Harvard Geoengineering Study

[Jonger]

I'm surprised there isn't a thread on this topic yet. Anyhow, it appears studies are underway.

Geoengineering could reverse global temps and rebuild the ice caps.

We need to keep going forward with deploying alternative energy sources, but rebuilding the ice caps and reducing sea level rise wouldn't hurt in the short term.

I'd like to see a air capture and sequester of CO2 study completed as well.

https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/ 

[ORH_wxman]

Unless we could control exactly how much cooling would occur and how much , then it could be extremely dangerous. They mention the need to study the feedbacks and accuracy, so that is built into their goals. Cooling us back to little ice age temps could be pretty disastrous for food production which has largely been perfected in the late 20th century and 21st century climates.

[Jonger]

1 hour ago, ORH_wxman said:

Unless we could control exactly how much cooling would occur and how much , then it could be extremely dangerous. They mention the need to study the feedbacks and accuracy, so that is built into their goals. Cooling us back to little ice age temps could be pretty disastrous for food production which has largely been perfected in the late 20th century and 21st century climates.

I also wonder how many people will sue the responsible countries and blame their random storm on climate modification. 

I'm sure they could just as easily point to a blue sky and mid 70's day and claim that would have been 90F with severe weather otherwise.

[Jack Frost]

 

Talk about an open invitation to the Law of Unexpected Consequences....

[WinterWxLuvr]

This is so stupid.  Man's arrogance knows no boundaries.

If we really want to give ourselves every possible chance to become extinct, then we should go all out toward geoengineering.

If we want to continue to exist on this planet, the we should go all out to adapting the planet we live on.

[ORH_wxman]

48 minutes ago, WinterWxLuvr said:

This is so stupid.  Man's arrogance knows no boundaries.

If we really want to give ourselves every possible chance to become extinct, then we should go all out toward geoengineering.

If we want to continue to exist on this planet, the we should go all out to adapting the planet we live on.

By far the safest solution would be carbon sequestration (to go along with reduced emissions)...playing around with reflective aerosols is asking for trouble.

[WidreMann]

8 hours ago, WinterWxLuvr said:

This is so stupid.  Man's arrogance knows no boundaries.

If we really want to give ourselves every possible chance to become extinct, then we should go all out toward geoengineering.

If we want to continue to exist on this planet, the we should go all out to adapting the planet we live on.

I think we have no choice, especially if we can't drop emissions significantly in the next few years (which we won't, with idiots like Trump in charge). I don't think we can aim for a return to where things were, but if we could get mitigate some of the more severe consequences of climate change with geo-engineering, that's probably our best hope, tbh. Otherwise, I think civilization as we know it (but not humans) will come to an end in the next two centuries.

[WinterWxLuvr]

On 4/24/2017 at 10:25 PM, WidreMann said:

I think we have no choice, especially if we can't drop emissions significantly in the next few years (which we won't, with idiots like Trump in charge). I don't think we can aim for a return to where things were, but if we could get mitigate some of the more severe consequences of climate change with geo-engineering, that's probably our best hope, tbh. Otherwise, I think civilization as we know it (but not humans) will come to an end in the next two centuries.

Things never return to where they were.  The earth and it's climate have always been in a constant state of change.

Species either adapt or they die.  Why pour resources into fighting change?  Put them into adaptation to the change.  And forget about this silly notion that we can prevent extinction.  We can't.

I'm not suggesting that we don't look for smarter choices, but we don't need to start intentionally trying to screw around with natural processes on this planet.

BTW, civilization as we know it is definitely going to end.  Technology is going to see to that.

[WinterWxLuvr]

This thread reminds me of the limerick 

"There once was a lady from Niger, who smiled as she rode on a tiger. They returned from the ride with the lady inside, and the smile on the face of the tiger."
 

There's a moral there.

[WidreMann]

11 hours ago, WinterWxLuvr said:

Things never return to where they were.  The earth and it's climate have always been in a constant state of change.

