Worth noting perhaps that the NAS has done careful studies of climate impacts http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12877 so one response to the limitations of the climate intervention study is to suggest that the climate stabilization/impacts report be read together with the climate intervention study. This is a familiar lawyerly technique (where there is doubt, construe all parts of a contract together so as to achieve a reasonable rather than an absurd reading) which may help in dealing with policy types. ᐧ
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Mike MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net> wrote: > 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" <macma...@cds.caltech.edu> wrote: > > On reflection, I think my most basic problem with his “argument” 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. > > It’s a bit like standing in a cross-walk watching an approaching SUV that > isn’t slowing down and insisting that you have the right-of-way and the > “right answer” is for the SUV-driver to stop rather than for you to take > whatever action you can. > > doug > > > *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [ > mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>] *On > Behalf Of *Doug MacMartin > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 11, 2015 4:59 PM > *To:* andrew.lock...@gmail.com; '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 we’re currently on… in that sense I agree > with him, but insofar as we do appear to be on that path, he doesn’t > actually present any cogent argument against pursuing research, despite all > of his argumentative rhetoric. > > There’s 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 camel’s 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 “boosters”, 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, I’ll take the > painkillers that he apparently doesn’t want. > > *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [ > mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>] *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_geoengineering_report_climate_hacking_is_dangerous_and_barking_mad.single.html > > FEB. 10 2015 11:00 AM > > Climate Hacking Is Barking Mad > > You can’t 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 > “barking mad.” 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 > “solar radiation management” 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 > I’ve had a change of heart? > > No. > The nearly two years’ worth of reading and animated discussions that went > into this study have convinced me more than ever that the idea of “fixing” > the climate by hacking the Earth’s 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 “climate intervention,” rather than “climate engineering” > (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 peoples’ lives on > them. > > Hacking the climate is different—we have only one planet to live on, and > can’t afford any big mistakes. Many of the climate “engineering” proposals > are akin to turning the world’s 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 “inventory management” or “personnel management.” 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 “albedo > modification.” 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. Earth’s current albedo is about 30 percent, with much of > the reflection caused by clouds and snow cover. I myself prefer the term > “albedo hacking,” but “albedo modification” does pretty well. My colleague > and report co-author James Fleming has called such schemes “untested and > untestable, and dangerous beyond belief.” (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 “should > not be deployed” 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 “profoundly increasing risk.” 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. It’s modeled on what > happens in the wake of large volcanic eruptions. The second, called marine > cloud brightening, works close to the Earth’s 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, that’s 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 “Damocles world.” 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 camel’s > 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. > What’s 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, Oxford’s Steve Rayner has mused that > “Band-Aids are useful when you are healing.” 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, > isn’t 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. That’s the “lesser of two evils” argument, and the > associated justification for research is called “arming the future.” 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 Sophie’s 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 shouldn’t be doing > research that could bring it into being. The new NRC report’s 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 Earth’s 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 “serious deliberative process” 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 “serious deliberative process” 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. It’s > 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 doesn’t mean it’s > 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 won’t be pretty. It won’t be some benign “Plan > B,” 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
