349. LOCALIZED GEOENGINEERING
There is a misconception that geoengineering can only be applied to the entire earth. This is not really true.
In a recent Tech Talk at Google (available as a youtube video here -- well worth watching as an intro to geoengineering), Stanford University climate scientist Ken Caldeira asks the following question (at around 29:00):
Geoengineering the whole earth is a little scary. Would regional scale geoengineering be possible?He then shows some modeling and analysis of localized applications of aerosol over the north pole, where the current warming is having its most dramatic effect. He concludes: "More or less, it's within our technical capability to make however much sea ice we want." (33:30)
The idea of localized cooling is nothing new. In fact, mainstream climate science recognizes that man-made aerosols (which caused the cooling period from 1940-1970) have localized effects. In other words, humans have already done decades-long localized geoengineering to cool the northern hemisphere. We just didn't realize we were doing it at the time.
Localized heating (perhaps to generate precipitation or clouds) is also within human technical capabilities using space mirrors. That may sound futuristic, but it's not. There are numerous mirrors already in space (in telescopes and imaging systems), and the USSR actually deployed a large space mirror to illumine the dark side of the earth 15 years ago in 1993 (Znamya 2).
These measures are not as expensive as you might think. Here's UC-Irvine physics professor Gregory Benford on the subject:
"The cost to spray particles over the Arctic would be a couple hundred million dollars a year; and for the whole planet, it's a few billion a year," Benford says. "That's the thing that terrifies geoengineering's opponents -- that this is at least a thousand times cheaper than anything else."SourceWith that in mind, let me conclude with a tough question that Ken Caldeira is fond of asking:
"Which is more environmentally sensitive, to let the polar bears go extinct or put some dust in the upper atmosphere?"
by JD
posted by JD @ 3:57 AM
41 comments
41 Comments:
Please try to stay on topic folks.
Also, if you comment, please use the Name/URL option instead of Anonymous. You don't have to register. Just type in your screen name. Thank you, JD.
how's your fucking starvation experiment going JD? Not so damn funny anymore now is it? maybe your dumbass better just delete that post do people don't see what an idiot you are.
Old Man in the Forest
"Which is more environmentally sensitive, to let the polar bears go extinct or put some dust in the upper atmosphere?"
What a silly question. It's like asking what if pigs have wings. The polar bear population is 5x more now than 40 years ago and increasing. Those bastard academics are still using the usual fear mongering tricks to claim more money for "research".
As to local mitigation, the rain is coming back now in the Palestine which was way dryer before Israel existed as a state. Simply because the Israelis have been planting trees and crops where it used to be a desert. Even the Negev desert is greening. They haven't been waiting the GW scare to "mitigate" climate.
Anyway, mitigation, be it global or local is considered just like adaptation. It's of no interest for AGWers because they would lose the raison-d'être to coerce people into reducing CO2 emissions, that is to change humanity's lifestyle. Exactly like peakoilers have no interest in new oil discoveries or oil alternatives but only in the end of the civilisation as it is.
Look for example at the splash between Pielke Jr and Green hysteric Joe Romm about climate mitigation : http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/
The more I get into GW, the less of a believer I get. I think there is a lot to be said (or learning) concerning positive feedbacks, as well as understanding the real danger that GW could provoke, would the IPCC report be true (seems more like an annoyance to me rather than an apocalyptic crisis), and what are really the costs of diminishing CO2 vs not diminishing them.
I also got this gem of a quote:
The “Environment” has become a God who “threatens” us and demands constant sacrifice.
Dr. Vincent Gray
And boy do I trust apocalyptic religions!
"Which is more environmentally sensitive, to let the polar bears go extinct or put some dust in the upper atmosphere?"
That's a false dichotomy. Pretty weak.
Contrails seem to be geoengineering in action right now. Has this subject been discussed yet?
JD, did you see Matt "Alpha Male of Doom" Savinar's huckstering of his food storage franchised based on the "RED ALERT" food shortage scare? He's basically turning an inflation hedge investment tip into a full-blown crash warning.
One other thing JD. Have you looked into David Blume's co-production model for ethanol fuel and food? I bought his giant book and is a great read. It confirms what I've already known about tightly-integrated local production of food and fuel. Increased food from the ethanol production "waste products" probably really pisses off the doomers and eco-fascists. The $50 cost is well worth the price.