Species either adapt or they die.  Why pour resources into fighting change?  Put them into adaptation to the change.  And forget about this silly notion that we can prevent extinction.  We can't.

I'm not suggesting that we don't look for smarter choices, but we don't need to start intentionally trying to screw around with natural processes on this planet.

BTW, civilization as we know it is definitely going to end.  Technology is going to see to that.

The Earth will adapt, but not on human timescales. If we have a massive die-off of species, that's going to be a long time before diversity returns. Humans will be toast, outside of a small population.

When you say technology will see to our end, that's a different kind of end. That's technology transforming our civilization into a new large scale civilization. Climate change, unmitigated, means a true end.

[skierinvermont]

On 4/26/2017 at 9:55 AM, WinterWxLuvr said:

Things never return to where they were.  The earth and it's climate have always been in a constant state of change.

Species either adapt or they die.  Why pour resources into fighting change?  Put them into adaptation to the change.  And forget about this silly notion that we can prevent extinction.  We can't.

I'm not suggesting that we don't look for smarter choices, but we don't need to start intentionally trying to screw around with natural processes on this planet.

BTW, civilization as we know it is definitely going to end.  Technology is going to see to that.

Yes, the earth is always changing. But we are in the midst of a mass-extinction event. At best, it's the type of event that has happened once every few hundred million years. 

And this die-off is being caused by us. I think that's the type of event we and the planet would be better off preventing if possible. 

Yeah, maybe an asteroid could hit the earth 400 million years from now and wipe out most life on earth, but that doesn't mean I'd choose to have an asteroid destroy the earth today if it were my choice. And even if it was a natural asteroid 400 million years from now, I think I'd still probably try to stop it.

What you're saying is like "so what! an asteroid could strike the earth 400 million years from now so let's just fire a life-destroying asteroid at earth TODAY to get it over and done with! It's completely normal! It happens all the time... once every 400 million years!! Did you know that guys?? It's nature! It's always changing!!!!"

[Cold Rain]

My guess is that geoengineering experiments have been going on for a long time.  Not sure why they're finally announcing it now, but there's a reason for it.

[Bob Chill]

I've often pondered this stuff. We've obviously gone past the point of no return IRT influencing climate (how much is debatable but I don't see how the premise can be debated). The obvious problem with just letting earth "fix itself" (which it will) is the timescale involved. First the globe would have to unify and stop the bleeding. When exactly is that going to happen? I won't know because I'll be dead. 

The only way unification will happen imho is in the face of a crisis. Then it becomes more of an exercise of "well, we got ourselves into this mess so we better figure out how to engineer our way out of it". I don't know nearly as much as the regulars here on the CC topic but it seems that we've already crossed the line of simply reducing emissions and letting the proverbial dust settle. IMHO- The only way out to avoid large scale consequences that are baked in already is to try to engineer the way back. 

I totally agree with skier's asteroid analogy. I also believe that science and technology can overcome a good bit of the damage already done. Unfortunately, there's going to be a lot of winners and losers in the process. It won't be pretty no matter how it goes down even if it is all for the "greater good". 

[the ghost of leroy]

2 hours ago, Cold Rain said:

My guess is that geoengineering experiments have been going on for a long time.  Not sure why they're finally announcing it now, but there's a reason for it.

yeah dude.  just look up in the morning and watch our sunny skies being systematically gridded with what some call chemtrails.

[Cold Rain]

11 minutes ago, cmasty1978 said:

yeah dude.  just look up in the morning and watch our sunny skies being systematically gridded with what some call chemtrails.

I don't know about all that, but I guarantee you they've been doing some of this stuff for a long time.

[the ghost of leroy]

who is "they"?

[Cold Rain]

55 minutes ago, cmasty1978 said:

who is "they"?

A catch-all for unnamed people who aren't you or me. Essentially, government or government-directed private entities.   Do you think this is a brand new exercise?

