The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Comes Out in Favor of Geoengineering

                                                        Only Geoengineering can produce Negative CO2 emissions

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the "gold standard" when it comes to scientific organizations studying climate change.  Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (along with Al Gore) in 2007, the IPCC was set up in 1998 and its work was subsequently endorsed by the entire UN General Assembly (Resolution 43/53).  

The scientific work of the IPCC is done in support of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The goal of the UNFCCC is to 

"stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic [i.e., human-induced] interference with the climate system"

The best known product of the UNFCCC is the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty where 192 nations pledged to make voluntary reductions in their CO2 emissions. The Kyoto Protocol expired in 2012, and efforts are underway to craft a new, post-Kyoto climate change treaty.

In a remarkable statement in 2013, however, the IPCC cast doubt on the effectiveness of the UN climate change treaty process and suggested that Geoengineering is needed to reverse Global Warming. The report said: 

"CO2-induced warming is projected to remain approximately constant for many centuries following a complete cessation of emission. A large fraction of climate change is thus irreversible on a human timescale, except if net anthropogenic CO2 emissions were strongly negative over a sustained period." 

The IPCC statement means that international treaties like the Kyoto Protocol can't possibly stop global warming. The only way to stop global warming is what the IPCC called "negative" CO2 emissions, i.e. the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. And the only way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere is through geoengineering.

My CO2 Antarctic Pumpdown geoengineering proposal would create negative CO2  emissions by adopting chemical processes commonly used to remove CO2 from the atmosphere in submarines and industrial sites.  The CO2 removed from the atmosphere would be stored in the Antarctic Ice Sheet.  Several other geoengineering concepts propose to do the same thing in other ways.   It can only help the field of geoengineering to have the IPCC officially come out in favor of "negative" CO2 emissions.

Political Pragmatism and Geoengineering

Realpolitik is a German word dating back to the time of Otto van Bismarck referring to the conduct of statecraft on the basis of necessity, practicality and pragmatism rather than ethics or morality. The sole goal of realpolitik is to solve problems-----whatever the answer or the process that must be undertaken to solve a problem, then that is what should be done, no matter how Machiavellian it might be.

Admiral David Titley recently gave a talk arguing the US government should be sponsoring studies of geoengineering for reasons that amount to a pragmatic, realpolitik view of geoengineering and the climate change issue.

Admiral Titley thinks the political pressure to "do something" about global climate change may grow significantly in the future, and the government would be wise to study geoengineering options now so as to avoid doing the "wrong" kind of geoengineering in the future in response to political pressure.

 “When something bad happens the pressure to do something will be enormous. It will be enormous on the administration, whosever administration. And if we don’t have the research to say, ‘Okay .... here are the risks, this will truly make things worse’—if you don’t know that, you may do it because you need to do something, and that would be a really dangerous place to be.”

Admiral Titley also worries that other countries or perhaps a private corporation or a terrorist group might try to geoengineer the climate.

 “If a country or a non-country acts to intervene in the climate, the president’s going to turn around to his science advisor and his national security staff and say, ‘Should I ignore this? Should I slap them on the wrist? Or should I tell them unless you cease and desist within 48 hours the full weight of the United States is going to be on them? What is the risk to our citizens and our country?’ And if we don’t know because we haven’t done the research, that puts our intelligence community, the president’s science advisor, the mission agencies ... in a very tough situation.” 

Finally, Admiral Titley speculates about a rapidly developing climate crisis  so severe that would irreparably damage the world's economy or its ecosystem.  In such a case it would be wise to have a viable geoenginering program ready to roll out on and implement on a moments notice.

 “The other component is climate emergency.....God help that we don’t get there, but we don’t know. 

 Indeed.  God help us if global warming becomes so severe that we have a global climate emergency.  And if God won't help us, then geoengineering may be the only other option.

How to Survive the Near Term Human Extinction Movement

                                                 What if Science Can't Save Us From Global Warming?


Does thinking about climate change make you sad or depressed?  Do you ever worry that climate change will cause the entire human species is about to go extinct?    If so, then you are a very special person and a candidate for the Near Term Human Extinction (NTHE) movement. 

 It turns out there are quite a number of people who are extremely unhappy  because they are worried that climate change is going to cause NTHE.  These sorrowful and dejected people are perennially downcast, despairing over the deep injustice of human caused climate change.  Some of these disconsolate souls are merely glum and gloomy, but others become doleful and inconsolably depressed.

