Posts Tagged ‘geo-engineering’
What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
“Nobody wants it, but nobody wants to put high doses of poisonous chemicals into their body, either. That is what chemotherapy is, though, and for people suffering from cancer those poisons are often their only hope. Every day, tens of thousands of people take them willingly—because they are very sick or dying. This is how I prefer to look at the possibility of engineering the climate. It isn’t a cure for anything. But it could very well turn out to be the least bad option we are going to have.”
Friday!
Friday!
* Can’t-miss upcoming events at Duke: a Sun Ra talk and accompanying art exhibit.
* Glenn Beck, art critic. Olbermann critiques the critic.
* This morning John Hodgman accidentally tweeted his cell phone number to all 82,000 of his Twiter followers.
* Ten sci-fi ways to change the climate.
* Turns out the White House drafting its own health-care reform bill. Steve Benen speculates as to what might be in it.
* Krugman on the causes of the Great Recession. Discussion at MetaFilter.
* MetaFilter also has your police brutality outrage of the day.
How to Deal with the Lion That Got Rid of the Dog That Scared Away the Cat That Killed the Mouse
The only way to protect ourselves from the horrible consequences of massively altering the Earth’s climate is by massively altering the Earth’s climate.
Thursday Night!
Thursday night!
* President Edwards prepares to resign the presidency tonight after admitting he had lied about the fathering of Rielle Hunter’s baby during the third debate with John McCain. Vice President Barack Obama is expected to assume the presidency tomorrow morning.
* Paul Krugman, legendary futurist?
* Luck, math, and how to win at gambling.
* What’s hot: potbellies!
* Multitask: the game. Note: you will hate this game.
* On the cinematography of Mad Men. Nice video to get you ready for the third season.
* Behold, NASA’s secret plan to move the Earth.
Hence the group’s decision to try to save Earth. ‘All you have to do is strap a chemical rocket to an asteroid or comet and fire it at just the right time,’ added Laughlin. ‘It is basic rocket science.’
The plan has one or two worrying aspects, however. For a start, space engineers would have to be very careful about how they directed their asteroid or comet towards Earth. The slightest miscalculation in orbit could fire it straight at Earth – with devastating consequences.
What could possibly go wrong? (Not a hoax. Via Occasional Fish.)
* Behold, the banned Family Guy episode.
* Nerdivore points out District 9 is getting great reviews.
* And a physicist at Slate says The Time Traveler’s Wife checks out.
Geo-Engineering in the Atlantic
Big geo-engineering story in the Atlantic this month. I suspect it may not fill you with confidence.
Of all the ideas circulating for blocking solar heat, however, sulfur-aerosol injection—the Blade Runner scenario—may actually be the least mad. And it provides an illustrative example of the trade-offs that all geo-engineering projects of its scale must confront. The approach is already known to work. When Mount Tambora erupted in Indonesia in 1815 and spewed sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, farmers in New England recorded a summer so chilly that their fields frosted over in July. The Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines in 1991 cooled global temperatures by about half a degree Celsius for the next few years. A sulfur-aerosol project could produce a Pinatubo of sulfur dioxide every four years.
The aerosol plan is also cheap—so cheap that it completely overturns conventional analysis of how to mitigate climate change. Thomas C. Schelling, who won the 2005 Nobel Prize in economics, has pointed out how difficult it is to get vast international agreements—such as the Kyoto Protocol—to stick. But a geo-engineering strategy like sulfur aerosol “changes everything,” he says. Suddenly, instead of a situation where any one country can foil efforts to curb global warming, any one country can curb global warming all on its own. Pumping sulfur into the atmosphere is a lot easier than trying to orchestrate the actions of 200 countries—or, for that matter, 7 billion individuals—each of whom has strong incentives to cheat.
But, as with nearly every geo-engineering plan, there are substantial drawbacks to the gas-the-planet strategy. Opponents say it might produce acid rain and decimate plant and fish life. Perhaps more disturbing, it’s likely to trigger radical shifts in the climate that would hit the globe unevenly. “Plausibly, 6 billion people would benefit and 1 billion would be hurt,” says Martin Bunzl, a Rutgers climate-change policy expert. The billion negatively affected would include many in Africa, who would, perversely, live in a climate even hotter and drier than before. In India, rainfall levels might severely decline; the monsoons rely on temperature differences between the Asian landmass and the ocean, and sulfur aerosols could diminish those differences substantially.