[Jonger]

Once the ice caps melt out, you will see something happen on this front. If we can drop the entire global 1C.... We could probably restore the arctic sea ice in a decade or two.

Looks like China, India and other major CO2 contributing nations are all switching to solar power and electrifying their auto fleet as is.

The market is doing a splendid job of making fossil fuels obsolete.

[skierinvermont]

On 5/2/2017 at 8:25 AM, Cold Rain said:

My guess is that geoengineering experiments have been going on for a long time.  Not sure why they're finally announcing it now, but there's a reason for it.

Oh quit the conspiracy stuff.. geoengineering experiments have been going on for decades and are well published.

[WinterWxLuvr]

On 4/28/2017 at 2:13 PM, skierinvermont said:

Yes, the earth is always changing. But we are in the midst of a mass-extinction event. At best, it's the type of event that has happened once every few hundred million years. 

And this die-off is being caused by us. I think that's the type of event we and the planet would be better off preventing if possible. 

Yeah, maybe an asteroid could hit the earth 400 million years from now and wipe out most life on earth, but that doesn't mean I'd choose to have an asteroid destroy the earth today if it were my choice. And even if it was a natural asteroid 400 million years from now, I think I'd still probably try to stop it.

What you're saying is like "so what! an asteroid could strike the earth 400 million years from now so let's just fire a life-destroying asteroid at earth TODAY to get it over and done with! It's completely normal! It happens all the time... once every 400 million years!! Did you know that guys?? It's nature! It's always changing!!!!"

Pretty low brow stuff right there. Scratch that.  It's juvenile and just plain stupid.

You're going to compare trying to divert an asteroid, a single, one time event that has no further consequences once you've diverted it or blown it up (presumably with one of our magic imaginary weapons that could destroy a large asteroid) with tinkering around with a complex system where one change or a series of changes will then affect the entire climate system producing changes that we might or might not be able to predict and/or survive.

On display in this thread is the typical human arrogance that says we are in control, and that we have power over everything.  We aren't, we don't, and we can't. 

If we try to engineer the climate of this planet, it will be the final evidence that humans are the dumbest of the dumb, the only creatures on the planet that can't live in harmony with it.

For the last time (because I am out of the discussion), we should do everything we can to protect the environment, and then we should spend our money, time, effort, energy adapting to the changing planet.  We should also be aggressively exploring ways to move some human civilization off the planet.  Those three things are the most prudent ways humans can deal with climate change.

[skierinvermont]

On 5/18/2017 at 10:53 AM, WinterWxLuvr said:

Pretty low brow stuff right there. Scratch that.  It's juvenile and just plain stupid.

You're going to compare trying to divert an asteroid, a single, one time event that has no further consequences once you've diverted it or blown it up (presumably with one of our magic imaginary weapons that could destroy a large asteroid) with tinkering around with a complex system where one change or a series of changes will then affect the entire climate system producing changes that we might or might not be able to predict and/or survive.

On display in this thread is the typical human arrogance that says we are in control, and that we have power over everything.  We aren't, we don't, and we can't. 

If we try to engineer the climate of this planet, it will be the final evidence that humans are the dumbest of the dumb, the only creatures on the planet that can't live in harmony with it.

For the last time (because I am out of the discussion), we should do everything we can to protect the environment, and then we should spend our money, time, effort, energy adapting to the changing planet.  We should also be aggressively exploring ways to move some human civilization off the planet.  Those three things are the most prudent ways humans can deal with climate change.

 

You know what's juvenile? Saying we shouldn't bother trying to prevent a mass-extinction and humanitarian catastrophe that all the evidence says is being caused by humans and is preventable because "the climate has always been changing." So meh who really cares?

It's like viewing the planet as a video game without thinking about the actual human lives that are impacted.

I shouldn't have to explain why mass-extinction events and humanitarian catastrophes are BAD. That's when the conversation turns juvenile.