Hi Alan, Probably worth emailing Clive Hamilton directly, he writes fairly often on the topic and may re-use this claim unless made aware of the problem.
Pete On Wednesday, 3 July 2019 13:04:40 UTC-4, Alan Robock wrote: > > Dear All, > > I would just like to point out that *my views are erroneously portrayed > here. * The article says, "Some atmospheric scientists, like Dr Alan > Robock at Rutgers University, argue that the complexity of the climate > system means that it’s difficult to draw firm conclusions about the > consequences of such a radical intervention. They point out that the > chemistry of the upper atmosphere – including the ozone layer – is > complicated and poorly understood. Reducing the amount of sunlight reaching > the Earth in a computer model may give little clue as to what would happen > in the actual climate system if a layer of sulphate aerosols were injected > into it." > > *Actually, I "argue" (to use their jargon) the opposite.* Climate models > are our best tools to examine the impacts of stratospheric aerosols. The > chemistry of the upper atmosphere is well understood. Climate model > results do tell us what would happen, and we evaluate them all the time > with observations and the response to volcanic eruptions. I don't know how > they got me so wrong. If I thought that, why would I spend so much time > using and analyzing the results of climate models? > > Alan > _________________________________________________________________________ > Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor > Associate Editor, Reviews of Geophysics > Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751 > Rutgers University E-mail: [email protected] > <javascript:> > 14 College Farm Road http://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock > New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA ☮ http://twitter.com/AlanRobock > > On 7/3/19 4:59 AM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > > > > https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/could-geoengineering-cause-a-climate-war/amp/?__twitter_impression=true > > > Could geoengineering cause a climate war? > If country leaders manipulate the weather to do their bidding, could they > create political tensions, or even all-out war? > 4 weeks ago > By Clive Hamilton > Share on Facebook > Share on Twitter > Share on WhatsApp > Share on Reddit > Email to a friend > Update 17/06/19: This article has been updated to include the alternative > view by Peter Irvine, which originally appeared in the April 2018 issue of > BBC Focus Magazine. > > Advertisement > > Climate change is a problem in desperate need of a solution. According to > the authoritative Carbon Action Tracker, even if all nations honour their > pledges to cut their greenhouse gas emissions, the globe will still warm by > around 3.2°C by 2100 – with catastrophic consequences for humanity and the > animal kingdom. > > If cutting greenhouse gas emissions isn’t enough, is it time for a plan B? > Recent times have seen a surge of interest in geoengineering: China has > recently embarked on a substantial research plan, while in the US, Prof > David Keith of Harvard University is planning to launch a high-altitude > balloon this year to test the feasibility of spraying reflective particles > into the stratosphere. Meanwhile, other researchers are looking at the > possibility of increasing the brightness of marine clouds to reflect more > sunlight back into space. > > Advertisement > Read more: > > The unsung heroes of climate change > Climate change is turning dehydration into a deadly epidemic > But there are a number of risks, and not just because we’re unsure about > how effective these interventions would be. There are fears that one > country’s efforts to solve its climate problem could inadvertently mess up > the weather elsewhere, creating a new source of political tension. And > ultimately, this leads to a worrying question: could we be looking at the > dawn of a new kind of war – one fuelled by a battle for dominance over our > planet’s climate system? > > The problem with geoengineering > Geoengineering is defined as a deliberate, large-scale intervention in the > climate system, and schemes come in two varieties. The first type aims to > remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This can be done by capturing it > from the air using natural or artificial means; making biochar (a type of > charcoal) from vegetation waste; or adding lime to the oceans to reduce > their acidity and therefore maintain their ability to absorb carbon dioxide > from the atmosphere. The greatest hurdle for these schemes lies in finding > somewhere to permanently store the huge quantities of carbon. The deep > ocean offers one possible solution, but we’re still a long way from a > feasible method of doing this. > > The second kind of geoengineering scheme is known as solar radiation > management or albedo modification. These techniques look to reflect a small > amount of sunlight away from the planet to reduce warming. Some of these > proposals are relatively benign, but also pretty ineffective. The > technology receiving most attention – and the one most likely to be > deployed because it’s cheap and feasible – is known as sulphate aerosol > spraying. > > Large volcanic eruptions can cool the planet by preventing a little solar > radiation from reaching us. Some geoengineering schemes work in a