His sites:
http://www.permaculture.com/
http://www.alcoholcanbeagas.com/
JD,
That geo-engineering stuff is interesting, but for one I don't see your point. In previous posts you argue global warming has stopped. So why the need for this?
In any event, I fail to understand your recent fixation on AGW, especially in light of recent developments that have far much more to do with your site main thrust, Peak Oil.
You say that you expected the 120$ a barrel price and view it as good news. And yet in previous posts you ridiculed the very people who predicted such prices were around the corner, like Matt Simmons.
You also made fun of the impending food high prices/shortages just a few month ago. This is now a real and acute problem for tens of millions of people, and is a direct consequence of high energy costs. That also was predicted by 'doomers'. Not a word about this on your blog.
You said peak was here in 2006, and then gloated when production went up slightly last year. Now Russia admits it's at peak, and Saudi Arabia say they won't increase production beyond 12.5 mbpd. That spells peak oil to me. And no word from you.
In any event, I'm glad I ignored the nonsense from cornucopians such as yourself and followed my instincts instead. I now grow all my food, produce all my fuel and generate all my electricity. And whatever cash I had left I invested into resource funds, and made a killing. Good I didn't listen to dumbasses like Danny Yergin of CERA. He's been consistently wrong so often that the moment he'll say oil will go up, I sell everything.
Sometimes it pays to be a doomer!
"Which is more environmentally sensitive, to let the polar bears go extinct or put some dust in the upper atmosphere?"
That's a false dichotomy. Pretty weak.
So what's the other option? Scientists are now informing us that arctic ice is melting at an alarming rate.
Conservation isn't going to stop that melting. Even fully implemented, the Kyoto Treaty would only reduce temperature by 0.1degF by 2050, and 0.3degF by 2100 in 2100, as noted in #347. For that matter, even if we halt all emissions completely tomorrow, the temperature will continue to increase for the next 150 yearsSource.
how's your fucking starvation experiment going JD?
Just great asshole. In fact, I'll be posting an update in the near future, so stay tuned. Wouldn't want you doomist shitheads to miss out on all the fun of me dying of peak oil induced starvation.
Yesterday I starved on a crab dinner. Maybe today I'll starve on a steak. :-)
Hey, starvation diets increase lifespan and cure cancer. What's so wrong with that? ;-)
greenneck:
In previous posts you argue global warming has stopped.
Actually, that's incorrect. I previously stated two facts: 1) global temperature hasn't risen since its peak in 1998, and 2) the ocean is currently cooling. Those statements are both backed up by the statistics and the peer-reviewed literature. I pointed those facts out to contrast them with Ted Turner's statement that "We'll have eight degrees -- we'll be eight degrees hotter in 10 -- not 10, but in 30 or 40 years." At no point have I stated that global warming has stopped, or that those two facts prove that global warming has stopped. In fact, what I wrote was: "Does this mean global warming has stopped or reversed? Probably not, but you never know." For the record, I do accept that the earth is in a long-term warming trend.
You also made fun of the impending food high prices/shortages just a few month ago. This is now a real and acute problem for tens of millions of people, and is a direct consequence of high energy costs.
I don't believe it is a direct consequence of energy costs. It has been shown through numerous previous examples that oil prices per se have almost no effect at all on food prices. See Link
Much of the price rise in the last few 6 months has been due to the actions of the FED, and an ongoing commodity bubble driven by doomer profiteers like yourself, trying to make a quick buck, and screwing the world's poor in the process.
Of course you can generate "local effects"; in fact, any effect would initially be local in nature, and it would be the harder part to induce equally strong effects globally. Europe currently is witnessing a local effect; its aerosol reduction policies seem to have lead to higher average temperatures in the last decade.
The question, however, is how such local effects will interact with the global thermal energy transport mechanics. Simply put, cooling the arctic could result in the atlantic being haunted by storms, or the gulf stream being redirected, or even shutting down, or heating up of the permafrost in siberia, which would only make things worse there. The risks are not reliably accessible currently.
(One of the coolest ideas of 'local weather magic', by the way, is to warm/cool the sea for redirecting hurricanes.)