Worst of all is what Raymond Pierrehumbert, a geophysicist at the University of Chicago, calls the “Sword of Damocles” scenario. In Greek legend, Dionysius II, the ruler of Syracuse, used a single hair to suspend a sword over Damocles’ head, ostensibly to show him how precarious the life of a powerful ruler can be. According to Pierrehumbert, sulfur aerosols would cool the planet, but we’d risk calamity the moment we stopped pumping: the aerosols would rain down and years’ worth of accumulated carbon would make temperatures surge. Everything would be fine, in other words, until the hair snapped, and then the world would experience the full force of postponed warming in just a couple of catastrophic years. Pierrehumbert imagines another possibility in which sun-blocking technology works but has unforeseen consequences, such as rapid ozone destruction. If a future generation discovered that a geo-engineering program had such a disastrous side effect, it couldn’t easily shut things down. He notes that sulfur-aerosol injection, like many geo-engineering ideas, would be easy to implement. But if it failed, he says, it would fail horribly. “It’s scary because it actually could be done,” he says. “And it’s like taking aspirin for cancer.”
Read the whole thing.
Chu: Paint Your Roofs White
Steven Chu has a geo-engineering proposal that won’t backfire horribly.
The thing is, secretary Chu actually understated the potential benefits of global whitewashing. The Lawrence research he refers to (which we wrote about last fall) says that white roofs and pavements could mean a one-time reduction of 44 billion tons of carbon dioxide. That, Art Rosenfeld said, translates to removing all the cars in the world for 18 years.
Of course, that’s the best-case scenario. Most roofs are sloped, not flat. Using “cool colored” paint on sloping roofs—as California will require starting this summer—would lead to a global reduction on the order of 24 billion tons.
Sunday!
Sunday!
* Your attention please: Arlen Specter would like you to know he is not a loyal Democrat.
* ‘The Politics of Climate Hacking: What happens if one country decides to start geo-engineering on its own?’
“This is not at all hard to do,” Granger told the audience, declaring that “a single large nation”—especially a nuclear power, which might act with relative impunity—could easily exercise the option. A run of bad news from the climate scientists might convince a government that the breakup of the Greenland ice sheet was accelerating, and that Earth’s low-lying areas were facing an imminent rise of 3 feet or more in sea level. “If, say, a Huckabee administration suddenly woke up and started geoengineering the planet, what could anybody else do about it?” Morgan asked. (One could equally envision a left-leaning, low-lying European nation with the same inclination.) Geoengineering “turns the normal debate over climate change on its head,” he and some co-authors wrote recently in Foreign Affairs. Getting nations to agree to cut their greenhouse pollution has proved to be the ultimate free-rider problem, as the biggest nations must all cooperate or the planet will keep getting warmer. The Pinatubo option creates the opposite dilemma: As the discussions in Lisbon made clear, any of a dozen nations could change the global temperature all by itself.
It’s becoming increasingly clear, I think, that international political actors view geo-engineering as the option of first resort; there are still no serious coordinated efforts to reduce carbon emission, so radical a dereliction of duty as to amount to a suicide pact—unless they’ve convinced themselves they can jury-rig some ad hoc solution as the crisis escalates.
* See also: the world, 4 degrees warmer and An Introduction to Global Warming Impacts: Hell and High Water. All via MeFi.
* Alain Badiou on the communist hypothesis.
“But that reduces your communist adherence to nothing more than a faith! Rather than look at its practical impact upon the twentieth century, you just say, ‘Oh, well, that wasn’t pure, it wasn’t true to the idea, but I know the idea itself remains right.’ That’s a form of faith.”
“Maybe, but faith is a great thing sometimes.”
* Does DC own Superboy again? Via io9.
* Join Alex Greenberg on a trip to the retro-future.
Another Monday Linkdump
Monday links.
* Vernor Vinge guarantees the Singularity by 2030. Take it to the bank. Via Boing Boing.
* They’ll get the stone wall around East Campus when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
* Today’s most useful single-serving site: http://shouldibeworriedaboutswineflu.com/.
* The judgment against Eichmann speaks to Bybee: Far from absolving him of guilt, his remoteness from the actual torturers—his thoughtlessness—increases the degree of his responsibility. His is a special kind of evil—the evil of nonchalance where there should be outrage.
* Geoengineering and the New Climate Denialism.
* Meanwhile, Krugman seeks to tell the future by looking at programs Republicans have most recently tried to cut funding for.