National Academy of Sciences

Climate Geoengineering Research Should Go Forward, Says National Academy of Sciences Reports Today

Both albedo management and carbon dioxide removal should be researched

|

Geoengineering
ejolt

The National Academy of Sciences released two reports today that evaluate geoengineering strategies to counteract man-made global warming. One is Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool the Earth and the other is Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration. The NAS reports argue that both should be pursued. Here are some recommendations:

Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends research and development investment to improve methods of carbon dioxide removal and disposal at scales that would have a global impact on reducing greenhouse warming, in particular to minimize energy and materials consumption, identify and quantify risks, lower costs, and develop reliable sequestration and monitoring.

Recommendation 4: The Committee recommends an albedo modification researchprogram be developed and implemented that emphasizes multiple benefit research that also furthers basic understanding of the climate system and its human dimensions.

Basically, the research suggested by the NAS studies would provide humanity with an emergency back up plan to cool the planet should man-made warming turn out to be on a truly catastrophic trend. More analysis later, but these are reasonable recommendations.

Many environmentalists oppose this research because they fear that humanity will choose to use it rather than give up cheap fossil fuels. For example, the technophobic ETC Group emailed a statement on the NAS report from its director Pat Mooney:

Fossil fuel escape hatch:

"With climate denial on the ropes and rising concerns of a 'carbon bubble', the overblown and risky promise of geoengineering is the only escape hatch left that the fossil fuel industry can use to justify continuing to burn its reserves – estimated at $20-28 trillion in booked assets. If carbon dioxide removal technologies are given credence, experimental research is funded and 'Plan B' for the climate moves forward, it will be much harder to generate the political will to transition to just and resilient low-carbon economies, which remains the only viable long-term solution to climate catastrophe."

The latest geoengineering-is-normal set piece:

"The NAS reports are the latest in a series of highly-public policy performances with the aim of normalizing geoengineering. In reality, geoengineering experimentation makes the planet into a test tube where a few scientists can try out dangerous and unpredictable formulas at our expense: that should never be normalized. As this latest performance comes to a close, we shouldn't let ourselves be distracted by flashy PR spin, and pay attention to the multi-trillion dollar industry behind the curtain who will benefit most from political acceptance of geoengineering."

If the ETC folks are right about the dangers of global warming, it is even more urgent that research into how to cool down the planet proceed.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

120 responses to “Climate Geoengineering Research Should Go Forward, Says National Academy of Sciences Reports Today

  1. So…no reaction from Ron re: “altered” data from temp stations….just a set cures for a disease that may not be there?

    1. +1 Wheel of Emmemtaler.

    2. Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

      1. I remember when Crichton first put that out, it was great. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

        1. Amazing how telling the truth causes the most angry reactions. The more truthful a criticism is the more angry the reaction the subject is likely to give. If Crichton had something obviously untrue like environmentalists were really a front for the big bankers or the Saudis, they would have just laughed. They only went berserk because what he said was true.

          1. Disagree. What makes them angry is how likely other people are to believe it, regardless of whether it’s the truth or not. Which makes the pretty anger valid. It’s a direct attack.

            1. So, why is the anger not equal on the other side?
              After all, there are “scientists” trying to get them to believe something, whether it is true or not.
              But on the side against the idiotic AGW there isn’t anger, just deserved ridicule and derision of the “believers”.

            2. Are you saying it’s not true? Or are you just saying their anger is rational?

    3. SS: Patience please. Working on it. It’s a lot more complicated than Mr. Booker at the Telegraph would have you believe.

      Avoid confirmation bias.

      1. Avoid confirmation bias

        I knew you’d say that.

        1. D: Good advice for any one practicing or reporting on scientific research. Actually, it’s just good advice.

      2. NO, RON, DANCE FOR ME NOW!!!

        OK, I will abide.

      3. Shut up, he explained.

  2. I have three words.

    Fake. Fucking. Data.

  3. Yeah, nothing bad can come from these fools mucking around with the environment. Nothing bad at all.

    1. What I don’t understand at all is the emphasis on strategies to mitigate a drier climate, e.g. cloud seeding and “greening deserts,” when warmer times in the past resulted in WETTER climates, not drier.

