US Government Begins Researching 'Climate Intervention' Geoengineering (ametsoc.org) 78
Federal U.S. agencies (including the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy) have been asked to develop a five-year "scientific assessment of solar and other rapid climate interventions." As the Daily Beast sees it, the U.S. government is signalling that it's looking into "one of the most controversial and consequential climate change-fighting tactics yet," suggesting the report will look at a technique "that essentially involves spraying fine aerosols into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight away from the Earth. The idea is that, once it's reflected, there'll be less heat and temperatures will go down."
It seems like that's a subset of the "solar and other rapid climate interventions" being mentioned in the federal document. But for what it's worth, here's an official statement from the American Meteorological Society on "large-scale efforts to intentionally modify the climate system to counteract the consequences of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.... now commonly referred to as climate intervention (also called geoengineering)..." Proposals to intervene in the climate system generally fall into two broad categories: 1) actively removing CO2 (and possibly other greenhouse gases) from the atmosphere, known as carbon dioxide removal; 2) exerting a cooling influence on Earth by reflecting sunlight (known as solar radiation management) or altering thermal emissions to space by thinning cirrus clouds. These proposals differ widely in their potential to reduce impacts, create new risks, and redistribute risks among nations.
Techniques that remove CO2 directly from the air would confer global benefits by directly addressing the source of the climate problem. However, it may not be feasible to rapidly remove CO2 at a scale that will significantly limit warming. The effects of CO2 removal approaches are not fully understood and could create adverse local and global impacts. Reflecting sunlight would reduce Earth's average surface temperature but would not offset all aspects of climate change and would produce a different set of risks than those resulting from unmitigated warming.
The American Meteorological Society recommends an accelerated and robust climate intervention research program, and associated governance framework, to inform public policies. This should not include the development of deployment platforms but needs to include study of the feasibility of different deployment scenarios and strategies and how they would affect climate risk.... The desired outcome is for society to have the best possible information in hand to assess different options for reducing the risks of climate change and to decide if actions should include intentional climate intervention. Comprehensive Earth system model simulations will play a critical role in quantifying the regional to global impacts of different climate intervention approaches.... Sustained monitoring of the Earth system and targeted field campaigns will be critical, not only to improve our understanding of key processes but for establishing an observational baseline of the system behavior prior to any intervention. Monitoring and field studies would also be needed for quantifying impacts should an intervention be implemented.
These studies will yield additional benefits in our understanding of atmospheric processes and the climate system, with implications beyond what is needed for decisions related to climate intervention, such as improved weather predictions and climate projections.
The climate crisis must be addressed by ending net emissions of greenhouse gases, and at the same time, adapting to changes already happening. While it is currently premature to either advocate for or rule out climate interventions, these decisions, when they are made, must be based on the best scientific and technical information. With this goal in mind, AMS calls for a robust program of research with a strong governance framework to assess climate interventions. Such a program should be designed to provide the knowledge base to support decisions that may need to be made within the next decade regarding the inclusion of climate intervention among our responses to global warming.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader cstacy for submitting the article.
It seems like that's a subset of the "solar and other rapid climate interventions" being mentioned in the federal document. But for what it's worth, here's an official statement from the American Meteorological Society on "large-scale efforts to intentionally modify the climate system to counteract the consequences of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.... now commonly referred to as climate intervention (also called geoengineering)..." Proposals to intervene in the climate system generally fall into two broad categories: 1) actively removing CO2 (and possibly other greenhouse gases) from the atmosphere, known as carbon dioxide removal; 2) exerting a cooling influence on Earth by reflecting sunlight (known as solar radiation management) or altering thermal emissions to space by thinning cirrus clouds. These proposals differ widely in their potential to reduce impacts, create new risks, and redistribute risks among nations.
Techniques that remove CO2 directly from the air would confer global benefits by directly addressing the source of the climate problem. However, it may not be feasible to rapidly remove CO2 at a scale that will significantly limit warming. The effects of CO2 removal approaches are not fully understood and could create adverse local and global impacts. Reflecting sunlight would reduce Earth's average surface temperature but would not offset all aspects of climate change and would produce a different set of risks than those resulting from unmitigated warming.
