Hi Doug--Well said. The report (well, at least the presentation of the report yesterday at the National Academy of Sciences) basically does not do a comparative analysis of climate change with and without climate intervention‹instead seeming to do an analysis only of the relative merits of climate intervention on its own or not. Well, that is not the context we are in (so actually the analysis, once they get past saying the climate is changing, is to forget about the SUV approaching the crosswalk at all (or at least, the change is not here now in the Arctic or imminent elsewhere, etc.). The really surprising reason given in answer to my question was that they said that uncertainties about climate change without intervention were too large to really do this‹well, those uncertainties are clearly small enough to make the decision that we should change over the whole global energy system and how unacceptable those consequences would be. And, given that the various intervention approaches are not unlike phenomena in the world today and intervention would keep the climate where it is now (only with a bit different amount of energy change as compared to the seasonal changes in forcing that are already treated in simulating the global weather changes over the seasons), it is really hard to see how a modest program of climate intervention research would not lead to uncertainties less than those involved in projections of climate change without intervention.
Fine to say that there are social, equity, political, and governance issues, but on the issue of uncertainties in the physical science calculations, not readily understandable. Mike MacCracken On 2/11/15, 6:05 PM, "Doug MacMartin" <[email protected]> wrote: > On reflection, I think my most basic problem with his ³argument² is it that it > fails to distinguish between the people choosing to emit CO2, the people who > might be harmed by CO2, and the people who might eventually choose > geoengineering; his arguments are only coherent to the extent that those are > all the same people. > > It¹s a bit like standing in a cross-walk watching an approaching SUV that > isn¹t slowing down and insisting that you have the right-of-way and the ³right > answer² is for the SUV-driver to stop rather than for you to take whatever > action you can. > > doug > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Doug MacMartin > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 4:59 PM > To: [email protected]; 'geoengineering' > Subject: RE: [geo] NRC geoengineering report: Climate hacking is dangerous and > barking mad. Pierrehumbert. Slate > > Perhaps the only thing more barking mad than considering solar geoengineering > would be the path we¹re currently onŠ in that sense I agree with him, but > insofar as we do appear to be on that path, he doesn¹t actually present any > cogent argument against pursuing research, despite all of his argumentative > rhetoric. > > There¹s so much BS in here to respond to, but two thoughts: > > As the lead author on a recent paper describing temporary deployment only to > limit the rate of change (which was cited several times in the report, and I > presume is the basis for his comment), I can unequivocally state that his > assertion: > I myself think the temporary deployment scenarios are highly implausible, and > are mainly shopped by albedo-modification boosters as a less threatening way > to get the camel¹s nose in the tent > Is absolutely false; if he was interested in whether that was true, he could > have actually asked. (I also object to the word ³boosters², as my own > perspective is simply one of wanting decisions to be made based on knowledge). > > And second, if we both ever need surgery for cancer, I¹ll take the painkillers > that he apparently doesn¹t want. > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:18 PM > To: geoengineering > Subject: [geo] NRC geoengineering report: Climate hacking is dangerous and > barking mad. Pierrehumbert. Slate > > Poster's note : notable as it's a report author. > > http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/nrc_geoengine > ering_report_climate_hacking_is_dangerous_and_barking_mad.single.html > > FEB. 10 2015 11:00 AM > > Climate Hacking Is Barking Mad > > You can¹t fix the Earth with these geoengineering proposals, but you can sure > make it worse. > > By Raymond T. Pierrehumbert > > Some years ago, in the question-and-answer session after a lecture at the > American Geophysical Union, I described certain geoengineering proposals as > ³barking mad.