Fortunately, there are therapists who specialize in treating people in the NTHE movement.  One of the leaders in this field is Carolyn Baker, who gives talks and workshops and has written several books on how to overcome the forlorn melancholy that inevitably accompanies those in the NTHE movement.   Carolyn's current workshop offering is entitled "The Gift of Grief in a Time of Endings".  Wow!  Even that title is depressing.

In the introduction to her workshop, Ms. Baker writes:

....since becoming familiar with NTHE, I am even more passionate and committing to assisting people in conscious grieving for the ....destruction of all life on earth.

Indeed the destruction of all life on earth would be a very sad thing,  and no wonder some people become woebegone, crestfallen, and heartbroken when they think about it.  I get sad just just thinking about how wretched, pitiful, and pathetic people in the NTHE movement must be as they contemplate the heartbreaking and harrowing fate of all life on earth.

But wait!  

What is that I see!  Over there!  I see someone hopeful!  I see someone with a plan!  He says there is some way out of this place!  Maybe we actually can do something about climate change!  Maybe we can think of a way to fix the planet?  Maybe we can stop global warming after all!

Maybe before people get so depressed about climate change that we all need therapists we should consider.............planetary geoengineering!

Is Climate Change to blame for Islamic Terrorism?

                                                                         Is climate change to blame?


A new study carried out by scientists at Columbia University shows that Syria is experiencing a severe drought.  The drought in Syria began in 2006 and is likely a product of global warming.  The scientists suggest that economic distress resulting from the drought helped trigger the civil war in Syria which in turn gave birth to the Islamic State.

At first the possibility of a link between climate change and the birth of the Islamic State and their particular brand of extremist terrorist seems a bit far-fetched.    Yes, computer modeling shows that global warming causes droughts, and yes, very severe droughts are now impacting many regions around the world from California to Australia to Brazil to India to the Middle East.  But surely it isn't fair to blame Islamic Terrorism on Global Warming when so many regions are suffering drought without giving rise to violent extremists?

Possibly not, but the general principle behind this idea is worth noting.  Global Warming is inevitably going to cause immense social disruptions in the future.  Global Warming is already producing extreme droughts, economic disruption and political stress around the world.  In the near future tens of millions of refugees will be displaced by rising sea levels, with many of these refugees coming from densely populated areas on deltas in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, China, Vietnam, and Africa.  And no doubt other unpleasant things will happen as the climate continues to rise.

There is no way to predict the exact societal effects of global warming.  In some places the social stresses from global warming may result in nothing more than lawsuits---in other places rebellions and  violent jihad may be born, and in some place we may see wars between states over water and other natural resources.

Yes, climate change will be to blame for triggering these problems.

Lyndon Johnson and the 50th Anniversary of Geoengineering

                                                        LBJ's Great Society didn't include Geoengineering


The idea of Geoengineering was first proposed 50 years ago.  In 1964 Manabe and Strickler first noted that intentionally injecting "freezing nuclei" into the upper atmosphere would create more clouds and reflect solar radiation back into space.  Just one year later in 1965 a report on the environment commissioned by President Lyndon Johnson noted the work of Manabe and Stricker, and said:

This potential method of bringing about climate change needs to be investigated as a possible tool for modifying atmospheric circulation in ways that might counteract the effects of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The report commissioned by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965 is a remarkable document to see 50 years later, because it lays out many of the consequences of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere that we are facing today.   The 1965 report starts out by warning that significant global warming will inevitably occur if CO2 emissions aren't curtailed, and goes on to note that this will cause glaciers and ice sheets to melt, sea level will rise dramatically, and the ocean and other waters will become warmer and more acidic.

LBJ was probably too busy with the war in Vietnam to personally read this report, but his administration responded to the suggestions of scientists that geoengineering needed to be investigated as a way to counteract global warming in the same way that all subsequent presidents have done---he ignored it.  Even today when the global warming issue is much much more prominent then it was 50 years ago, there is almost no research support for geoengineering.

Its interesting to note that the 1964 report says nothing about reductions of CO2 emissions---the authors assumed that CO2 emissions into the atmosphere were inevitable in the modern global economy.  However, since the 1980s the main effort to combating global warming has gone into voluntary efforts to reduce fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions like the Kyoto Accords.  These are well-meaning efforts, but after decades of this approach its clear that this approach has failed to reduce global CO2 emissions.  In fact, the data shows that global CO2 emissions have actually increased significantly since the Kyoto accords were adopted in 1992.    These facts suggest that now, on the 50th anniversary of the idea of geoengineering,  its time for the federal government to reassess and to begin to investigate various kinds of geoengineering concepts as "possible tools ... that might counteract the effects of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide."

