I read Dyer's article when it was published and didn't much like it. Andy's email nicely summarised the importance of being a bit more thoughtful about the whole thing - which, I acknowledge, wasn't helped by the wording of the press release. It's quite encouraging that this clarification article has popped up to explain this.
I also took issue with Dyer's article in the comments, stating that this was a study primarily aimed at highlighting a physical process, and that the chain from that to real-world implications is quite long. "Just to clarify one thing in particular. It is not obvious that 'millions will starve'. We didn't analyse the impacts of this on food supplies. Now, we modelled a very extreme geoengineering scenario. Our reasons for doing this were scientific - it's easier to see what physical processes are going on if you make big changes. However, I don't think the geoengineering implementation used in our study is sensible, or even viable! This is important to recognise, and means we might not see the big 30% reduction in rainfall in the tropics, but something rather smaller." Cheers Angus On Monday, 3 February 2014 08:47:09 UTC, andrewjlockley wrote: > > > https://www.straight.com/news/578741/gwynne-dyer-mea-culpa-geo-engineering-its-not-bleak-i-thought > > I got it wrong in my article “Geo-engineering is in trouble”, posted on > Straight.com on January 16. I couldn’t be happier about that.The article > said that a new scientific study, carried out by Angus Ferraro, Ellie > Highwood and Andrew Charlton-Perez of Reading University, showed that the > most widely discussed geo-engineering method for holding the global > temperature down would have disastrous consequences for agriculture. The > method is injecting sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere; the (unintended) > result would be devastating drought in the tropics.The idea of using > sulphate aerosols in the stratosphere to reflect back some incoming > sunlight, thus lowering surface temperatures on Earth, has been the leading > contender for a geo-engineering solution to runaway heating since the whole > subject came out of the closet eight years ago. And then along come > “Ferraro et al.” (as the scientists put it) to tell us that the > side-effects will be disastrous. Thanks, guys.So I ended the article by > saying: “The sulphur dioxide technique was the cheapest and seemingly the > best understood option for holding the temperature down. A great many > people were glad that it was there, as a kind of safety net if we really > don’t get our act together in time to halt the warming by less intrusive > means. Now there’s no safety net.”Almost immediately I got an email from > Andy Parker, now a research fellow in the Kennedy School at Harvard > University and previously a climate-change policy adviser for the Royal > Society in the United Kingdom. You’ve been suckered by the publicity flacks > at Reading University, he said (though in kinder words). They have spun the > research findings for maximum shock value. In other words, read the damn > thing before you write about it.Well, actually, I did read it (it’s > available online), but the conclusions are couched in the usual > science-speak, with a resolute avoidance of anything that might look like > interpretation for the general public. I didn’t look long enough at the key > graph that undercuts the dire conclusions of the publicists, presumably > because I had already been conditioned by them to see something else > there.Drastic consequences would indeed ensue if you tried to geo-engineer > a 4 degrees C warmer world all the way back down to the pre-industrial > average global temperature by putting sulphate aerosols in the > stratosphere. But nobody in their right mind would try to do that.On the > other hand, if you were using sulphates to hold the temperature down to > plus 1.8 degrees C, in a world where the carbon dioxide content of the > atmosphere would otherwise give you plus 4 degrees C, then the effect on > tropical rainfall would be small. And that is a far likelier scenario, > because we are most unlikely to resort to large-scale geo-engineering until > we are right at the threshold (around plus 2 degrees C) of runaway > warming.So the correct conclusion to draw from Ferrero et al. is that > geo-engineering with sulphates is still one of the more promising > techniques for holding the temperature down, and should be investigated > further. As Andy Parker put it, “This does not tell us that we should do > geo-engineering, but it does mean that the paper is a long way from being > the nail in the coffin that the press release implies.”And then I got > another email, this time from my old friend Amory Lovins, cofounder and > chief scientist at the Rocky Mountain Institute, who took me to task for > assuming that human greenhouse gas emissions “probably will not drop” fast > enough to prevent us from going into runaway warning (unless we > geo-engineer) later this century.Not true, he said. “Since the Kyoto > conference in 1997, most efforts to hedge climate risks have made four main > errors: assuming solutions will be costly rather than (at least mainly) > profitable; insisting they be motivated by concerns about climate rather > than about security, profit, or economic development; assuming they require > a global treaty; and assuming businesses can do little or nothing before > carbon is priced.”“As these errors are gradually realized, climate > protection is changing course. It will be led more by countries and > companies than by international treaties and organizations, more by the > private sector and civil society than by governments, more by leading > developing economies than by mature developed ones, and more by efficiency > and clean energy’s economic fundamentals than by possible future carbon > pricing.”He pointed out how strongly China is committed to clean energy. > Last year renewables, (including hydro) accounted for 43 percent of new > generating capacity in China, as the extra coal plants ordered long ago > taper sharply down. India is showing signs of moving in the same direction, > and there’s even hope that Japan may decide to replace all the nuclear > capacity it is shutting down with renewables rather than coal.So I > shouldn’t be so pessimistic, they were both telling me. I believe Andy > Parker is right, and I hope Amory Lovins is right too. But just in case > Amory is a bit off in the timing of all these turnarounds on greenhouse gas > emissions in Asia, I would still like to see a lot of research, including > small-scale experiments in the open atmosphere, on the various techniques > for geo-engineering. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
