in any more sober way, it seems very likely that the > > pressure will mount, and mount, and mount, to have a backup plan in > > place. Blackstock uses the analogy of a car driving in fog and heading > > towards a precipice: It's good to have ordinary brakes, but if those > > fail, you also want an emergency brake. > > > > It's an ingenious argument, but the degree to which it ultimately > > proves convincing may directly correlate with the degree to which > > COP15 or later efforts take the strongest measures possible to curb > > global warming. In particular, any further devastating climate > > impacts, particularly to vulnerable low-lying developing countries, > > may draw new calls for geoengineering research or interventions. And > > given the current state of deliberations in Copenhagen, that's the > > scariest thing of all. > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<geoengineering%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > > -- David W. Schnare Center for Environmental Stewardship -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