² The remark went rather viral in the geoengineering community. > The climate-hacking proposals I was referring to were schemes that attempt to > cancel out some of the effects of human-caused global warming by squirting > various substances into the atmosphere that would reflect more sunlight back > to space. Schemes that were lovingly called ³solar radiation management² by > geoengineering boosters. Earlier I had referred to the perilous statesuch > schemes would put our Earth into as being analogous to the fate of poor > Damocles, cowering under a sword precariously suspended by a single thread. > > This week, the National Research Council (NRC) is releasing a report on > climate engineering that deals with exactly those proposals I found most > terrifying. The report even recommends the creation of a research program > addressing these proposals. I am a co-author of this report. Does this mean > I¹ve had a change of heart? > > No. > The nearly two years¹ worth of reading and animated discussions that went into > this study have convinced me more than ever that the idea of ³fixing² the > climate by hacking the Earth¹s reflection of sunlight is wildly, utterly, > howlingly barking mad. In fact, though the report is couched in language more > nuanced than what I myself would prefer, there is really nothing in it that is > inconsistent with my earlier appraisals. > > Even the terminology used in the report signals a palpable change in the > framing of the discussion. The actions discussed for the most part are > referred to as ³climate intervention,² rather than ³climate engineering² (or > the common but confusing term geoengineering). Engineering is something you do > to a system you understand very well, where you can try out new techniques > thoroughly at a small scale before staking peoples¹ lives on them. > > Hacking the climate is different‹we have only one planet to live on, and can¹t > afford any big mistakes. Many of the climate ³engineering² proposals are akin > to turning the world¹s whole population into passengers on a largely untested > new fleet of hypersonic airplanes. > > Most previous literature has referred to schemes to increase the proportion of > sunlight reflected back to space as solar radiation management, as if it were > something routine and businesslike, along the lines of ³inventory management² > or ³personnel management.² It is far from clear, however, that solar radiation > can bemanaged in any meaningful sense of the word. The NRC report instead uses > the more neutral term ³albedo modification.² Albedo is the scientific term for > the proportion of sunlight reflected back to space. If the Earth had 100 > percent albedo, it would reflect all sunlight back to space and be a frozen > ice ball some tens of degrees above absolute zero, heated only by the trickle > of heat leaking out from its interior. Earth¹s current albedo is about 30 > percent, with much of the reflection caused by clouds and snow cover. I myself > prefer the term ³albedo hacking,² but ³albedo modification² does pretty well. > My colleague and report co-author James Fleming has called such schemes > ³untested and untestable, and dangerous beyond belief.² (A companion report > also discusses less problematic, if currently expensive, schemes for removing > carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Many of those would be well worth doing if > they ever became economical.) > > The report describes albedo modification frankly as involving large and partly > unknown risks. It states outright that albedo modification ³should not be > deployed² and emphasizes that the main focus in climate protection should > continue to be reduction of CO2 emissions. If we continue to let CO2build up > in the atmosphere and attempt to offset the effects by increasingly extreme > albedo modification, the report states, that situation is one of ³profoundly > increasing risk.² This is a far cry from the cartoonish portrayal of albedo > modification as the cheap and obvious method of choice in Superfreakonomics or > by Newt Gingrich. > > Two albedo modification schemes are singled out for detailed scrutiny. The > first of these, called stratospheric aerosol modification, works high up in > the atmosphere‹in the layer known as the stratosphere‹and involves injecting > substances such as sulfur dioxide that lead to the creation of tiny particles > that scatter sunlight back to space. It¹s modeled on what happens in the wake > of large volcanic eruptions. The second, called marine cloud brightening, > works close to the Earth¹s surface and involves injection of particles > (usually created from salt spray) that either directly reflect sunlight or > modify low-level clouds in a way that makes them more reflective. Both > techniques have the glaring problem that the albedo-modifying effects > disappear within a few weeks to a few years, whereas the climate effects of > the CO2 we emit will persist for millennia, even if we ultimately kick the > fossil fuel habit. That means that if the CO2 we have emitted at some time > heats the Earth to the point where something intolerably bad starts to happen, > active albedo modification would need to be continually maintained basically > forever. When has humanity ever managed to sustain a concerted complex > technological enterprise for centuries, let alone millennia? An awful lot can > happen in a thousand years, much of which we have no way to anticipate. The > report recognizes that such a millennial commitment would be unprecedented in > human history.The take-home message is that it is not possible to use albedo > modification to counteract peak CO2-induced warming without maintaining the > climate intervention without interruption for millennia. At least, that¹s the > case unless we learn how to actively suck CO2 out of the atmosphere. The > problem of millennial commitment makes it exceedingly imprudent to count on > albedo modification to get and keep us out of a climate emergency. Absent > effective CO2-removal techniques, albedo modification cannot be seen as a > temporary measure that can give us time to get our act together to eliminate > CO2 emissions. And if at any point albedo modification actions are ceased > abruptly, the world would be faced with the rapid release of a century or more > of pent-up warming. This is why I refer to such a world as ³Damocles world.