

Harvard Scientist Proposes Refreezing Arctic to Prevent Global-Warming Disaster - marcieoum
http://mashable.com/2012/12/22/arctic-global-warming/

======
zeteo
As distasteful as geo-engineering might be (and I see many comments here to
that effect), it is probably the only politically palatable way to actually do
something about the problem. The country with the world's largest CO2
emissions, China [1], has a political class that owes its legitimacy to
continued economic growth. Other countries, hard hit by the recent economic
crisis, are finding it difficult to confront the issue as well (e.g. witness
Barack Obama's four years of near-silence about it). Yes, these proposals are
terribly risky, but they deserve well-thought replies that highlight the
actual risks and difficulties instead of high-handed dismissal on grounds of
"geo-engineering". There are other fields of engineering where safety is
paramount, and perhaps the concepts can be brought over. Having no options is
certainly no guarantee of safety.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions)

------
stfu
I am afraid that one of these days geo-engineering ideas are going to be
implemented. Wasn't there some billionaire who dumped on a massive scale iron
in the Ocean just because he believes this is going to help climate change?

In my opinion it is absolutely crazy to implement "stuff" in a super complex
system (in which humans fail over and over again to predict relatively
"simple" occurrences such as earthquakes or the weather) and present a
"solution" by pretending to have the slightest understanding of all the
potential long and short term side effects.

~~~
yummyfajitas
But the climate models which we consider 95% accurate (and on which the
scientific consensus surrounding AGW is based) say it will work.

If the models are inaccurate for predicting what might happen under a
Pinatubo-like forcing, why do we believe they are accurate for predicting what
would have happened absent anthropogenic carbon emissions? (Note that scenario
also involved Pinatubo-like forcing.)

~~~
mikeash
Perhaps different levels of confidence are desired for different sorts of
actions.

------
jusben1369
This reminds me of when we have deliberately or accidentally introduced a new
species into an environment with very negative results. We then follow up by
introducing a second species to attack the first species. We know how that has
usually worked out. Just one example here:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toads_in_Australia>

------
csense
I don't understand how all the excitement about global warming fits in with
basic economics.

If the Earth's sea level rose several meters in an instant, yes, it would be a
worldwide catastrophe with massive loss of life. But I fail to understand how
that's physically possible; such change would take years or decades.

This would give people time to adapt. If the ocean's risen and there's
seawater in your house up to your ankles, you move; you don't stick around for
three more years until it's over your head and you drown.

Agriculture would certainly be affected by climate patterns. But how do we
know that the outflow of farmland that stops being usable for farming due to
climate change won't be balanced by an inflow of farmland that becomes
suitable for farming due to climate change?

And even if agricultural output goes down: (1) New technology is invented all
the time which improves agricultural output. Maybe by the time significant
amounts of farmland become unfarmable, we'll be able to make due with less.

(2) Livestock takes a lot of land, because fundamentally, growing plants and
eating them is much more efficient than growing plants, feeding them to
animals, and then eating the animals. Vegetarians have been around a long
time, and we know that it's possible for humans to live on plants alone. So if
there's less farmland, why won't we just eat less meat as food becomes more
expensive?

(3) Everyone needs to eat. iPod's are a luxury; food is a necessity. As food
gets more expensive due to a scarcity of land and people start spending more
of their income on food and less on iPod's, Apple will just close a couple
factories and their land will be converted to farmland (funding for this will
be available, because, again, if food is expensive, owning farmland will be
very profitable.)