  4. Albedo management? Does this mean I have to wear reflective material? Maybe those old science fiction movies were right in predicting metallic cloth space jumpers.

    1. Like you don’t already do that at your Oort Cloud base….nice bit of misdirection there, mister!

      1. Well, yes, and purple hair, of course.

  5. What was the road to hell paved with again?

    1. Skulls, no wait, that was warty’s basement.

      1. HAHAHAHAHAHA! Everyone knows Warty’s basement floor is made of vomit and dookie!

        1. Yes but the path to warty’s basement is paved with skulls.

          1. “And I want ANOTHER skull path! But a bit higher than this one, so you get a two-tiered effect…”

  6. Let’s spend untold amounts of money coming up with solutions (that will almost assuredly not work or will work so inefficiently as to be essentially useless) to a problem that no one seems to be able to “prove” without getting caught lying and altering data. That sounds like a great idea.

    Well, it is a great idea for the parasite scum who will get paid to do the research, of course. But that’s part of what this is all about, CONTROL being the other.

    1. Well, we know that nuclear winter will work.

      It gives us a chance to kill two birds with one stone.

      1. Well, Carl Sagan is dead already…too soon?

        1. + billions and billions

    2. “Let’s spend untold amounts of money coming up with solutions…”

      I think you are catching on. These dumbasses are milking the govt teat for all the money they can get. It is a scam, plain and simple. They have no intention of any of this shit actually being put into practice and probably know if it did it would be a disaster.

      The problem is that sooner or later a wild-eyed true believer with power will come along. If the means is there it will be used.

  7. Manipulating an extraordinarily complex system that you aren’t even close to understanding for scientifically dubious reasons.

    What could possibly go wrong?

    1. Aren’t even close to understanding? What are you talking about? They’ve got computer models! And their models are never wrong! It’s not their fault the climate isn’t cooperating! Besides, consensus!

    2. “All your doubts and concerns will be addressed by this simple diagram.”

    3. SCD: That’s why it’s called research – no one is advocating deployment – just research.

      1. I’m sure the research won’t cost taxpayers anything. Hell, why not research solutions to the problem of undetectable tachyon rays altering the temperature of the earth’s molten core which will cause a catastrophic weakening of the magnetic field?

        1. why not research solutions to the problem of undetectable tachyon rays altering the temperature of the earth’s molten core which will cause a catastrophic weakening of the magnetic field?

          *Quickly hides leaky time machine*

          NOTHIN’ TO SEE HERE PEOPLE MOVE ALONG.

  8. The Committee recommends an albedo modification research program be developed and implemented that emphasizes multiple benefit research that also furthers basic understanding of the climate system and its human dimensions.

    Nuke Spray-paint the Moon Earth!

  9. Many environmentalists oppose this research because they fear that humanity will choose to use it rather than give up cheap fossil fuels.

    CARBON IS SIN!

    1. That’s one way to tell that the supposed “problem” is not the real one they care about.

      1. Yep. It’s funny how that works.

  10. If aliens came to Earth and gave us weather control, what would we do with it?

    It’s not just the mechanism that’s the problem, it’s our fundamental lack of knowledge of climate in general. What makes us happy today might mess things up a century from now. Or not. We have a true lack of understanding that makes these grandiose claims and plans very hard to get comfortable with.

    1. If aliens came to Earth and gave us weather control, what would we do with it?

      The Lisan al-Gaib would lead our way to the Golden Path, duh.

      Praise be to Shai hulud!

      1. Personally speaking, I’d nuke the Shield Wall.

          1. Forbids using nukes on PEOPLE, the Shield Wall is obviously not a person.

            1. “I was simply in a hurry to meet you, Shaddam”

            2. Got me there. Go ahead and nuke. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

    2. Dump a ton of rain in Sahara desert, make it green again.

      Being able to summon up rain on demand would be awesome, how to do it is one of worthwhile things to study.

      1. “Dump a ton of rain in the Sahara desert…”

        At whose expense?

        1. Is he amount of moisture in the atmosphere fixed? If not, I don’t know if it would necessarily be at anybody’s expense.