The American Meteorological Society recommends an accelerated and robust climate intervention research program, and associated governance framework, to inform public policies. This should not include the development of deployment platforms but needs to include study of the feasibility of different deployment scenarios and strategies and how they would affect climate risk.... The desired outcome is for society to have the best possible information in hand to assess different options for reducing the risks of climate change and to decide if actions should include intentional climate intervention. Comprehensive Earth system model simulations will play a critical role in quantifying the regional to global impacts of different climate intervention approaches.... Sustained monitoring of the Earth system and targeted field campaigns will be critical, not only to improve our understanding of key processes but for establishing an observational baseline of the system behavior prior to any intervention. Monitoring and field studies would also be needed for quantifying impacts should an intervention be implemented.
These studies will yield additional benefits in our understanding of atmospheric processes and the climate system, with implications beyond what is needed for decisions related to climate intervention, such as improved weather predictions and climate projections.
The climate crisis must be addressed by ending net emissions of greenhouse gases, and at the same time, adapting to changes already happening. While it is currently premature to either advocate for or rule out climate interventions, these decisions, when they are made, must be based on the best scientific and technical information. With this goal in mind, AMS calls for a robust program of research with a strong governance framework to assess climate interventions. Such a program should be designed to provide the knowledge base to support decisions that may need to be made within the next decade regarding the inclusion of climate intervention among our responses to global warming.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader cstacy for submitting the article.
Do you want to destroy the world? (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Do you want to destroy the world? (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed. Geo-engineering is not the solution, .
It's not "the" solution but it might be a last gasp, really expensive, kills lots of people but less than the alternative way of buying time so that we can agree to try to do the cheaper options like stopping using coal in the meantime.
I don't know if you understood what just happened in COP-27, but they basically failed to get any agreement in place to actually reduce the use of fossil fuels and basically admitted that we're going above 1.5 degrees of warming. "So far, no government with significant fossil fuel production has joined BOGA or endorsed the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty initiative" . There are some good things happening with more wind power and "countries where fossil fuel production is almost exclusively serving domestic energy markets that are slowly decarbonizing. China, India and the U.S. — the three biggest coal burners — have considered phasing down their coal production" (same source, my emphasis) so it's not completely hopeless, but the situation is pretty bad.
We have now been pushed into a recession by our dependency on fossil fuels from dodgy regimes and even though it's a major security problem we can't get clear agreements to reduce, let alone eliminate, their use.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if you understood what just happened in COP-27, but they basically failed to get any agreement in place to actually reduce the use of fossil fuels and basically admitted that we're going above 1.5 degrees of warming.
(Virtually) everyone agreed to reduce their emissions in the COP21, hence called a "great success". No emission was ever reduced.
Now, if they stop promising stuff they have no chance of achieving or understanding of the consequences, I call that progress already. We're still far away from anything substantial, but at least they a tiny bit less dishonest than before. That's still something.
Re: (Score:3)
In the end, the insurance industry will likely solve the problem by making remediating the effects so expensive that everyone finally agrees "Wow, I guess no one is going to pay us to fuck up the climate anymore." But we'll be way above the 2 degree mark.
On a positive side, most of Florida will probably be underwater, so perhaps if no one throws DeSantis a life preserver, there might be one bonus to come out of it.
Re: (Score:2)
That seems wildly inaccurate, at least in the case of the US. US coal production is down 50% from peak in 2008, they haven't built a coal plant since 2013 (nor will they)
Re: (Score:2)
True for the US, likely, but China has been building new (and admittedly more efficient) coal plants to replace their old ones as I'd guess has India. Guess correct it turns out [reuters.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We do know it was us that scorched the sky.
Re:Do you want to destroy the world? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because this is how you destroy the world.
That's it! When there's a large-scale problem, wave your magic shaman stick and proclaim that any large-scale solution will "destroy the world." That's the Green way.
Meanwhile, there are plenty of ideas that we can try first at small scale and then ramp up as we get verifiable results.
Re: (Score:2)
there are plenty of ideas that we can try first at small scale and then ramp up as we get verifiable results.
this isn't one of them, so your objection is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:3)
Not true. Aerosolizing seawater to increase cloud cover [medium.com] is something that can be tested at a small scale to verify the results and potential side-effects before rolling out on a large scale.
Re: (Score:2)
You can test localized side effects, but by definition a small-scale test isn't going to tell you how large-scale use is going to work. That's a problem with climate science in the first place, you can't just extrapolate from local trends to global ones.
Re: (Score:2)
this isn't one of them, so your objection is irrelevant.
Says the Green whose country just demolished a windfield so that a lignite pit could be expanded in a desperate attempt to eke out more baseload energy after it closed its perfectly good nuclear plants. The whole world got a huge laugh out of this event.
