Geoengineering sounds like a quick climate fix, but with potentially harmful results

[Think. Again.]

Published: August 21, 2023 8.29am EDT
David Kitchen, University of Richmond
Full Article: https://theconversation.com/geoengineering-sounds-like-a-quick-climate-fix-but-without-more-research-and-guardrails-its-a-costly-gamble-with-potentially-harmful-results-211705

Geoengineering sounds like a quick climate fix, but without more research and guardrails, it’s a costly gamble − with potentially harmful results

When soaring temperatures, extreme weather and catastrophic wildfires hit the headlines, people start asking for quick fixes to climate change. The U.S. government just announced the first awards from a US$3.5 billion fund for projects that promise to pull carbon dioxide out of the air. Policymakers are also exploring more invasive types of geoengineering − the deliberate, large-scale manipulation of Earth’s natural systems.

The underlying problem has been known for decades: Fossil-fuel vehicles and power plants, deforestation and unsustainable agricultural practices have been putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than the Earth’s systems can naturally remove, and that’s heating up the planet.

-snip-

Rising temperatures are raising fears that geoengineering may become necessary. Video: NASA.


But changing Earth’s complex and interconnected climate system may have unintended consequences. Changes that help one region could harm another, and the effects may not be clear until it’s too late.

As a geologist and climate scientist, I believe these consequences are not yet sufficiently understood. Beyond the potential physical repercussions, countries don’t have the legal or social structures in place to manage both its use and the fallout when things go wrong. Similar concerns have been highlighted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations Environment Programme, the National Academy of Sciences and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, among others.

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy also discussed these concerns in its July 2023 research plan for investigating potential climate interventions.

-snip-

Full Article: https://theconversation.com/geoengineering-sounds-like-a-quick-climate-fix-but-without-more-research-and-guardrails-its-a-costly-gamble-with-potentially-harmful-results-211705

[2naSalit]

1. We'll do anything to avoid...

Changing our destructive behaviors.

[orthoclad]

2. "Our" destructive behavior?

A half hour documentary on climate change and pollution, backed by thousands of hours of hard work and research, does not have the same impact as a thirty-second propaganda piece (aka "advertising" or "commercial" ) designed by behavioral experts paid scads of money, with clanging music, wild scenery, and camera zooms, intended to instill lust for power and exploit fear and insecurity.

Follow the money to find the truly destructive behavior.

edit: damned smileys (grin)

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. Yes, "our destructive behavior"

Is your computer usage necessary? You are consuming resources. I am consuming resources. It is our destructive behavior.

[Think. Again.]

5. I have to agree with orthoclad...

..A majority of Americans want to get away from using fossil fuels.

We are victims of the fossil fuel industry just as much as smokers are victims of the tobacco industry.

We won't stop burning fossil fuels until we end the profits of the fossil fuel industry, by displacing fossil fuels with non-CO2 emitting energy sources as quickly as we possibly can, or by taking control of the fossil fuel companies by "Public Domain" and downscaling them ourselves.

[orthoclad]

8. Tobacco is a good comparison

Surgeon General vs Marlboro Man.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. Sorry, this is a cop-out

“The devil made me do it!”

Lacis et al. 1981
Lacis, A., J. Hansen, P. Lee, T. Mitchell, and S. Lebedeff, 1981: Greenhouse effect of trace gases, 1970-1980. Geophys. Res. Lett., 8, 1035-1038, doi:10.1029/GL008i010p01035.

Abstract
Increased abundances were measured for several trace atmospheric gases in the decade 1970-1980. The equilibrium greenhouse warming for the measured increments of CH₄, chlorofluorocarbons and N₂O is between 50% and 100% of the equilibrium warming for the measured increase of atmospheric CO₂ during the same 10 years. The combined warming of CO₂ and trace gases should exceed natural global temperature variability in the 1980's and cause the global mean temperature to rise above the maximum of the late 1930's.

Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

Abstract
The global temperature rose by 0.2°C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

The “Greenhouse Effect” was taught in public school science classes in the 1970’s. We cannot claim ignorance.

[Think. Again.]

20. No one is claiming ignorance...

...but we are, to a large extent, powerless.

You, yourself, in at least one post, have spoken about the impossibility of simply turning off the fossil fuel switch.

This is by design, by the design of the fossil fuel industry in collaboration with their paid political allies.

It is no cop out, and there is no shame, in recognizing the truth of victimization.