          (Serious question)

        2. We have like 70% of the planet surface as water. Only two issues – its salty (evaporation to make rain will solve that), and its not where its needed (wind can solve that). So water on Sahara shouldn’t really come at other peoples expense.

          1. Dump a ton of rain in Sahara desert, make it green again.

            The issue isn’t water, exactly. That is to say, dumping water on the Sahara would be a waste until the water churned the sand/silt into the clay to produce a proper soil and that amount of water would kill most plant life.

            Selectively irrigating and subsuming the desert into the surrounding tropical ecosystems would be the most likely way to solve the problem but, again, the issue is hardly water and more about custodial maintenance of the burgeoning ecosystems.

            If the water draws predators that consume all your fixing flora and fauna and then flees, you’ve wasted that water.

      2. My point is that we adjust one thing, we have to deal with some negative effect somewhere else. Power over a thing doesn’t mean understanding of a thing.

        1. Sure. That’s why we need to understand it better. Benefits will be immense, if we can control the consequences.

    3. So you’re saying it’s a bad idea to create the Social Security program of Climate Change?

      (SCS) Social Climate Security?

      Sounds so… Progressive!

      1. Do you know how many people in America today go to bed climate-insecure EVERY DAY?

        Know, of course not – you monocle wearers get all the climate you need. Fuck those who are climate-insecure, right?

        Selfish bastards….

  11. People should be able to research whatever they want. I can’t imagine, however, ever thinking this would be a good idea. We don’t understand the climate well enough to be able to safely try and alter it. Moreover, I can’t imagine many things that would have more unknown, unpredictable and possibly catastrophic effects than screwing with the climate. To do this you would have to know with certainty how it would affect the climate and how that would in turn effect the entire world. Otherwise, you are just shooting in the dark and hoping for the best. No thanks.

    1. Look, John. They’ve got computer models which are never wrong. They’ve got really smart scientists who are never wrong. They’ve got consensus which is never wrong. That and it has been proven without a doubt that everyone who disagrees is on the payroll of Big Oil.

      So, how much did Big Oil pay you to make that comment?

      1. Wait, Big Oil pays for comments?!

        Um, just asking…for a friend.

    2. IMO, this is the heart of libertarianism and anti-government/collectivism.

      20-30 people doing their damnedest to make it rain in the Sahara aren’t going to accidentally (or intentionally) submerge an entire continent. The closer you get to all the nations of Africa trying to make it rain in the Sahara the more likely the drowning of a continent becomes.

      1. The closer you get to all the nations of Africa trying to make it rain in the Sahara the more likely the drowning of a continent becomes.

        Are you saying black people can’t swim?

        1. Are you saying black people can’t swim?

          Get your ears checked. I don’t think I could’ve blown the dog whistle any louder.

          I mean, if libertarianism isn’t about enslaving orphans, wearing monocles, and shaming black people for their swimming abilities, what’s the point?

    3. Nobody wants to shoot in the dark. They just want tons of taxpayer money to research how.

      After the means have been figured out and developed there is no way it will actually be used, right?

      * I am sure there are no military types having wet dreams over this *

      1. “OK, lets see how Ivan does in Ukraine when he has 13 feet of snow parked on his supply depots!”

  12. As someone who was just introduced to the longer term climate data uncovered by the greenland and antarctic ice core data, I am simply not understanding how we ever think we would have any control over the climate, at least on purpose.

    We should be thankful that the temps on earth have been relatively stable over the past 10k years, and hope to whatever deity you worship that the earth doesn’t decide to change the deal. That’s the best we can do in 2015.

    1. The earth has altered the deal, pray it doesn’t alter it further.

      1. No shit. Mass extinction events are the norm. We are one goo bout of volcanic activity or one really large meteor away from going back to living in caves, if any of us are around at all.

        1. The Fertile Crescent is now a desert. I guess man got into the carbon sin earlier than we thought.

          1. I stood at the point where the Royal Dock at Ur was… sand everywhere and a looooong way from the coast, now.

          2. So shouldn’t it be under the ocean now?

            1. Yeah, funny that not happening.

              Then – http://history-world.org/assyrianmap.jpg

              Now – http://www.new-church-lifeline…..slides/Map of ancient cities of UR etc.JPG

  13. “Many environmentalists oppose this research because they fear that humanity will choose to use it rather than give up cheap fossil fuels.”