I fundamentally fail to understand why global warming deserves the same level
of threat as (say) a bioengineered plague, a large nuclear war or an enormous
asteroid on a collision course with Earth would.

~~~
capsule_toy
As far as I can tell, the problem is that we really don't know about the long
reaching effects of global warming, and you're not accounting for the extreme
possibilities. There have been periods of time where the earth was extremely
inhospitable to life. I'm not saying that will happen but to simply believe
that there will be enough food without actually modeling possible outcomes is
foolish.

------
darrhiggs
I suppose that as good as this sounds, and I have heard about it many times
[1][2][3], it boils down to opportunity cost. To me it will allow for a
powerful counter argument when it comes to hitting emissions targets.

[1]
[http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh/climate/Geoengineering_RoySo...](http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh/climate/Geoengineering_RoySoc.htm)
[2] [http://aircrap.org/uk-climate-fix-technical-test-put-on-
hold...](http://aircrap.org/uk-climate-fix-technical-test-put-on-
hold-2/332429/) [3] <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14936184>

------
noiv
It is clear to me that crazy geo-engineering 'solutions' will pop up more
often as we are passing one climate tipping point after the other. However, it
is not like we are doing too less geo-engineering, we are doing too much for
thousands of years. Agriculture, deforestation and industrialization have
already left marks on the planet. So, why adding some more instead of
substituting fossil energy with solar power? Just because of lack of political
will and failure of leadership?

~~~
saraid216
There is the interesting side effect that we'd have some measure of control
over how much global warming we can handle. Instead of _stopping_ some action
X, we could instead _amplify_ some geo-engineering Y.

It has a certain appeal. Not advocating for this, just pointing out the
perspective.

~~~
noiv
Sure, pumping enough aerosols into the atmosphere will stop nearly instantly
global warming. And it opens a path to burn even more carbon. But whom would
you trust to run this solution over the next millions of years until all
carbon is back in Earth's crust? The point is, if it stops working all hidden
and accumulated warming will kick in virtually over night. And nobody wants
the planet to warm by 4°C within days.

~~~
aroberge
While I do not advocate to messing up with the atmosphere, your statement
shows a clear lack of understanding. Carbon being trapped is NOT the same as
heat being trapped in the earth's crust. The Earth could NOT warm by 4°C
within days - that is ludicrous.

Here's the deal: the Earth is warmed by the Sun; it cools off by emitting back
(glowing in the infra-red region if you wish) some of the heat. An equilibrium
is reached when the amount of energy emitted is equal to the amount it
receives. (Thus, Mars is cooler than the Earth which is cooler than Venus...).
The amount of energy that can be emitted back into space depends on the
property of the atmosphere. Some gas (so-called greenhouse gas) will prevent
energy (in the form of infra-red radiation) from escaping, thus contributing
to the rise of the temperature, until a new equilibrium is reached. (The
proposed solution is to change the atmosphere properties so that less energy
reaches the Earth in the first place.) We are currently seeing such a heating
taking place, and it is not happening "within days".

~~~
noiv
You did not get the point. Currently we are close to 400ppm/+0.8°C without
geo-engineering. If we use geo-engineering, keep temperature at current level
and continue emitting CO2 to let's say 1000ppm, we can't stop because the
greenhouse effect of these extra 600ppm will kick in as fast as the reducing
effect of the engineering slows down.

But you are right: This is not comparable to today's situation where
concentration rises by 1-2 ppm y⁻¹, but it is comparable to injecting
instantly the equivalent of 600ppm into the atmosphere. It's like the opposite
of a huge volcano eruption.

So to make a long story short, any geo-engineering solution which does not
remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and turn them into a stable
chemical compound is nothing but a time bomb - exploding at failure.

~~~
aroberge
Yes, I did get the point, but I don't believe that you get the Physics. It
takes a lot of energy to raise the average temperature of the earth by 4 C -
much more than we are getting from the Sun "within a few days". Stopping
(most) of the Sun's light to reach the Earth would be an effective (if not
crazy...) way of cooling down the Earth. Adding a huge quantity of greenhouse
gases is not going to turn the atmosphere into a one-way trap for radiation.
The physics involved in light being blocked by air-borne aerosol particles and
that of the trapping of heat by greenhouse gases are different, and their
effect, while going in opposite direction, are not the exact inverse one of
another.

~~~
noiv
Would you prefer to read 'weeks'?

~~~
aroberge
No, I would prefer at least "years", but even better "decades". A few days (or
weeks depending on your background) is the time required to read a few papers
on the Physics of the atmosphere.

------
sheri
I know this post is specifically about global warming, but I thought I'd talk
about climate change and conservation in general.

We are at the point of no return for climate change in my opinion. I just
don't see a global will to enact the kind of change which would be required to
reverse this.