[OKIsItJustMe]

23. Another cop-out

“This is by design, by the design of the fossil fuel industry in collaboration with their paid political allies.”

Decades ago, I signed up to pay an extra amount on my electrical bill to support wind-generated electricity. When I could, I switched electrical suppliers, because this one promised 100% renewably-generated electricity (at a premium.)

In recent years, I buy solar credits from a solar farm (at a discount!)

Renewably generated electricity has been an option for some time. Have you taken advantage of it? Most people have not. I tell people, “Look, it’s easy, all you need to do is sign up. You don’t have to worry about cloudy weather. You don’t have to worry about putting panels on your roof. Just sign up and save money off your bill, and, maybe help save the planet!” The response I get is, “Yeah, OK, I’ll look into it…” (and I know they won’t.)

I read in the local paper that people are blocking solar farms, because they will ruin their view. (Seriously!? “I’d rather die than spoil the view!” 🤦 )

In the 70’s people drove cars which were more fuel efficient, because oil prices had gone up. In 1980, I was pulling for John B. Anderson, because he promoted a 50¢/gallon gas tax.

Under Reagan, oil prices went down and conservation was forgotten. People wanted “pickups” and “muscle cars!” Then, people started driving around military vehicles! (excuse me, “SUV’s.”) Whenever I saw a “Hummer” I had a visceral reaction. My saying became, “So long as SUV’s are popular, gas prices are too low.”



People need to take responsibility for their own actions, and stop playing the victim.

[Think. Again.]

24. Wake me up when...

...you have single-handedly achieved a 100% non-CO2 emitting life.

In the meantime, Join Us! Join those who are trying very hard to reduce and eliminate global CO2 emissions!

[OKIsItJustMe]

26. Re: "Join Us! Join those who are trying very hard to reduce and eliminate global CO2 emissions!"

(Which implies that I am not, and have not been, for decades now.)

[Think. Again.]

27. The overall affect of your posts...

...is a vague contrariness.

[OKIsItJustMe]

29. Vague contrariness...

Guess what… Whether you like it or not, if we’re going to survive this, “Geoengineering,” is going to be a part of it. Pure and simple.

If we had (collectively) taken appropriate actions 50 years ago, or 40 years ago, it might not be necessary today.

[Think. Again.]

31. Fine by me...

...as long as it's done without causing further harm.

[OKIsItJustMe]

34. Nothing that will work will be completely without hazard

The longer we wait, the more drastic the measures which will need to be taken.

This sort of “cautionary” message has led to a complete lack of action for decades now.

The continual refrain is that “geoengineering” will give people an excuse not to cut emissions. OK… so we haven’t properly researched “geoengineering” and we haven’t cut emissions (no one needed an “excuse.”) — Hmmm… That strategy didn’t work.

[Think. Again.]

35. Yes...

...I posted somewhere else that I think we need to END the fossil fuel industry AND clean up our astmosphere. I believe you replied to that...

[orthoclad]

40. And I saw the plot

predicting temperature rise in the 60s.

So what?

[OKIsItJustMe]

41. Blaming the fossil fuel companies is pointless

We the people chose to ignore the science. The fossil fuel companies simply gave us permission, by saying that the science “wasn’t conclusive.”

We hear that ExxonMobil covered up what they knew about the science. The truth is more complex, and even more disturbing. Their scientists published (some of) their findings.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abk0063

…

BACKGROUND: In 2015, investigative journalists discovered internal company memos indicating that Exxon oil company has known since the late 1970s that its fossil fuel products could lead to global warming with “dramatic environmental effects before the year 2050.” Additional documents then emerged showing that the US oil and gas industry’s largest trade association had likewise known since at least the 1950s, as had the coal industry since at least the 1960s, and electric utilities, Total oil company, and GM and Ford motor companies since at least the 1970s. Scholars and journalists have analyzed the texts contained in these documents, providing qualitative accounts of fossil fuel interests’ knowledge of climate science and its implications. In 2017, for instance, we demonstrated that Exxon’s internal documents, as well as peer-reviewed studies published by Exxon and ExxonMobil Corp scientists, overwhelmingly acknowledged that climate change is real and human-caused. By contrast, the majority of Mobil and ExxonMobil Corp’s public communications promoted doubt on the matter.

…

Even if it turns out that the CEO of ExxonMobil was the devil himself, we willingly entered into a Faustian bargain.