similar > way © Getty Images > Large volcanic eruptions can cool the planet by preventing a little solar > radiation from reaching us. Some geoengineering schemes work in a similar > way © Getty Images > The idea is to spray sulphur dioxide or sulphuric acid into the > stratosphere or upper atmosphere to form tiny particles that reflect an > extra 1 to 3 per cent of incoming solar radiation back into space, thereby > cooling the planet in the way that large volcanic eruptions are known to do. > > In effect, humans would be installing a radiative shield between the Earth > and the Sun: one that could be adjusted by those who control it to regulate > the temperature of the planet. The models indicate that if we reduced the > amount of sunlight reaching the planet, the Earth would cool fairly > quickly, although with less effect at the poles, which are warming more > rapidly. > > A 2010 study published in Nature Geoscience found that, under a solar > geoengineering regime, there would be different responses across large > regions, making consensus about how much to reduce incoming solar radiation > difficult, if not impossible. > > Some atmospheric scientists, like Dr Alan Robock at Rutgers University, > argue that the complexity of the climate system means that it’s difficult > to draw firm conclusions about the consequences of such a radical > intervention. They point out that the chemistry of the upper atmosphere – > including the ozone layer – is complicated and poorly understood. Reducing > the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth in a computer model may give > little clue as to what would happen in the actual climate system if a layer > of sulphate aerosols were injected into it. > > Read more: > > Is climate change going to make flights bumpier? > Could climate change turn Earth into Venus? > One worry is that, combined with increased water vapour as a result of > global warming, adding sulphates to the upper atmosphere could be a lethal > cocktail for ozone loss, speeding up chemical reactions that destroy this > crucial gas. Other studies indicate that, depending on the kind of aerosol > spraying programme, the South Asian and East Asian monsoons could be > disrupted. Tropical rainfall depends on differences between temperatures on > land and sea, and some models show that by changing the temperature ratio > between land and sea, solar geoengineering could suppress monsoon rains, > affecting food supplies for millions of people. > > However, global warming itself is changing precipitation patterns around > the world (broadly speaking, dry regions are becoming drier and wet ones > wetter) so a solar shield may improve rainfall in some regions that are > drying out. It’s here we get to some of the most difficult issues > associated with geoengineering. > > Unknown unknowns > If the most sophisticated models cannot provide a firm answer regarding > how solar geoengineering would affect the actual global climate, nor can > experiments. Only full-scale implementation would provide a clear idea of > its impacts. > > Even then, we’d need at least 10 years of global climate data before we > had enough information to separate out the effects of sulphate aerosol > spraying from natural climate variability and, indeed, from the effects of > human-induced climate change. To compound the risks, if after 10 years we > had accumulated enough data to decide that our intervention was not a good > idea, it may be impossible to terminate the solar shield. Why should this > be so? > > Cloud- seeding substances, which provide nuclei around which clouds can > precipitate, being blasted from a plane © WEBB CHAPPELL, FLPA > Cloud- seeding substances, which provide nuclei around which clouds can > precipitate, being blasted from a plane © Webb Chappell, FLPA > For some time, ecologists have known that the rate at which the globe > warms is a greater threat to ecosystems than the amount of warming, because > a slower rate of warming gives plants and animals more time to adapt. If > the solar shield causes some nasty unintended effects (including conflict > between nations), removing it suddenly would cause the suppressed warming > ‘rebound’. It’s been estimated that if warming occurs at a rate of 0.3°C > per decade (well within the estimated rebound range) then only 30 per cent > of ecosystems could adapt and survive. > > So we may find that, once deployed, removing the shield becomes too risky; > we’d be stuck with it. The danger would be multiplied if we failed to take > the opportunity to cut greenhouse gas emissions sharply while the shield > was in place. This is perhaps the greatest hazard of going down this path. > > Politics, politics > Some technologies are inherently political in the sense that they increase > the power of those who control it and reduce the power of those excluded > from it. Imagine if the US government decided to install a solar shield > that allowed it to regulate the climate. The government would wield great > power over all those US industries that depend on the weather, while also > being able to influence the climate in other parts of the world, creating > immediate strategic tension. > > Paradoxically, solar geoengineering can also be seen as a means of > preserving social and political structures that are threatened by measures > to cut carbon emissions. Instead of taxing fossil fuels, banning coal > mining and restricting