5 ms·

The proposed solution for cooling the Earth in the article is questionable at best. Furthermore, even if you lower global temperatures through stratosphere mani

The proposed solution for cooling the Earth in the article is questionable at best. Furthermore, even if you lower global temperatures through stratosphere manipulation, there are many other scary unknowns in the field of climate change. Take ocean acidification for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification The ocean is a substantial sink for atmospheric CO2. Our best guess is that 1/3 of the CO2 we produced is absorbed by the ocean. As the ocean absorbs CO2, however, the pH of ocean water drops. Unfortunately, we don't know how this will affect all of the different species of marine life that live in the ocean, but early experiments show that shellfish in particular do not tolerate more acidic waters very well. Furthermore, there is reason to believe that the ocean's CO2 absorbing capabilities will decrease as the pH decreases, leaving us with even more CO2 in the atmosphere. Basically, there are a whole lot of unknowns in the whole debate, many of which could have unpleasant (to say the least) consequences. Brushing the entire field of climate science aside and declaring that all of our problems can be solved by pumping sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere is wildly irresponsible.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
But the climate models say that we can do this. The models are so accurate and trustworthy that we can totally predict what global climate will be 100 years in the future depending on whether or not we adopt Kyoto. We can also predict what they would be now if humans didn't emit CO2. Why are you denying the consensus and being anti-science? You must also be a creationist. </snark> This is an interesting topic, because it really forces us to evaluate how much we actually know about climate. To draw conclusions like "the modern warming trend is anthropogenic in origin", we need to believe that our climate models are really good. So good, in fact, that they can accurately model virtually the entire climate, which is what allows us to pinpoint CO2 emissions and rule out all other forcings as the cause of modern warming. We do this by running the models with those other forcings, but without CO2, and observe less warming. But then, we turn around and say "we can't model $geoengineering_scheme". Why not? Are our models simply incapable of predicting the response of climate to various forcings?
- leot 16y ago
  Geoengineering schemes are entirely novel new forcings, while the impact of atmospheric CO2 can be studied historically. This weakens your contention, but I still think you're pointing out an interesting bit of hypocrisy in the public debate (often these hypocrisies cease to exist in debates among experts).
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    We have historical data on SO2 - basically every volcanic eruption ever. That's actually not a lot of data, but it's considerably more than we know about exogenous inputs of CO2 - we have only one data point on CO2, but a handful on SO2 (Pinatubo, Krakatoa, a few more).
- anthonyb 16y ago
  The models don't enter into it. You just need to observe the relative carbon isotope levels in the CO2 of the atmosphere. If the CO2 is natural, there'll be a large proportion of C-14 (it's created by interactions with cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere). If it's man made, there'll be a lot of C-12 and 13, since that comes from oil, which has been nowhere near the upper atmosphere for millions of years. Oh, and there's now enough man-made CO2 in the air that carbon dating is inaccurate for recent things (it tests as really old).
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    How does measuring CO2 levels answer the question of "what would have happened if there were less CO2 in the atmosphere?" Can we do the same thing with sulfur dioxide after a volcano? If so, all we need to do is wait for the next big volcano to prove geoengineering is viable.
    - anthonyb 16y ago
      Sulphur dioxide will lower temperatures, sure - but at what cost? The oceans are acidic enough already.
  - 16y ago
CWuestefeld 16y ago
there are a whole lot of unknowns in the whole debate, many of which could have unpleasant (to say the least) consequences. Brushing the entire field of climate science aside and declaring that all of our problems can be solved by pumping sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere is wildly irresponsible. I think the article says just that: Myhrvold is not arguing for an immediate deployment of the sulphur shield but, rather, that technologies like it be researched and tested so they are ready to use if the worst climate predictions come true. It seems to me that any objection to this reasoning is really in favor of what we're doing now, which to run around in circles crying that the sky is falling, and claiming that the only possible solution is to pretty much destroy our way of life. I certainly prefer the Myhrvold approach, of thinking outside the box and challenging others to react, than the Gore fear-mongering.
- wgren 16y ago
  >claiming that the only possible solution is to pretty much destroy our way of life. That is what many climate warming deniers like to claim will happen. Doesn't have to be so, Sweden for instance has increased its wealth steadily while at the same time reduced its environmental impact. >I certainly prefer the Myhrvold approach, of thinking outside the box and challenging others to react, than the Gore fear-mongering. What Al Gore does is also challenging people to react.
  - marknutter 16y ago
    > That is what many climate warming deniers like to claim will happen. Doesn't have to be so, Sweden for instance has increased its wealth steadily while at the same time reduced its environmental impact. It does actually have to be so, especially for developing nations like China and India. If they were forced to stop using even 20% of their coal plants it would devastate their growing economies. It would take thousands of Swedens and their (frankly) mediocre efforts to reduce their carbon footprints to offset China and India's contribution to global warming. I think that's a point made in this article too, that even if we are destroying the planet that there really is very little we can do to stop it without encroaching on the human rights of every person on the planet.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