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. Re: The Marlboro Man

Here’s a question for you. “The Marlboro Man” rode off into the sunset long before today’s teenagers were born. There’s no question about the health effects of smoking. There are stark warnings printed on every pack of cigarettes. So, why are they taking up the habit?

[2naSalit]

36. Those are...

Good moves in the right direction but I suspect they will come up as too little, too late. If people don't make serious effort, I mean everyone, whatever is done will not produce the desired effect. Because too many, especially in developed countries, can't be bothered to do anything other than follow the other lemmings over the cliff or step harder on the pedal, there will be a dire outcome with only a %, if that, of our species left. We're heading for a serious depopulation event, of our species, and there's a whole planet's worth of members in denial. Trying to get half of the people creating the majority of the pollution and will not comply with any attempts to save their own sorry selves is an impossible task.

[Think. Again.]

37. I agree...

...and that's why I push so hard for serious, intensive, and continual action from our government.

The system that we have, our Democracy, gives us only one way we can accomplish any group effort, and that's through the actions if our Federal government.

Yes, individual action is also nessecary, but the one way we can act in unison, as a whole, is through our elected officials and the many departments they oversee.

And I also strongly suspect that there will be a population "correction", in the coming decades, no matter what we do now.

[2naSalit]

39. Indeed...

Though I don't think it will take that long.

Right now, this year, every part of the food producing latitudes of the planet are having one of several extreme events that will destroy crop production. Drought and excessive heat with not enough water is a big one and that's not counting the flooded areas or those burning down currently. Famine is coming, soon. It's going to be one hell of a correction.

I'm hoping for an early ticket off the planet myself. I've seen enough.

[orthoclad]

3. My fear is that

geoengineering will be used as greenwashing to excuse emitting more carbon (and making more money). Get rich selling the carbon, then get richer cleaning it up on the public dime.

Intervening in processes that we don't fully understand has the potential to do more harm than good. Realistically, I acknowledge that we'll procrastinate as far as possible, then have to throw the dice on engineering. But the biggest and safest bang for the buck that we can get is to reduce emissions. Drastically.

[Think. Again.]

6. Yep...

...the fossil fuel industry will use any attempt to decrease existing CO2 as a justification to keep emitting more.

We must end the fossil fuel industry AND clean up our atmosphere.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. I'm sorry, but we cannot blame this all on "the fossil fuel industry"

How many people do you know who understand the threat of “Climate Change,” yet flew somewhere on a jet, or went on “a cruise” in the past year?

[Think. Again.]

21. You are absolutely correct....

...a large part of the blame DOES lie with our nation's elected "leaders" who are not fulfilling their solemn responsibility to act on our behalf, in our best interest, and for our well-being.

[OKIsItJustMe]

25. Another cop-out

Our “elected leaders” aren’t making people fly to far away destinations for vacation, or take cruises, or fly on jets to ports where they can get on a cruise boat. Our “elected leaders” stick their fingers up to determine which way the wind is blowing.

"There goes my people. I must follow them, for I am their leader.” ― Mahatma Gandhi

[OKIsItJustMe]

28. Out of curiosity...

When did you last contact your “elected leaders” about “Climate Change?”

https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm
https://www.house.gov/representatives

(Don’t forget your state and local people.)

[Think. Again.]

30. Wrote an email...

...to Biden 3 months ago about stepping up the game.

It was my third to him in a year.

Wrote to Dept of transportation about public transit one month ago.

Wrote to dept. of energy 2 months ago.

[OKIsItJustMe]

32. Do it more often

and call them on the phone.

Visit their office if you can.

[Think. Again.]

33. Thank you for your guidance.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Geoengineering is a catch-all term used to scare people

Anything which we do with the intent of affecting the ecosystem is a form of “geoengineering.” So, for example, planting large numbers of trees to draw down CO₂ is a form of geoengineering.

But nothing could go wrong just planting trees. Right? Well, no, things could go wrong. For instance we might inadvertently affect the “albedo” of the planet.

Science: The Forest Forecast: Climate change could lead to a net expansion of global forests. But will a more forested world actually be cooler?

Planted forests are usually not the same as natural forests. Natural forests grow in stages, with multiple species of plants and trees growing in concert over the course of many years. Planted forests are typically more like a farmer’s field. Where monocultures are planted (historically, planted in nice straight lines, just like corn!)