Let's Rename Geoengineering Something Like "Climate Improvement"

                                                                               

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about the move to change the name of global warming to something like "pollution death" in an attempt to make it sound scarier. Now some scientists are suggesting changing the name of geoengineering to something less scary.

The concern is that the word geoengineering is frightening  and confusing, and also gives the wrong impression about what exactly what us planetary geoengineers are considering doing. The problem, some say, is that the term "geo" refers to the earth rather than just to climate, and the word engineering conjures up images of an engineer designing a bridge or a man operating a train---something that is much simpler than the complex global climate system. Professor Raymond Pierrehumbert recently wrote:

“Engineering is something you do to a system you understand very well, where you can try out new techniques thoroughly at a small scale before staking peoples’ lives on them.....Hacking the climate is different—we have only one planet to live on, and can’t afford any big mistakes.”

Personally, I like the term geoengineering----most geoengineering ideas involve modifying or augmenting some natural earth process in the ocean, land, biosphere or atmosphere, and so clearly involve the earth. Other geoengineering concepts involve storing CO2 in some natural repository in the Earth. For instance, my own CO2 Antarctic Pumpdown geoengineering proposal would store the CO2 in the cryosphere. The term "geo" therefore perfectly fits the actual nature of geoengineering. And as far as the term engineering----one definition of engineering is the scientific manipulation of large systems.  Its exactly right.

Still, if we are going to stop using the term "geoengineering" lets be smart about the term we replace it with.  Some scientists who want the term "geoengineering" to be abandoned have suggesting replacing it with “climate intervention.” However the term "climate intervention" is even more misleading, in my opinion. "Climate Intervention" sounds like our good friend Mr. Climate has had too much to drink again and is falling down the stairs so we are going to do a "climate intervention" and put Mr. Climate in a cab and take him to a detox clinic.

If we are going to replace geoengineering with something less scary, then we can find a phrase that's better than "climate intervention".  We want a term that describes the process of manipulating Earth's climate in a way that sounds harmless and helpful and friendly and inviting.  We want a term that nobody can say they are against.  And I've thought of the perfect term----lets replace geoengineering with the term "climate improvement."

How could anyone be against climate improvement*?

*pssst---just don't tell anyone that it actually means "geoengineering".

A Good Reason to Drop Everything and go Snorkeling in Australia

                                                                      You'll be sorry when it's gone....
Go right now.  

Go to your closet, find your snorkeling gear, dust it off, pack it up with a sunhat, your swimsuit and  flip flops, buy a plane ticket, fly to the western Pacific and settle into a bungalow by a tropical beach.  Then wake up, get on your swimsuit, walk out to the beach,  put on your snorkeling gear and flippers, and slip into the water.   Swim out a bit, stop, spit in your mask and poke it around with your finger until the glass is clear, put the mask back on and adjust it so fits well, and then swim out farther.  When you get to the reef, put your head down and dive down to look at the coral and the fish.  See how many colors you can find---red, yellow, orange, purple, mauve, blue.  Then find even more colors.

Go right now or it might be too late.

Go to Hawaii and Palau and Australia and Tahiti and New Guinea and the Phillipines.  Go to the Coral Sea Islands.  Go to the U.S. Virgin Islands.  Go to the Red Sea.  Go to Aruba, Bonaire, Antigua and the Cayman Islands.  Go to the Line Islands, Belize, New Caledonia, Andros and Nassau.  Go to the Zhongshan Island, the Great Chagos Bank, Saya Del Malha and the Reed Bank.   Go now. 

A global coral bleaching event is going on right now. The world reached a record warm temperature in 2014, and the oceans are now so warm that corals can't take it. The corals are stressed, vast areas of corals are bleaching and losing their colors, and some corals will die. Small, local coral bleaching events happen every few years, but this coral bleaching event will be global. It will be the worst coral bleaching event in 20 years.

Bleaching started months ago on reefs in the Northern Marianas Islands, Guam, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Hawaii, Kiribati and Florida. Right now bleaching is going on in the Southern Pacific Ocean, including on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef.

What are you waiting for?  We're in the middle of a massive global coral bleaching event, and even stronger bleaching events are likely to occur in future years as global warming intensifies---doesn't it make you want to put on your snorkeling gear and paddle out to a coral reef to see the incredible colors of the corals and the fish right now?