    CHEAP FUELS?! The HORROR!!!!
    Slimy religious moralists…

    1. Talk about letting the mask slip. They fear that we will avoid the harm rather than give up our sinful ways. The point is to stop the sin not prevent the harm.

      It is a religion and a particularly stupid one at that.

      1. But how could we keep doing what we are doing now if it didn’t cause the bad effects? We’d still be living the same we are now!

        1. Auric, SpaceX fucked me this weekend with its non-launch of the Falcon 9 that I paid extra to see up close. Prepare a special comet for Mr. Musk.

          1. He did decline the full coverage…

            1. To the infamy of his name! To the utter damnation of his line!

      2. I still balk at the notion that environmentalists are essential misanthropic, but they tend to make that conclusion almost undeniable.

      3. Really, what is more stupid, believing that burning fossil fuels will cause the climate to change, or that some invisible man impregnated a virgin with the King of Heaven and Earth?

        Religion is stoopid. Period.

        Now that that is said, I really don’t give a shit what people believe, as long as they don’t try to force it on me. Especially if they try to use government to do it.

        1. They are both stupid, except that no one actually believes in the latter. But don’t let that stop you from thinking they do if it makes you feel good.

          1. I grew up in a Fundamentalist household and know plenty of people who believe the latter. Yes, some just go through the motions, but there are plenty of believers out there, regardless of how you feel.

            1. It is funny how a guy whose single rhetorical move is to yell “strawman” thinks that theism is the belief in an invisible man in the sky.

              I don’t know what to tell you other than you don’t understand religion and have made a choice not to understand it. If that makes you feel good, good for you.

              1. Condescend much?

                1. Condescend much?

                  Um, didn’t you refer to refer to the Christian god as “some invisible man” a few minutes ago? The lack of self-awareness is impressive, even for you.

              2. Sure John. You know better than I what I was taught about religion in a religious household while going to religious schools and religious churches for the first fifteen years of my life. Yeah, I’m so glad you are so superior that you can divine what I was taught and how I was raised. What would I ever do without your condescending wisdom.

                Ass.

                1. So you were raised by the uninformed?

                  He’s not invisible per se, and is not in the “sky”.

                  Zeus, they were thinking of Zeus…

                  Though I highly doubt they told you “invisible man in the sky” in those very words when you were anything other than very young. So, yes, strawman.

            2. Amazing how telling the truth causes the most angry reactions.

              Your lack of self-awareness is sooooo cute!

              1. Except that my reaction wasn’t angry. I just told you you don’t understand religion. You don’t. You portrayal of it is just a strawman.

  14. More analysis later, but these are reasonable recommendations.

    No, no they’re not.

    1. WHO CAN BE OPPOSED TO THESE REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS ON CLIMATE?

      NO ONE NEEDS A SEMI-AUTO RAIN CLOUD!

  15. Can’t wait for a supervolcano eruption and the attendant 99% wipeout of humanity from a new ice-age…

    1. “BUT THIS WASN’T IN OUR MODELS!!!!”

      1. Global warming caused the volcanoes to erupt and punish us for our sins!!

        That will be their explanation Monte, if there are any of them still alive.

        1. They have already tried to float that one.

          A warmer earth melts the ice-caps which changes the dynamics of plate tectonics……blah blah. Global warming causes volcanoes and earthquakes. See?

          1. Doughnuts Climate change, is there anything they it can’t do?

  16. The Committee recommends an albedo modification research program be developed and implemented that emphasizes multiple benefit research that also furthers basic understanding of the climate system and its human dimensions.

    Are they admitting that they really don’t have a basic understanding of the climate system?

    1. Nah. They just need more funding.

  17. If the ETC folks are right about the dangers of global warming, it is even more urgent that research into how to cool down the planet proceed.

    Why? Seriously, Ron, why must we cool the planet? So we cannot utilize more arable land in currently-frozen zones? So people on islands keep their homes at the expense of more land opening up?

    I’ve yet to see articulated why it is necessary to cool the planet if, and its a big if, man-made global warming is real. “Just because” isn’t a fucking answer.