I have good doubts that speculators are somehow "bad" for the economy, unless they create runaway bubbles that is. But if that is not the case, speculators function as prescient buyers that stock up oil, for example, when it seems that oil is gonna have future bottlenecks, contributing for its rise much much before the so called shit hitting the fan. This is good, because price signals give good warning to the market to create alternatives and they rise supply.
For instance, in the oil markets, the price of oil climbed since 2003, many years before current peak production that some doomers like T Boone say "it is about it", and it did it without holding much knowledge about it. Who drove the price up? Speculators of course. And it was a good thing, not a bad thing. That this price surge is costing the third world famine is important, because I think that the alternative would be far worse in the future, if the price signal of the market didn't jump like it is jumping in 2008.
I mean, it is obvious. 120$ is shouting for investment in alternatives.
"Much of the price rise in the last few 6 months has been due to the actions of the FED, and an ongoing commodity bubble driven by doomer profiteers like yourself, trying to make a quick buck, and screwing the world's poor in the process."
FYI, I invested into gold when it was at 250$ an ounce and in energy stocks in the early 2000s, long before this bubble. This is not a 'quick buck', this is smart investing. You know, buy low, sell high.
As for the commodity bubble, are you saying it is all driven by speculation, and that 10% a year growth in China and India has nothing to do with it?
As for screwing the world's poor, this is rich coming from a guy who boasts about eating steak. Meat consumption is a major factor in increasing grain costs. You contribute to the problem, I don't.
Contrails seem to be geoengineering in action right now. Has this subject been discussed yet?
Contrails from aircraft cause high-altitude clouds which lead to warming. Low level clouds produce cooling effect. The exhaust from ships causes similar cloud trails to aircraft, except these produce cooling.
This raises an important point. Burning FF also produces a lot of aerosols, which causes some cooling, countering the GW effect of CO2. If aerosol productions is reduced, then warming may accelerate. This is one of the uncertainties in the climate science.
I am not convinced about space mirrors, Znamya 2 was tiny compared to anything that would have a significant effect, and Znamya 2.5 failed, after which the programme was abandoned.
Cloud seeding from aircraft seems quite doable. Controllable and with few apparent ill effects, we could see it being supported by those nations unwilling to cut CO2 emissions.
As for polar bears, a large part of the problem is that they migrate to areas inhabited by humans, where they are shot. This is really the regular problem of humans reducing wildlife habitats into smaller and smaller "wildlife reserves", effectively becoming nature theme parks.
Much of the price rise in the last few 6 months has been due to the actions of the FED, and an ongoing commodity bubble driven by doomer profiteers like yourself, trying to make a quick buck, and screwing the world's poor in the process."
Also consider the inflation-devaluation of the petrodollar combined with the economy of China et al. China itself has 1,000,000,000 peasants to fatten-up in time for the 2008 Olympics (I haven't seen this Olympic issue discussed yet in context of China's recent commodities boom) and all those rotting us dollars in the Chinese national currency reserves can bid up prices while flooding the global economy with inflation-causing liquidity. No amount of illegal aliens exporting dollars to Mexico to externalise inflation can keep up with China (and India, and Indonesia, etc) deciding to feed it's population with it's excess falling value dollars.
And greenneck sounds like he's a dog on the internet pretending to be a brilliant doomer investor.
And hope you sold sometime around mid march. ;-)
http://www.kitco.com/market/
Oops. :-/
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/04/injecting-sulfa.html
I agree with the general point that we need to look more into cooling.
The facts are (I mean scientifically accepted, not moonbat doomer-talk) that humans have increased the temperature of the earth by about 0.7degrees in a hundred years. As mentioned, even if we stop emitting CO2, the temperature is going to keep rising.
So naturally, we should be trying to do some cooling. Yet all I hear about is 'reducing carbon footprints' and C02 targets. At the very least as much emphasis should be on trying to fix the problem rather than just shouting about how bad it is, and not to make it worse (even though it's going to get worse even if we all disappear right now).
We know how to do it - Aerosol sulfates. Problem is that it also causes acid rain, etc. So some kind of balance needs to be struck - and research should be focused on developing less dangerous cooling compounds.
Before we think about crushing the world economy by turning off the CO2 production, we should think of the cost/benefit of living with more cloudy days.
i like watching this article, thanks for posting at blogspot :) greeting recognizes and create success of all
Dear JD,
You say:
In other words, humans have already done decades-long localized geoengineering to cool the northern hemisphere. We just didn't realize we were doing it at the time.
