Posters note - insightful op ed piece from a researcher's perspective A
http://www.gpem.uq.edu.au/index.html?page=184787&pid=114392 Climate Engineering ICCP2012 What do the Aral Sea and cane toads have in common? Both were environmental engineering projects that caused a bigger problem than they solved. Will “climate engineering” (CE) be any different?I took some of my PhD study to the International Conference on Clouds and Precipitation (ICCP) at the Leipzig University, Germany in August 2012. This conference happens every four years and is the domain of atmospheric scientists researching aerosol-cloud-rainfall interactions. After a busy five days the last session plenary, ever mindful of the enormity, tentatively considered an ICCP position on CE. The plenary convener started with a quote attributed to Einstein; “No problem can be solved from the same level of thinking that created it”. The opening question “who believes carbon reduction alone will mitigate anthropogenic climate change” was designed to elicit a response – and maybe it was peer group dynamics at work – but not a hand went up. What follows are some of my observations of the briefing and related discussion.Assuming global warming can’t be reversed by an immediate reduction of green house gases because of the lack of political will, the question is - what options can the atmospheric science community offer? These boiled down to (1) proceed with whatever fossil fuel reductions are socially palatable – and “adapt as best you can”; (2) CO2 removal; (3) space shields - although spoken of near words meaning “impossible”; and (4) solar radiation management:stratospheric aerosol injection – something not further discussed and clearly not on an ICCP agenda;marine, warm phase, stratiform cloud brightening by aerosol injection thus reflecting short wave solar radiation – a net cooling effect; andnon-tropical cirrus, ice phase cloud reduction also by aerosol injection, thus allowing thermal radiation to escape to space – also a net cooling effect (the option that would appear to have the “consent by plenary murmur” – clearly early days).Discussion centred on the reasons why the ICCP might endorse research into CE as opposed to considering operational projects: (1) garnering information to inform debate on the best economic option; (2) preparing to respond to a climate emergency - something that could happen within 50 years; (3) buying time to transition to a non-carbon economy; (4) a realistic recognition that green house gas mitigation may be no longer possible; and that on balance, (5) scientists do objective studies devoid of commercial imperatives.On the other hand the plenary thought of some reasons why ICCP might not support research into CE. The meeting was concerned that strongly endorsed research would send the wrong message. For example, applicable research might be used before its ready and there is a moral hazard that attention might be drawn away from the mitigation action that is still entirely necessary in any event.Speakers made a few related comments – some of which were quite poignant. It is highly likely that the research findings may well be too costly or risky or just not feasible. Adaptation activity is now unavoidable. Much was made of the need to fully and openly communicate any ICCP endorsed research activity. Research should focus on exploiting natural analogues and finding out how they work - volcanic eruptions and dust storms for example. It was intriguing to find out that there are international laws that prohibit countries from changing other countries climate. Numerical weather and global climate models need to be vastly improved.The process of any mooted research got an airing – with comments centring on the need to engage in large field trials only after convincing the scientific community and the public of the need. Any climate interference should start with reversible small steps in time and space and, if that’s positive, then increase the scale, and if that proves useful then, and only then, fund operational projects – essentially “do no harm”. It was ruefully observed that it would help to decide how to measure any results first and frankly, while some previous weather modification trials were done well – others were done badly and there is no leeway to launch a “bad” CE experience.I was left with three impressions. Firstly, most of the floor discussion that followed was about the merits of avoiding the words “climate engineering” - it shows that engagement in the topic is difficult. Secondly, conversations around the idea of “stewardship” or reducing our energy and resource use footprint in this so-called anthropocene era, is assumed not worth having. And, cane toads – can you eat them? Michael Hewson PhD candidate Climate Research Group | Centre for Spatial Environmental ResearchThe University of Queensland | Brisbane Q 4072 | [email protected] | +61 (0)408 379 373 Last updated: Sep 6, 2012 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