    1. Because it’s not natural, that’s why. If climate was warming naturally, then that would be a good thing, a wonderful thing, for all the reasons you list and more.

      But because humans are causing it then it is terrible. And because Big Oil is making obscene profits off of people voluntarily purchasing their products. Making profits from mitigation efforts with money obtained by government coercion though, that’s noble.

    2. They can pump tons of money into cooling the planet, which won’t do jack shit, but they will claim that lack of global warming is evidence that it is working. Things would be so much worse without it. Besides, think of the jobs created or saved.

      We will always be at war with Eastasia.

    3. If the ETC folks are right about the dangers of global warming,

      That’s a pretty huge “if” to hang serious money off of.

      1. Yeah, but if they’re right then it’s The End Of The World!

  18. Some of these things are good ideas regardless of anyone’s position on global warming: planting trees, greening deserts. Even iron fertilization of the ocean should increase fish stocks, right? Much of the oceans are “deserts” due to lack of iron. More iron means more plankton means more fish.

    Also, the recent increase in CO2 seems to have increased vegetation around the world. Too rushed to find the reference right now.

      1. Yes. That’s the sort of thing that I suspect the alarmists are not taking into consideration.

    1. If they are good ideas, then someone other than the government (ie taxpayers) should pay for it.

      Why aren’t fishermen seeding the oceans for iron?

      1. I believe the answer to your last question is that 1) it’s not yet a proven technique, and 2) without property rights, they might be feeding fish for other fishermen to catch.

  19. my best friend’s sister makes $61 hourly on the computer . She has been without a job for 8 months but last month her income was $15147 just working on the computer for a few hours. this page…………..

    ????? http://www.netpay20.com

    1. Sorry, geoengineering research pays better.

  20. This article has been making the rounds in Facebook: http://www.iflscience.com/envi…..ared-earth

    The facebook comments are amazing. The brutal, merciless misanthropy, poorly cloaked in breathless yearnings for nature to “be healed” are something to behold. There are a few dissenters: “I came here to kick misanthropic ass and to chew bubblegum, and I’m all out of gum.”

    1. Seriously? You’re complaining about nasty comments on the internet? You ever read some of the comments posted here? They too are poorly cloaked in an attempt to defend libertarianism, but they are no less brutal.

      A tad too much pot/kettle in your take.

  21. Something I just remembered. What rarely gets mentioned when this subject comes up is that water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas. ~95% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor. That is all of natural origin and we shouldn’t do anything about that even if we could.

    CO2 is the next biggest one but the large majority of it is natural in origin. Man contributes 1% or less to atmospheric CO2. (numbers from memory)

    All or more than all of the anthropogenic CO2 could be captured and sequestered by simply planting fast-growing trees (camphor, sweet gum, princess trees, etc) that can grow in harsh environs, but that doesn’t facilitate shaking anyone down.

    1. FTA: Many environmentalists oppose this research because they fear that humanity will choose to use it rather than give up cheap fossil fuels.

      Carbon is sin. Big Oil is the devil because it makes obscene profits from this sin. Capturing carbon isn’t good enough. We must move away from our carbon-sinning lifestyle and go back to being one with Mother Earth, or we are all doomed.

      1. Just because you are incapable of anything but black/white thinking doesn’t mean everyone else is.

  22. seems Joni Mitchell had it right about cloud’s illusions.

  23. Many environmentalists oppose this research because they fear that humanity will choose to use it rather than give up cheap fossil fuels.

    Holy Fucking Shit, what a bunch of fucking morons.

    THIS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER!!! IT’LL BE A DISASTER!!!

    But, no, don’t research a way to mitigate things. That’ll encourage the wrong kind of behavior.

  24. If you are going to cite what NAS is suggesting, and they are, you should also say why they are suggesting such research. Its because in their opinion climate change due to man is advancing so rapidly that all options need to be considered now.

    “The signals are everywhere that our planet is experiencing significant climate change. It is clear that we need to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from our atmosphere if we want to avoid greatly increased risk of damage from climate change. Aggressively pursuing a program of emissions abatement or mitigation will show results over a timescale of many decades. How do we actively remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to make a bigger difference more quickly?”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.