And I reiterate: any aerosol, shading technology or nutrient seeding of biology can be tried on a small scale without any possibility of runaway.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, the most often proposed 'solution', can really destroy the world.
Spraying sulfur dioxide in the the atmosphere was the main cause of Acid Rain [epa.gov], which causes habitat destruction in lakes and other serious problems.
Look at the history of the effect of acid rain [wikipedia.org] too.
If we decide that there is
Re: (Score:2)
I think sulfur in the stratosphere is much less harmful than in the troposphere. Check out the conclusions section (or the whole thing) of this study: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.... [wiley.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Great, good to know ...
Re: (Score:1)
"The resulting bipartisan conspiracy has gained control of the US government and imposed draconian luddite laws which, in attempts to curb global warming, have ironically brought about the greatest environmental catastrophe in recorded history – an ice age which may eventually escalate into a Snowball Earth.
"The exact process is described: clouds are water condensation. This cannot occur without cloud condensation nuclei in the atmosphere. The emission laws have removed most of this, reducing cloud co
Re:Do you want to destroy the world? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No "fooling" was intended. I did readers the courtesy of assuming they would read the article linked to. (How did you know it was an SF novel? Why did you think others would not know as much as you?)
Larry Niven, as one of the best SF authors, has always done scrupulous research. His facts may well be more accurate than those of some scientists who are not directly concerned with the relevant subject areas.
Re: (Score:2)
Snowball Earth's don't come from a lack of cloud cover.
They come from a lack of water vapor, caused by a reducing amount of carbon, which leads to more and more water being turned into ice. Sublimation on the surface of the Earth is notoriously rare, and as such, once enough water has turned into ice, the effect is runaway.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd think after the cane toads nightmare in Australia, we would consider that simplistic interventions in complex systems, even if they somehow solve the immediate problem, often come with unforeseen (because no one bothered to look) consequences.
The safest way to deal with climate change isn't to throw tons of iron filings into the sea or whatever they've got in mind, but to actual reduce that which is causing the problem to begin with; emissions. We are literally mortgaging the future and offloading the
Fear of research (Score:2)
Because this is how you destroy the world.
Researching problems and then not doing things that the research shows would destroy the world is how you don't destroy the world.
Arrogance and Stupidity (Score:1)
The climate is complex. Like one of the most complex things we know about. We only have one of them. Do you really think that we understand it well enough to start trying to alter it on a massive scale? Perhaps try analyzing the outcomes of a botched job versus leaving well enough alone and see which is preferable. Unless you trust world governments to get everything done perfectly.
Re: (Score:1)
The climate is complex. Like one of the most complex things we know about. We only have one of them. Do you really think that we understand it well enough to start trying to alter it on a massive scale?
Replace climate with planet and you'll realize you're talking to the species who is wearing the Been There, Dun That hat.
Not sure we really understand our own ignorance as a race to avoid repeating the worst of our history.
Again.
Re: (Score:1)
. Unless you trust world governments to get everything done perfectly.
This has nothing to do with perfect. This is about choosing a high probability, smaller disaster over a practically certain huge disaster.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know that we know for certain that if we go as we currently are, along with mitigations in progress, that we are facing a "high probability" of a certain huge disaster.
I do know I'd rather not risk throwing in another potential risk on top of what we already consider to be a working risk.
We do not currently know what outcomes could come from either one.We can guess....that's about it at this point
Re:Arrogance and Stupidity (Score:4, Informative)
We've already altered the climate on a massive scale. Now we need to fix it.
Re: Arrogance and Stupidity (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
When the precipitation patterns in agriculturally critical areas of the planet get all fucked up and crop yields dwindle, you may be singing a different tune.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not all of us are nihilists. If that's the way you feel, you don't have to stick around.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You've not been buying used software from Musk, have you?
Re: (Score:2)
The models are able to predict global warming with a very high degree of accuracy and certainty. If they did not, we would not be in such a panic about the climate.
With such good models, we can predict the results of geo-engineering and proceed in confidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the models keep under predicting the global warming as they miss stuff and perhaps take the lower estimates so as not to seem to extreme. and they're as likely to miss something and under predict the Geo-engineering.
Re: (Score:2)
"Perhaps try analyzing the outcomes of a botched job versus leaving well enough alone and see which is preferable."
Do you really think that's not a part of "researching geoengineering"?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think that we understand it well enough to start trying to alter it on a massive scale?