air transport, those profiting from these activities > might welcome a technofix like sulphate aerosol spraying. > > Emissions from the steel industry contribute towards air pollution. > Average global temperatures have risen by more than 1°C since before the > Industrial Revolution © Getty Images > Emissions from the steel industry contribute towards air pollution. > Average global temperatures have risen by more than 1°C since before the > Industrial Revolution © Getty Images > Indeed, in the US, conservative think tanks that have been at the > forefront of climate science denial have shown an interest in solar > geoengineering. It’s cheap and protects any vested interests. > Geoengineering promises to turn a drastic failure of the free enterprise > system into a triumph of human ingenuity. And they are more inclined to > agree with Prof David Keith that an artificial Earth shaped by humans is > not intrinsically inferior to a natural one. > > At a deeper level, the implicitly autocratic nature of global climate > regulation has an appeal to those on the political right just as it > frightens those on the democratic left. It’s hard to imagine a government > in charge of a solar geoengineering project holding a referendum on whether > the Earth’s temperature should be reduced by one degree or two. > > The control of the Earth’s weather could become the responsibility of a > kind of ‘Climate Regulation Agency’, staffed by a technocratic elite whose > task would be to continuously collect a vast array of weather information, > feed it into data systems, separate out the effects of the solar shield > from other factors, and advise the relevant department as to how many > planes loaded with sulphur dioxide should be sent up next week and where > they should dump their loads. > > Climate wars > Military planners recognise climate change as a ‘threat multiplier’. US > defence chiefs, among others, have incorporated a changing climate into > their military planning and equipment supply. Climate change is expected to > create political instability; indeed, some experts believe that climate > change-induced drought, high food prices and migration to cities nudged > Syria into civil war. > > If that’s true – and we can only guess at how much conflict there might be > in a world 3°C warmer – mitigating warming by geoengineering ought to > create a more peaceful world. But it’s not so straightforward. > > When hit by a devastating flood, drought or storm, a community will tend > to see it as an act of God – a natural event that it just has to cope with. > But what if we believed that the death and destruction were caused not by > nature but by someone manipulating the weather? If another nation were > engineering the climate, its politicians’ denials would fall on deaf ears, > and not just because humans naturally look for someone to blame. If a > nation had embarked on a system-altering form of climate engineering like > sulphur dioxide spraying, it would be virtually impossible to work out > whether an extreme weather event somewhere in the world was due to natural > variability, human-induced climate change or climate manipulation. And > climate manipulation would quite likely get the blame. > > A farmer squats in a dried-up pool in Huangpi District of Wuhan, Hubei > Province, China © Shutterstock > A farmer squats in a dried-up pool in Huangpi District of Wuhan, Hubei > Province, China © Shutterstock > The government of China, faced with a catastrophic drought in the north of > the country, might decide its survival demanded rapid global cooling. But > sending up planes to spray sulphur dioxide might deprive India and Pakistan > of their monsoon rains, bringing on famine. Three nuclear-armed nations > would then be in conflict over weather patterns that affect the survival of > millions of their citizens. > > It’s hard to know who might first be tempted to regulate the global > climate. Given the severe environmental and geopolitical risks, and the > deep ethical divide over whether humans should ‘play God’, governments in > democratic countries may be hamstrung. Authoritarian leaders who do not > need public approval to act may have a freer hand. Do we want Vladimir > Putin or Xi Jinping controlling our weather? > > Listen to the Science Focus Podcast: > > How can we save our planet? – Sir David Attenborough > What’s going on with the weather? – Dann Mitchell > A dictator with his hand on the global thermostat is a scary prospect. But > imagine if several poorer nations (let’s say Bangladesh, Tuvalu, the > Maldives and Ethiopia) clubbed together and declared: “The rich countries > that caused global warming promised to cut their emissions, but they have > not done so. Our people are dying, so we must take unilateral action. We > are sending up a fleet of planes to spray sulphur dioxide.” > > Now the moral calculus leaves us uncertain what to think. Don’t they have > the right to save themselves from an existential threat, even if by risky > means? What would it mean for floods and storms in other countries? Would > the United States or China be entitled to shoot down their planes? > > Reaching a consensus to regulate the Earth’s climate would, in the words > of a 2013 study, “pose immense challenges to liberal democratic politics”. > But then, liberal democratic politics does not have a great record > responding to climate change, either. The elected president