You cannot call this geoengineering. The word "engineering" implies a conscious, planned, controlled and predictable process.
If we wanted to repeat this, but now as a true geoengineering project, that would require us to quantify the risks and predict the outcome. We would quickly discover that we still lack the capabilities to do this. We do not have have the knowledge to predicting the outcome on a significantly accurate level. Therefore, doing this kind of geoengineering project is not yet within our reach. The climate is a mighty complex machine, and not withstanding the combined efforts of thousands of scientists all over the world during these past decades, I have a general feeling we are still in the phase of growing uncertainty. We are discovering more mechanisms and complexities than we are understanding and quantifying.
Environmentalist faces reality, and calls for geoengineering:
"BUT WILL IT BE ENOUGH? As inspiring and unifying and liberating as this World War II–like mobilization will be for our nation, it sadly will not. Getting off carbon fuels—though vital and mandatory—won’t steer us clear of climate chaos. We’ve delayed action far too long for that tidy resolution. Carbon dioxide lingers in the atmosphere for up to a hundred years, and there’s already more than enough up there to erase all the “permanent” ice in the Arctic.
This leaves us with a huge decision to make. Either we fatalistically accept the inability of clean energy alone to save us, resigning ourselves to the appalling climate pain and chaos scientists say are coming, or we take one additional awesome step: we engineer the climate. Specifically, human beings must quickly figure out some sort of mechanical or chemical means of reflecting a portion of the sun’s light away from our planet, at least for a while. Whether you’re comfortable with this idea or not, trust me, the debate is coming, and we’ll almost certainly engage in some version of this risky but necessary tinkering."
Link
JD,
In that source you just provided, Mike Tidwell encourages not only geoengineering, as you say, but also massive conservation and efficiency efforts. He actually goes must further than I even think is possible.
"By 2015, we need to have cut electricity use by at least one third and be building nothing less than 50 mpg cars. And constructing massive and graceful wind farms off most of our windy seacoasts."
Sounds like a lot of trouble for something which: (a) we aren't even sure if it is a problem; (b) if it is a problem, there isn't much we can do about it.
Global Warming is now a gigantic self-perpetuating and mutating industry which is filled with busybodies who make a killing out of the hysteria surrounding it.
Search for "Global Warming Swindle" in Google Video. Worth Watching.
In that source you just provided, Mike Tidwell encourages not only geoengineering, as you say, but also massive conservation and efficiency efforts.
fr, as you know, I am 100% behind those efforts, and practice those principles myself in my daily life. In fact, I detest cars and car-based living, and on that point, my views are virtually indistinguishable from Jim Kunstler.
However, I think it is very important to distinguish between what I want to happen, and what I support, and what is likely to happen. For example, as a car hater, I support anything that hinders the automobile. Unfortunately, I am in a very small minority, and people who think like me are not going to carry the day. It sucks, but it's the truth.
It would be very irresponsible to not consider the possibility that we're not going to get cars, or coal burning power plants, or carbon emissions in general, under control enough to prevent severe global warming.
Global Warming Swindle:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3261977389887860322&q=global+warming+swindle&ei=jzsUSNz1F4KmqgLixbHgBA
"It would be very irresponsible to not consider the possibility that we're not going to get cars, or coal burning power plants, or carbon emissions in general, under control enough to prevent severe global warming."
It's a possibility that we'll have to look at geoengineering, if things are as bad as this source states -- though I'm skeptical of that, because it's the only time I've heard of the ice caps completely melting within five years or so.
If we're talking a 50-year timeline, I think it depends. I think our traditional fossil fuels are going to be very expensive (two of them already are), so the free market will cause us to decrease our consumption.
So, the question become, what is our next source? If nuclear and renewables become our main sources, we won't need to worry about carbon emissions. If it's, say, methane hydrates, then clearly we will.
Does anyone know how well carbon sequestration is? That may be the key, if it works.
I'm not sure that geoengineering is a great plan. It's kind of like planning on having the triple bypass, so not worrying about smoking. We'd want to be very very sure what we're doing before we start.