We've been doing that for a century.
We may very well lead ourselves to a scenario where there are no options but to at lest try it in a centrally directed fashion rather than market directed.
The Colony. (Score:1)
For those of you who swear you've seen how this ends before, yeah. You have.
Movie is called The Colony.
Came out right around the time the Mandela effect kicked in, if I'm (not) remembering correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
Additives in jet fuel (Score:4, Informative)
It has been proposed several times that additives in jet fuel - e.g. sulphur content - could be used as a relatively cheap method for cooling the climate. Essentially, you just put a bit of $whatever into standard jet fuel and it ends up in upper atmosphere as part of normal operations.
I fear that we may have to rely on something like this because, well, getting any other action going is not really going to happen. Problem is just that while there's plenty of jets going flying around NOW, is that the situation in 50 years time? So if we do no other action and just start spraying stuff at relatively low cost, and in 50 years time there's some paradigm shift to other kinds of transports (who knows, maybe Elon actually builds those hyperloops everywhere), then commercial aviation gets scaled way back and suddenly this band-aid gets taken away..
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you have a plan to get those aerosols out of the atmosphere, we should not proceed with the plan.
Re: (Score:2)
This "reflective sulphate particles" idea isn't exactly new (I remember it being discussed in vulcanology classes in the mid-80s, and it got a real boost from Pinatubo'91), but I don't think I've seen anyone proposing a mechanism to remove the added mater
Re:Additives in jet fuel (Score:5, Informative)
It has been proposed several times that additives in jet fuel - e.g. sulphur content - could be used as a relatively cheap method for cooling the climate.
Sulphur causes acid rain. It would be a spectacularly stupid method.
The military has done a bunch of tests on cloud seeding using fuel additives and/or modified engines. You can find out all about them from the usual chemtrail sources :) They abandoned all of those technologies despite how useful they could be in warfare (creating cloud cover to hide from satellites) because they are all so very polluting.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that would even slow the military down. These are, after all, people who work 9-to-5 on planning for "limited" or "tactical" nuclear wars. It's far more likely that the cost/ effectiveness isn't that good, which is why they aren't pursuing the idea at full speed.
For a start, if you don't start with air supremacy, then your tanker planes (or whatever you use) are going to be under attack while you're trying to esta
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It has been proposed several times that additives in jet fuel - e.g. sulphur content - could be used as a relatively cheap method for cooling the climate.
The mechanism for this, which is essentially to block sunlight, really worries me. Firstly, unless the areas are limited and chosen really carefully it would reduce plant growth. Secondly it would definitely reduce solar cell effectiveness in areas where it was done.
Essentially, you just put a bit of $whatever into standard jet fuel and it ends up in upper atmosphere as part of normal operations.
I fear that we may have to rely on something like this because, well, getting any other action going is not really going to happen. Problem is just that while there's plenty of jets going flying around NOW, is that the situation in 50 years time? So if we do no other action and just start spraying stuff at relatively low cost, and in 50 years time there's some paradigm shift to other kinds of transports (who knows, maybe Elon actually builds those hyperloops everywhere), then commercial aviation gets scaled way back and suddenly this band-aid gets taken away..
If this did actually happen then presumably there's been a major reduction in carbon output and things should start to recover a bit. The sulphur would have bought you a little time and reduced runaway feedback effects. That could be enough to b
History repeats over and over and over ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why does humankind at every step believe firmly that it understands everything? At the turn of the 20th century it was believed science understood everything ... and yet. So why does anyone believe we understand the climate sufficiently to alter it? Is it because we can observe it better than ever? Being able to observe is not equivalent to being able to understand let alone influence.
But see this for what it is: political. It is known that China has and is investing research and money in climate altering technology. If the US doesn't get engaged it may find itself subject to the climate whims of another country.
And so begins the path to Climate Wars. One country vying with another to make the climate best for them. Measures and counter-measures. You may roll your eyes but if you believe the technology exists to alter the climate then there will be conflict.
Re: (Score:2)
We know we can alter the climate, because we did.
Re: (Score:2)
"Why does humankind at every step believe firmly that it understands everything?
Um... they don't? And never have?
" At the turn of the 20th century it was believed science understood everything ... and yet."
Who the fuck ever said that? As in, "EVER"? That's a perfect strawman - completely unsupportable.
Seriously... who are you describing?