Tiger populations have decreased from an estimated 100,000 at the start of the
20th centry to around 3000. Lion populations have decreased 30-50% in the last
few decades alone. ([1] and [2]). I fear that we will see these, and many more
iconic species go extinct in our lifetime.

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but the ice-melt could precipitate a
"Day after Tomorrow" kind of event, with the warm currents changing course
[3].

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger#Conservation_efforts> [2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion#Population_and_conservatio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion#Population_and_conservation_status)
[3] [http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-
nasa/2004/05...](http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-
nasa/2004/05mar_arctic/)

~~~
yummyfajitas
You do realize that Lion/Tiger populations have basically nothing to do with
AGW, and have dropped due to hunting by humans and habitat destruction, right?

~~~
sheri
Yes, I do realize that, which is why I prefaced my comments with the
disclaimer. The point I was trying to make was my opinion that environmental
changes due to human activity is now at an irreversible point. The examples of
the Lion and Tiger populations highlight that even with much increased
awareness, the decline of these species is continuing. This is happening with
global warming as well, and I don't know if there is a point at which the
awareness actually translates into action.

------
genwin
Expect to soon be reading about the loss of jobs for such proposals. Iceland
plans to expand their port to handle Northwest Passage traffic. Governments
and industry are planning to drill the Arctic seabed. Big business will fight
attempts to reverse global warming.

------
teeja
And how much will this "solution" (extraordinary evidence required) --cost--
?? (On the face, apart from economic & natural costs.) Compared to (over-
simplified outline) 1. TERMINATE beginning a relentless closing down of the
biggest CO2 emitters? And 2. CONSERVE retrofitting human dwellings for far
great energy efficiency? And 3. REPLACE building the offshore wind resources
to offset terminated emitters?

Who will pay for the cost of such a program? Who will control it (and thus
shoulder the responsibility)? What measures will additionally be needed to
protect against the failure of the "solution"?

------
charonn0
Averting global warming by instigating a mild nuclear winter does not seem a
reasonable course of action.

------
Zenst
Be cheaper to have a largish silverish baloon aligned to block the sun at
altitude, also knowing how we do freezing currently it will on balance not add
more warm air.

~~~
emiliobumachar
I did not do the math, but I think a huge, huge object would be needed in
order to shadow even 1% of the Earth.

~~~
Zenst
we are only talking about the artic here, and with altitude the effect
increases as relative size of objects etc and shadows.

But it is a more saner and plausable idea than the article moots. Not that
anybody seems to care.

------
geuis
Suppose you block a percentage of sunlight from reaching the earth. The main
reason this is a bad idea is that plantlife on this planet has evolved for a
certain amount of light. Yeah, it'll cut down on melting. But what that do to
ecologies all over the world? Yes, volcanoes can have this effect. But
volcanoes of that scale don't happen very often.

------
aethertap
These kinds of solutions scare me because of their short-sightedness. I
haven't seen any comforting explanations of how these reflective particles
_leave_ the atmosphere and where they end up such that their effects can be
stopped. Solar energy has been and will continue to be the only actual
_source_ of energy on our planet. All other resources are finite and will
eventually be depleted, many within our lifetimes or those of our children if
reserve estimates are accurate. If our strategy for using finite energy
resources is to block out the energy from our only infinite (at least millions
of years worth) energy source, it would seem that we are shooting our grand
children in order to have a bigger party today. Once the prices of oil and
fissile materials get high enough, we'll be facepalming at a global scale when
we have to rely on solar-derived power (biomass,PV,wind,etc) to fill the gap.
Even if there are no unintended consequences (which I do NOT believe is the
case), the intended consequence of reducing the total solar energy input to
the planet seems like a simple case of short-term fix, long term problem.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_I haven't seen any comforting explanations of how these reflective particles
leave the atmosphere and where they end up such that their effects can be
stopped._

That's only because you haven't bothered to educate yourself. The answer is
gravity brings the particles back down to the land/sea over the span of a few
years.

We've actually tried this experiment a number of times (for example, Pinatubo
in 1991, Krakatoa in 1883, various smaller eruptions as well) and on a scale
more massive than most geoengineering proposals. It has worked as the models
predicted and the long term effects have been negligable.

