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:
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.
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?
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).
The models certainly do enter into it if you want to predict what the consequences will be of having higher CO2 concentrations. Knowing that we belch a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere may tell us the cause, but not the effect. That has to be done with modeling or educated guesses.
I'll ask you again: without using models, how do we know what the earth's temperature would have been without anthropogenic CO2?
Without knowing that, we can not draw any conclusions as to whether the modern warming trend is caused by human-emitted CO2 or not.
Incidentally, I devoted precisely one line of my post to name-calling, namely reversing a common ad-hominem levied against skeptics of climate modelling.
Increased CO2 is the only reasonable forcing so far; water vapour, methane, etc. have too short a half life in the atmosphere. The bulk of the CO2 increase is anthropogenic in origin, ergo the warming is caused by humans - no models necessary.
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.
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).
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).
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.
>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.
> 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.
>It does actually have to be so, especially for developing nations like China and India
No, it doesn't actually have to be so. Knowledge and technology transfer, more efficient markets, and alternative energy sources combined can ensure continued growth without increased emissions. It is fascinating that some free-market proponents believe in the amazing ability of human imagination and drive to surmount any dificulty (as I do). But as soon as we make any attempt to include environmental externalities when calculating the cost of something, the whole market will appearently collapse and billions die!
>thousands of Swedens and their (frankly) mediocre efforts
It is of course impossible for Sweden to offset the emissions of everyone else. The point is that everyone else can learn from Sweden and do the same.
A 9% decrease in carbon emissions over 20 years combined wth healthy growth and high living standards? What would you consider not mediocre?
>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.
So destroying the planet is not encroaching on their rights in any way then?
2. Does not in fact even claim that everything anyone knows about global warming is wrong. (e.g.: "Everyone in the room agrees that the Earth has been getting warmer and human activity probably has something to do with it.")
3. Doesn't do much to substantiate what claims it does make.
4. Is largely about not global warming as such but possible ways to mitigate it.
5. Mostly describes the opinions of people who are not in fact climate scientists.
"Everyone in the room agrees that the Earth has been getting warmer and human activity probably has something to do with it."
---
No direct evidence of this exists. Humans may have something to do with it, and they may not. There is still debate on what the causes might be and much research still needs to be done.
I find it ironic that scientists can act so religious-like on this topic and have faith in the belief that humans are the sole reason behind global warming without solid scientific proof.
Edit: Spelling. No comments, but lots of down votes. Do please cite the evidence rather than just throw stones.
Because you are making a lot of assumptions. For example:
"the Earth has been getting warmer and human activity probably has something to do with it."
Is different from "The earth is getting warmer because of human activity."
In fact, you go on to say: "Humans may have something to do with it, and they may not. There is still debate on what the causes might be and much research still needs to be done."
A debate on this implies that their are those who think human activity is partly to blame.
Finally, you go on to say this:
>I find it ironic that scientists can act so religious-like on this topic and have faith in the belief that humans are the sole reason behind global warming without solid scientific proof.
Religious-like? Faith? Humans are the sole reason?
"human activity probably has something to do with it."
That's why you are getting down voted. Stop overreacting. =)
Here are a couple of scientific articles from two of the more well respected science organizations in the world. There are a plethora more, though it's hard to wade through the opinion pieces, which are far more numerous. The general consensus among the experts is human activity does have something to do with global warming. And there is a ton of direct evidence. In my mind (I'm not a climate scientist, but as a biologist I have been exposed to a lot of the research over the last 15 years or so), the question isn't so much are we contributing to global warming as it is how much we're contributing to global warming.
Like it or not politically, the way science works within a scientific community on issues like this is driven by the consensus of the expert community, which is informed by the data. Granted, it's easier to get published in a peer reviewed journal with an article that supports global warming than one that tries to debunk it, but in a scientific forum the data will eventually stand up on its own. If someone uncovers a preponderance of empirical data that contradicts human contribution to global warming, it will stand up to scientific scrutiny. The best example of a paradigm changing finding of this sort that I can think of in modern science is punctuated equilibrium. A lot of the evolutionary biology community screamed bloody murder at first, but the data were just too compelling to ignore.
Unfortunately, on global warming the data all point in the opposite direction right now, i.e. global warming is happening and we as humans are contributing to it.
I am tired of this hand-waving crap. These guys are making money by pushing flashy contrarian views with half-baked theories and little to no actual data. IMHO, this stuff is to science what FoxNews is to politics.