Albedo (Score:3)
The White House Admits It: We Might Need to Block the Sun to Stop Climate Change ----The Daily Beast [thedailybeast.com]
A nuclear energy operator in Springfield, USA, responds: Since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun. I shall do the next best thing: block it out.
HA! (Score:1)
What could possibly F'n go wrong!?!? The US Govt. F's up EVERYTHING they touch. You think climate change is bad now - let them get their grubby dick-beaters into global weather patterns.
Re: (Score:2)
File under "What could go wrong?" (Score:3)
Someone will try this. Guaranteed. China. The USA. It doesn't matter. Instead of doing it *right* they'll do it *cheap*.
Doing it right would be a fleet of reversible space based sun blocking panels, solar powered, with pitch and angles adjustable via radio controlled gyroscopes.
What they'll *do* is throw shit into the atmosphere and damn the consequences.
Fuck... no. (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You understand, I trust, that the O&G industry has done exactly the same thing, up to and including burying their own studies demonstrate their product is causing significant climate change.
I'm not sure why exactly governments get all the anger, when pretty much any large human-run institution pretty much runs the same. The chief difference, at least in democracies, is that voters have at least some capability of effecting change, whereas for corporations, it's a shadowy group of investors and their pet
Remove at the source (Score:2)
Removing CO2 from the ambient atmosphere requires concentrating it from ~400ppm to 100%.
Removing CO2 from flue gases / exhaust / ... requires concentrating it from 10s of % to 100%.
The second option is much easier.
Why does the US government go for the first option?
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you go that way, it's even MUCH easier to avoid releasing CO2 in the first place, which is the right option.
The first option is only a way to postpone this.
Re: (Score:2)
To keep civilization going, we will need to be negative CO2 not long after 2050. Extracting CO2 from exhaust from burnt fossil fuels will not be enough.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with scrubbing is that it requires energy. Passive techniques for removing CO2 generally reduce efficiency. More active methods, such as cryogenic sequestration techniques actually require a great deal of energy. Up here in Canada, I've actually seen the argument made that we should build vast solar and wind farms, along with nuclear, with the only purpose of the energy they produce to capture carbon.
If you have means of producing energy sufficient to actually remove most GHGs at the point of em
It's like you've got diabetes from overeating (Score:3)
Might as well just send Old Bessie to go get a giant ice cube...
Re: (Score:2)
Geoengineering has a better shot. If it's just one person with obesity and diabetes, that person can change. But it's billions, all at cross purposes, all with different goals, and no alignment whatsoever.
I have my doubts that geoengineering will solve the problem - might even make things worse. But I'm absolutely convinced there's no way in hell to get everybody in line for sufficient reductions.
Three forms of geoengineering I'm fond of (Score:2)
1. Carbon taxes nudges people to migrate to lower carbon forms of energy and if high enough good kill off the value of coal.
2. Taxes on destroying carbon sinks and credits on increasing them. Growing our own carbon sink can happen now and start chipping away the problem while waiting for some miraculous
Re: (Score:3)
Geo-engineering is narrowly defined as some chemical or physical process to change our environment. However I think it should also include behavioral nudges like tax credit/penalties to shift our behavior.
That would be social and/or economic engineering, not geoengineering.
cost of geoengineering (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Same. I won't be around for this and many other utterly predictable, completely avoidable disasters.
Capitalism is great, until it kills everything like any other cancer.
The US Goverment intervening to 'solve' a problem? (Score:2)
idocy (Score:2)
what could possibly go wrong?
No (Score:2)
Well, let's look at the alternatives. (Score:2)
- Give up fossil fuels for transportation. NOW.
Nope. Even lots of environmentalists fly across the country to spend a few hours with family during the holidays. Half of China travels for new year, mostly by train. Christmas with family in rural regions works because... cars. It's too deeply ingrained. Try to get everybody who bought an ICE vehicle in the last decade to simply give it up, starting now. Won't happen. It'll be watered down into phases too slow and too shallow to help.
- Accept uncertain electr
"Cane toads. That will fix the problem." (Score:2)
Yup. Trust humans to believe they can fix anything ... especially stuff they don't understand.
ocean fertilization (Score:1)
Let's get the ocean back to the amount of life it used to have before over-fishing and over-whaling. Fertilization works. Yes it only takes CO2 out of the system permanently when shells and bones get to the deep ocean. But just having more life in the oceans will reduce CO2. Australia is looking at this. We saw a huge effect from bushfire (=wildfire) smoke blowing out over the ocean. And the main fertiliser needed is just iron oxide and Australia has heaps.