² A > lot could happen in a thousand years that might force abrupt termination of > albedo modification, but to just mention one possibility: Think of what an > attractive target most of the proposed deployment systems (e.g. tethered > balloons or fleets of lumbering stratospheric aircraft) would be for > terrorists, or for nations who believe rightly or wrongly that they are being > harmed by albedo modification. > > Temporary deployment scenarios, which are used to delay warming rather than > limit its ultimate magnitude, are also considered in the report, which takes > no stance on what form of deployment is most likely if the world is ever > driven to that stage. I myself think the temporary deployment scenarios are > highly implausible, and are mainly shopped by albedo-modification boosters as > a less threatening way to get the camel¹s nose in the tent. I think that if > people realized how little albedo modification can do for climate without > taking on a millennial commitment, and that even such modest goals come within > reach only when CO2 emissions reductions are so successful you hardly need > albedo modification at all, a lot of the enthusiasm for the technology‹already > feeble outside the small circle of boosters‹would evaporate. > > Albedo hacking in the face of high CO2would put the Earth in a state that has > no real analogue in all of human history. In fact, the state you create by > such an action is somewhat like the state the Earth was in some 250 million > years ago during the Permian period, when the sun was dimmer but atmospheric > CO2 was higher. A more disturbing comparison involves what would happen if > albedo hacking ends abruptly: That would risk warming of a magnitude unseen > since the Paleocene-Eocene rapid warming event some 55 million years ago, but > at a rate that is probably unprecedented in all of Earth history. The hacking > would also transform a substantial amount of direct sunlight into diffuse > sunlight, altering the environment for all green plants on land.More > generally, the climate of the Earth is determined by a struggle of two > different parts of our planetary energy budget. One part is heat energy loss > to space; CO2 affects that. The other part is the amount of sunlight absorbed; > albedo modification affects that, but the consequences of turning this dial > are not at all equivalent to dialing back CO2 to pre-industrial values. This > dial can probably be used to reduce global mean temperature (though with > uncertain precision), but there is much more to climate than that. The global > cooling that could possibly be achieved comes at the cost of changes in > rainfall patterns, winds, and regional temperature. With the current state of > climate models, we have only very limited confidence in our ability to predict > the outcomes, and even more limited ability to model the actual albedo change > resulting from the complex chain of events due to an actual > climate-intervention action. What¹s more, our current ability to even monitor > what we actually did to the sky leaves a lot to be desired. And albedo > modification does little or nothing to ameliorate the acidification of the > oceans caused by CO2 emissions. All that is acknowledged frankly in the > report. > > In other words, albedo modification addresses (albeit imperfectly) the > symptoms but not the root causes of CO2-induced global warming. As a possible > response to such criticisms, Oxford¹s Steve Rayner has mused that ³Band-Aids > are useful when you are healing.² However, Band-Aids are not all that useful > if you really needed penicillin instead, and the wound festers until you die. > Albedo modification is not like a bandage that promotes healing, but more like > taking painkillers when you really need surgery for cancer. > > It could be argued with some justification that if we do not severely restrict > CO2 emissions, future generations will not havethe choice to pursue a climate > that is roughly similar to conditions before the Industrial Revolution. The > relevant comparison, according to this argument, isn¹t between the > albedo-modified state and the pre-industrial state, but rather between a hot, > high-CO2 state and a generally cooler (on average) albedo-modified state. > That¹s the ³lesser of two evils² argument, and the associated justification > for research is called ³arming the future.