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn13773-planetary-sunshade-could-strip-ozone-layer-by-76.html
BTW there is likely to be a whole bunch of "North pole likely to melt in 2008" sort of articles. It doesn't mean that the ice cap is gone, just that the point at the to p of the world is ice free.
As for "The great global warming swindle", that thing is a load of crap; the filmmakers faked their data and misrepresented their interviewees.
As for "The great global warming swindle", that thing is a load of crap; the filmmakers faked their data and misrepresented their interviewees.
Proof please? There were a lot of people interviewed in that documentary and i am only aware of one complaining of misrepresentation. Also what do you mean "faked" their data? Seems to me that Mr Gore has done similar things in his "documantary"
Hi JD,
"fr, as you know, I am 100% behind those efforts, and practice those principles myself in my daily life. In fact, I detest cars and car-based living, and on that point, my views are virtually indistinguishable from Jim Kunstler."
Why do you think that people is going to conserve energy while at the same time you say that we're not going to do anything about reducing CO2?
I mean, to change the way people behave is equally difficult regarding efficiency or reducing co2 emissions.
One person complaining about misrepresentation is enough to raise questions about the ethics of the producers.
The main graph they use to 'prove' the link between the sun and warming was debunked by those who were attributed to it here:
http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html
They filled in data, and misscaled it so that while it looked like it was up to the year 2000, the original in fact ended in 1985.
One person complaining about misrepresentation is enough to raise questions about the ethics of the producers.
That ignores the many others who didnt complain. You are being selective with your evidence.
But i trust you would apply the same discretion to Al Gores piece which has been ruled to contain NINE (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/corporate_law/article2633838.ece count em!!) innacuracies in a court of law no less! That would seem to me to bring into question his ethics too would it not?
Point being that you seem perfectly content to let that slide, but hammer the swindle documentary for having one error. Gore is a politician and therefore a professional liar. Why do people suddenly think he is telling the whole truth?
For the record. I am not a climate change "denier" whatever that is. I am however prepared to question anyone who says such ludicrous things as "the debate is over".
“It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.”
From Mr justice Barton himself....
http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html
Here is a list for those interested.
"That ignores the many others who didnt complain. You are being selective with your evidence."
It's enough, with the clear data fabrication to show that the producers were intent on pushing their own agenda regardless of the evidence.
I have never claimed that Al Gore is the voice of god. I'm well aware of the inaccuracies of 'An Inconvinient Truth', but then Al Gore never goes out of his way to misrepresent any individual - his face is always there, and you're free to take or leave the information, or better to take the information as a starting point for your own investigations.
Why do you think that people is going to conserve energy while at the same time you say that we're not going to do anything about reducing CO2?
fernando, the record clearly shows that people in general will not conserve energy until they are forced to do it. That will happen, however. As peak oil proceeds, and liquid fuels become scarce, people will conserve because it will be impossible to do otherwise. Luckily, there is a ton of inefficiency and fat in our usage of cars, and that will greatly ease the transition.
On the other hand, I don't see any credible efforts on the horizon to lower carbon emissions. In fact, it's quite likely that natural gas and coal will be ramped up further to compensate for the decline in oil.
his face is always there, and you're free to take or leave the information, or better to take the information as a starting point for your own investigations.
Brilliant. So its ok to lie, just as long as everyone can see you doing it?
Evidently you didnt read the quote from Justice Barton. You know, the bit about it being a political film?
Why would the producers of "swindle" just misrepresent one person? And forge just one piece of data? Why not do all of it?? It doesnt make sense.
Why would the producers of "swindle" just misrepresent one person? And forge just one piece of data? Why not do all of it?? It doesnt make sense.
I never said that they only misrepresented one person, nor that they forged just one piece of data.
I said that they provably misrepresented that person, and forged that data, and therefore the entire piece is rubbish. You need a better source to send around on blog sites to 'disprove' global warming.
As for 'inconvenient truth', I've read the justice's quote. I agree that it's a political film.
As for conservation. The unfortunate truth is that if you conserve petrol, all you're doing is reducing the demand curve a bit, making it cheaper for others to use it. The same amount will be burnt whether you individually conserve or not.
I've taken myself off of the demand curve.
Today I bought a horse and from now on will be riding "Hummer" instead of driving my big SUV until this bubble blows over.
Woo-Hoo :-).
Post a Comment
<< Home