of the US, > Donald Trump, has announced that his country will be pulling out of the > Paris Agreement, an action that will slow emissions reductions and expose > millions of people, especially poorer individuals, to the devastating > effects of a warming world. > > In the circumstances, the only acceptable answer is a global agreement to > regulate research into geoengineering. If it ever comes to deployment, > conflict could be avoided only if an inclusive international institution > makes the decision. Without it, one nation would control the climate of > others, and those others will be tempted to engage in their own > ‘counter-geoengineering’. And then we really are in trouble. > > An alternative view > Peter Irvine is a climate scientist at Harvard University who researches > solar geoengineering. He argues that the benefits of the technology could > outweigh the risks > > I’ve been working since 2009 to understand the potential and limits of > geoengineering, and Clive Hamilton paints a picture of this technology that > I simply do not recognise. To address climate change, carbon dioxide > emissions will have to be driven to zero, but however fast emissions are > cut, the climate will still warm considerably over the 21st Century. It’s > here that stratospheric aerosol geoengineering could prove an extremely > useful tool. > > Higher temperatures mean more intense heatwaves; they mean air carries > more moisture, causing more intense floods; and they mean more melting of > the glaciers, driving up sea levels. Reducing temperatures will reduce > these risks, and our work has shown that it doesn’t make much difference > whether this is done by lowering emissions or by cooling from solar > geoengineering. This doesn’t mean geoengineering should be a replacement > for emissions cuts – indeed, it may introduce some new risks of its own – > but it would help to offset some of climate change’s worst impacts. > > Clive points to the potential dangers of geoengineering reducing monsoon > rainfall, but his picture is incomplete. Water availability depends not > only on how much rain falls but also on how quickly it evaporates in the > heat of the day. The same climate models that show that geoengineering > would reduce rainfall also show that it would reduce evaporation, > potentially leading to more, not less, water availability for people, crops > and ecosystems. > > Clive also claims that, because climate control would require detailed > technical knowledge to manage, it would somehow lead to the technocrats > taking over. Yet our lives depend on the technocrats who manage our > electricity grids, our water supply, our transport systems and our > internet, and still our societies remain robustly democratic. > > Clive portrays geoengineering as an idea born of Cold War hubris and > pushed by right-wing climate deniers. Instead, I see a well-intentioned > proposal that is being critically evaluated by hundreds of researchers > around the world, from disciplines as diverse as engineering, economics and > international law. Rather than coming from shadowy right-wing think tanks > of fossil-fuel interests, funding for geoengineering research comes mostly > from governments (which reflects a societal demand for this knowledge) and > environmentally minded philanthropists. > > Outside of academia, there are also exciting developments. The Solar > Radiation Management Governance Initiative is an international NGO that’s > working to empower scientists and policy makers in developing countries to > engage with geoengineering, while in New York, the Carnegie Climate > Geoengineering Governance Initiative (led by Janos Pasztor, the former > climate science adviser to Ban Ki-moon) aims to bring this topic to the > attention of international policy makers at the UN and beyond. > > The ratification of the Paris Agreement and the stunning developments in > solar and wind power in recent years show that the world has the will and > is developing the tools to tackle climate change. Even so, international > cooperation in this area remains a notoriously difficult process: the > benefits of cutting emissions are global and will be felt in the long run, > whereas the costs are felt here and now. So even though all countries agree > that they want to limit the impacts of climate change, each country > benefits the most by doing the least. > > For geoengineering, the picture is completely different. The costs of > geoengineering are low, its effects will be felt quickly, and they’ll be > global in scope. This means that governments will have a real incentive to > work together to realise the potential benefits of geoengineering. > > So the reality of this technology is rather different from the worst-case > scenario pictured by Clive Hamilton. We now need a concerted international > and interdisciplinary research effort into geoengineering, and we shouldn’t > let pessimistic fears get in the way of exploring an idea that might really > help in the fight against climate change. > > This article was first published in April 2018 > -- > 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04GCRwM-ABkOLdWuESG9Fco%2BGgcVg8i7SkG5yrr9ykeCg%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04GCRwM-ABkOLdWuESG9Fco%2BGgcVg8i7SkG5yrr9ykeCg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/f2319780-863e-4204-801c-d94565704484%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