² It is not hard to imagine a future > world where albedo modification becomes a matter of survival (at least until > something happens to force an abrupt termination). Unrestrained CO2 emissions > could render large parts of the Earth uninhabitable for large mammals > (including us) outdoors, and it is not hard to imagine a panicked rush to > embrace albedo modification in such a situation. The problem with the arming > the future argument, as pointed out by philosopher Stephen Gardiner, is that > the lesser of two evils is still an evil, and the greatest moral culpability > of all falls on those who, as in the case of the tragic Sophie¹s choice, put > somebody in the position where they have no alternative but to make an evil > choice. That is precisely what we would be doing to future generations if we > continue to shirk our responsibility for restraining CO2emissions. > > The moral culpability issue is compounded by the fact that even a limited > deployment of albedo modification, by removing some of the more palpable > symptoms of climate disruption, would almost certainly remove some of the > incentives for doing the hard things needed to decarbonize the economy. To the > extent that research brings such deployments closer to reality, even that > research can incur risks that move us farther along the spectrum of moral > culpability. > > Now, about those research recommendations: If albedo modification is such a > terrible idea, why do research on it at all? Indeed in his book, Mike > Hulmeconsiders the technology ungovernable and argues that if a technology is > basically ungovernable at the level of deployment, we shouldn¹t be doing > research that could bring it into being. The new NRC report¹s specific > research recommendations are actually quite cautious, focusing primarily on > things that contribute to a better understanding of climate in general, in > addition to being necessary prerequisites for a better-informed judgment of > the risks of albedo modification. That includes research priorities such as a > better understanding of clouds, better understanding of tropical precipitation > changes, and better monitoring of the Earth¹s energy budget (including those > things needed to understand the response of climate to volcanic eruptions). > > Going beyond fairly uncontroversial research of this type engages value > judgments well outside of what a group of 16 scientists such as ours is > equipped to decide, and goes well beyond the boundaries of scientific judgment > itself. The report recommends, of necessity rather diffusely, the initiation > of a ³serious deliberative process² which would ultimately determine the > nature of the research program and how it would be governed. I intend to be > quite vocal in this process, if it ever gets underway. Some others on the > committee no doubt have different ideas about what the outcome of the process > should be. For example, a recent Nature opinion piece unconnected with the NRC > report itself but co-authored byGranger Morgan (another of the NRC panel > members) argues that research should initially proceed without any governance, > at the discretion of the scientists involved. I guess Granger and I will have > to duke that out as part of the ³serious deliberative process² recommended by > the NRC. > > The real consequences of NRC recommendations for research would only be > settled as part of the serious deliberative process the report recommends, and > that is where the hard work and hard decisions will take place. It¹s not at > all clear how this is going to happen. In the United States, can we actually > have a reality-based, serious deliberative process about anything anymore? Can > a serious deliberative process about climate change materially involve a > Congress that cannot even muster a Senate majority to agree that humans can > and are changing the climate? With the present state of leadership (and not > just in the United States), developing albedo-modification technology would be > like giving a loaded gun to a child. (OK, in the U.S. some people actually do > that; it doesn¹t mean it¹s a good idea.) > > So yes, albedo hacking is still barking mad, but people are often driven to do > barking mad things out of desperation, and we are heading to the breaking > point now with our continued fossil fuel binge. But if it comes to albedo > hacking, the result won¹t be pretty. It won¹t be some benign ³Plan B,² but > more like the constant fear of thermonuclear holocaust I grew up with during > the Cold War. It will be the end of blue skies and crystal-clear starry > nights, and the beginning of nightly blood-red sunsets. These are not the most > serious consequences of albedo hacking, but they will serve as nightly visible > proof of our moral failure. And there will be no exit, not for thousands of > years (unless we figure out a way to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere). If the > serious deliberative process counseled by the NRC report makes people stop and > think about just how terrifying that world would be, perhaps the thought of a > world with less reliance on fossil fuels would start to seem a lot less scary. > > Raymond T. Pierrehumbert is the Louis Block professor in geophysical sciences > at the University of Chicago and the King Carl XVI Gustaf chairman in > environmental science at Stockholms Universitet. -- 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/d/optout.