Maybe we want to do that. Perhaps, we could bioengineer trees which were particularly good at sequestering carbon, or maybe we could select a natural species and then plant great expanses of these “carbon sucking trees.” https://www.worldtree.eco/



By continuing to burn fossil fuels, we are engaging in geoengineering. We now know that we are changing the climate. We have decided that the benefits we derive from continuing to burn fossil fuels justify changing the climate. If we stop burning fossil fuels, that too will be a sort of geoengineering.

By cutting down forests we have changed the climate and continued to change the climate. We have made the decision that the benefits we gain from cutting down forests justify changing the climate.

OK, we have successfully proved that it is within our power to change the climate. Now the question is, do we want to do it in a planned fashion?

[orthoclad]

7. Actually, I've heard professional scientists

use the word in lecture. It's not a propaganda term.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. Oh, it's a legitimate term, but the definition is quite broad

Last edited Mon Aug 21, 2023, 12:53 PM - Edit history (1)

geoengineering

the study and activity of finding ways to change the earth's atmosphere in order to reduce global warming (= the gradual increase in world temperatures):
• One geoengineering project is tree planting.

In my experience, if you like it, it’s “restoration” (or some other friendly-sounding term) if you don’t like it, it’s GEOENGINEERING! 😱

If you’re doing it to intentionally affect the planet, it’s geoengineering.

[ThreeNoSeep]

12. Offer solutions that make sense, rather than endless doom and gloom

What's with these "ain't nothing gonna work so let's just all sit down and die" articles?

These folks sound like Statler and Waldorf at a Goth Muppet Show.

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. NREL: 100% Clean Electricity by 2035 Study

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1127166861

[Qutzupalotl]

16. MIT has an idea

to block sunlight hitting Earth: https://senseable.mit.edu/space-bubbles/

They estimate that a 1.8% reduction in sunlight would stabilize global temperatures. The advantage of their plan is that it can be fine-tuned if the calculations are off, or it can be fully reversed. It also does not rely on our collective willingness to sacrifice conveniences — I think those intentions are well-meaning, I just doubt there are enough of us to overcome entrenched fossil fuel interests. We also seem to be past the tipping point, where our carbon sinks themselves are burning.

It's a Hail Mary pass, but it just might work.

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. This sort of solution is mentioned in the article linked to in the OP

It’s not a new idea:
NASA Final Report: Mitigating Climate Change With Earth Orbital Sunshades (2015)

[Qutzupalotl]

18. MIT's idea was to be able to resize it easily.

To manufacture he bubbles in space, or reduce them.

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. Right, "space bubbles"

But, it’s not as if the other plans are entirely binary. For example, if you are putting up a series of orbiting mirrors, and you find there are too many, you can bring one (or a few) down.

[Think. Again.]

22. The article posted is clearly...

...intended as information to be considered in our shared search for solutions that make sense.

[OKIsItJustMe]

38. Not at all clear to me.

Instead, it appears to be discouraging us from doing anything…

…

Geoengineering, theoretically, aims to restore that balance, either by removing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or reflecting solar energy away from Earth.

But changing Earth’s complex and interconnected climate system may have unintended consequences. Changes that help one region could harm another, and the effects may not be clear until it’s too late.

…

…

Carbon dioxide removal techniques, such as planting trees and increasing soil carbon sequestration – retaining more organic carbon in fertile soils – may provide additional benefits to ecosystem services by increasing species diversity and boosting agricultural productivity. These are all positive outcomes and should be part of a global climate response.

…

Novel idea that.

Hansen et al (2008) Target Atmospheric CO: Where Should Humanity Aim?

…

A practical global strategy almost surely requires a rising global price on CO₂ emissions and phase-out of coal use except for cases where the CO₂ is captured and sequestered. The carbon price should eliminate use of unconventional fossil fuels, unless, as is unlikely, the CO₂ can be captured. A reward system for improved agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon could remove the current CO₂ overshoot. With simultaneous policies to reduce non-CO₂ greenhouse gases, it appears still feasible to avert catastrophic climate change.

Present policies, with continued construction of coal-fired power plants without CO₂ capture, suggest that decision-makers do not appreciate the gravity of the situation. We must begin to move now toward the era beyond fossil fuels. Continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions, for just another decade, practically eliminates the possibility of near-term return of atmospheric composition beneath the tipping level for catastrophic effects.

…

OK, so, if we cut emissions before 2018, “improved agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon could remove the current CO₂ overshoot. With simultaneous policies to reduce non-CO₂ greenhouse gases, it appears still feasible to avert catastrophic climate change.”

That gives us… uh…