The article refers to a paper. Is the paper then not actual data? I'm surprised to see everyone so far just say the article is wrong, without being specific. Did the article connect the dots wrong, are the 'facts' the article claim to be true misleading, do the people the article refer to not exist, or are all the sources the article linked to wrong/irrelevant? I'm not someone who's acquainted with formal scientific journalism, so it's not something I can judge well by myself. That means I can't judge whether people saying the article is wrong are a valid claim either! And that's why I think it'd have been better if the commenters were a bit more specific.
Part of article I was referring to:
>>
Would it work? The scientific evidence says yes. Perhaps the stoutest scientific argument in favour of it came from Paul Crutzen, a Dutch atmospheric scientist whose environmentalist bona fides run even deeper than Caldeira’s — he won a Nobel prize for his research on atmospheric ozone depletion.
In 2006 he wrote an essay in the journal Climatic Change lamenting the “grossly unsuccessful” efforts to emit fewer greenhouse gases and acknowledging that an injection of sulphur in the stratosphere “is the only option available to rapidly reduce temperature rises and counteract other climatic effects”.
Crutzen’s embrace of geoengineering was considered such a heresy within the climate science community that some of his peers tried to stop the publication of his essay. How could the man reverently known as “Dr Ozone” possibly endorse such a scheme? Wouldn’t the environmental damage outweigh the benefits?
Actually, no. Crutzen concluded that damage to the ozone would be minimal. The sulphur dioxide would eventually settle out in the polar regions but in such relatively small amounts that significant harm was unlikely.
I read it again. Which paper are you referring to? The essay? -That's not a scientific paper, it is speculation by a scientist.
You see, the problem is that the issue is too complex to wrap up like they did here. It is not sexy, but every component that could contribute to climate change requires careful data collection, analysis and objective consideration.
For example, the article seems to infer that solar panels would result in global warming because they are dark, and have a 15% efficiency converting sunlight to electricity. However, this does not take into consideration factors such as: estimates in increased efficiency as the solar panel technology matures, or (probably more important) the offset of warming effects of current fuel sources that solar panels will replace, particularly the burning of fossil fuels.
The real problem here, IMO, is that people walk away from an article like this thinking an issue such as global climate change can be understood and resolved simply by having the correct perspective. However, the reality is that the issue is much more complex, and that more important than our perspective, is what we can infer from data and the diligent analysis of that data by people that are motivated to understand the issue, and not to sell the discourse.
I believe the paper is this one, published in PNAS (one of the top scientific journals):
Matthews, H.D., and K. Caldeira, Transient climate-carbon simulations of planetary geoengineering, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104 (24): 9949-9954, 2007.
It's no more speculative than any other climate modelling paper. The methodology is to run a climate model with and without a forcing and compared the differences between runs. That methodology should sound familiar - it's the methodology used to show that global warming is anthropogenic in origin.
Yes, that happens to be the case. It comes down to data. If you don't have the science to back it up, then you cannot win me over with speculation about issues that require scientific investigation and supporting evidence without bringing some to the conversation. I don't make any excuses for that.
The sad thing is, Freakonomics and their NYTimes blog were pretty interesting, and for "popular science", reasonably solid. Everything since Superfreakonomics (inclusive) has been a huge let-down.
...apart from all the bits of Superfreakonomics that have been debunked, that is. I believe the proportion of error is somewhere in the region of "every damned thing they wrote".
Elizabeth Kolbert expressed more than a little disdain for the Freakonomics guys last year in the New Yorker; she's pretty thoughtful about this issue I think.
I wish someone smarter than myself could explain to me why I find articles written in this style (or tone of voice or rythmn or whatever the correct term is) so nauseating and irritating?
I'm not sure either but I think it might be because in the back of your mind you know there's about 5-10 sentences worth of actual meat to the article (ie. quotes from the interviewees) but they spread them out over dozens of paragraphs. And act like this is entertaining for the reader.
edit: there's a cute widget/plug-in/extension for someone to build - make something that strips newspaper articles of all text except the quotes. May need some jiggering about to make it readable.
I think books like this sell because the subject matter is easy to understand, but brings about some sense of superiority in the reader for knowing contradicting theories. These books succeed due to the shock value of the information they contain. This is in a similar vein to the Penn and Teller show "Bullshit". If you say something loud enough, and sound relatively intelligent in the process, people feel smarter when they hear it. I feel that the same is true about Malcolm Gladwell's writings.
The only problem is that the shock value of the content is in no way related to how valid the information is. "Bullshit" is terribly biased towards the presenters opinions, whereas books like these are biased towards whatever makes headlines, which results in varied levels of validity.
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.