But the climate models say that we can do this. The models are so accurate and trustworthy that we can totally predict what global climate will be 100 years in the future depending on whether or not we adopt Kyoto. We can also predict what they would be now if humans didn't emit CO2. Why are you denying the consensus and being anti-science? You must also be a creationist. </snark> This is an interesting topic, because it really forces us to evaluate how much we actually know about climate. To draw conclusions like "the modern warming trend is anthropogenic in origin", we need to believe that our climate models are really good. So good, in fact, that they can accurately model virtually the entire climate, which is what allows us to pinpoint CO2 emissions and rule out all other forcings as the cause of modern warming. We do this by running the models with those other forcings, but without CO2, and observe less warming. But then, we turn around and say "we can't model $geoengineering_scheme". Why not? Are our models simply incapable of predicting the response of climate to various forcings?

leot 16y ago
Geoengineering schemes are entirely novel new forcings, while the impact of atmospheric CO2 can be studied historically. This weakens your contention, but I still think you're pointing out an interesting bit of hypocrisy in the public debate (often these hypocrisies cease to exist in debates among experts).
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  We have historical data on SO2 - basically every volcanic eruption ever. That's actually not a lot of data, but it's considerably more than we know about exogenous inputs of CO2 - we have only one data point on CO2, but a handful on SO2 (Pinatubo, Krakatoa, a few more).
anthonyb 16y ago
The models don't enter into it. You just need to observe the relative carbon isotope levels in the CO2 of the atmosphere. If the CO2 is natural, there'll be a large proportion of C-14 (it's created by interactions with cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere). If it's man made, there'll be a lot of C-12 and 13, since that comes from oil, which has been nowhere near the upper atmosphere for millions of years. Oh, and there's now enough man-made CO2 in the air that carbon dating is inaccurate for recent things (it tests as really old).
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  How does measuring CO2 levels answer the question of "what would have happened if there were less CO2 in the atmosphere?" Can we do the same thing with sulfur dioxide after a volcano? If so, all we need to do is wait for the next big volcano to prove geoengineering is viable.
  - anthonyb 16y ago
    Sulphur dioxide will lower temperatures, sure - but at what cost? The oceans are acidic enough already.
- 16y ago

CWuestefeld 16y ago

there are a whole lot of unknowns in the whole debate, many of which could have unpleasant (to say the least) consequences. Brushing the entire field of climate science aside and declaring that all of our problems can be solved by pumping sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere is wildly irresponsible. I think the article says just that: Myhrvold is not arguing for an immediate deployment of the sulphur shield but, rather, that technologies like it be researched and tested so they are ready to use if the worst climate predictions come true. It seems to me that any objection to this reasoning is really in favor of what we're doing now, which to run around in circles crying that the sky is falling, and claiming that the only possible solution is to pretty much destroy our way of life. I certainly prefer the Myhrvold approach, of thinking outside the box and challenging others to react, than the Gore fear-mongering.

wgren 16y ago
>claiming that the only possible solution is to pretty much destroy our way of life. That is what many climate warming deniers like to claim will happen. Doesn't have to be so, Sweden for instance has increased its wealth steadily while at the same time reduced its environmental impact. >I certainly prefer the Myhrvold approach, of thinking outside the box and challenging others to react, than the Gore fear-mongering. What Al Gore does is also challenging people to react.
- marknutter 16y ago
  > That is what many climate warming deniers like to claim will happen. Doesn't have to be so, Sweden for instance has increased its wealth steadily while at the same time reduced its environmental impact. It does actually have to be so, especially for developing nations like China and India. If they were forced to stop using even 20% of their coal plants it would devastate their growing economies. It would take thousands of Swedens and their (frankly) mediocre efforts to reduce their carbon footprints to offset China and India's contribution to global warming. I think that's a point made in this article too, that even if we are destroying the planet that there really is very little we can do to stop it without encroaching on the human rights of every person on the planet.