Geo-Engineering - That's why they call it Re-Search....

[Junkdrawer]

So it turns out that this guy David Keith has been asking the very questions I've been asking - in greater depth - for a much longer time.

It's a long view, but it's hideously important because you KNOW that if/when we start a rapid descent to Climate Hell, this will be tried and probably with nothing like the research it demands.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Cliff's notes please.

I do, but not everyone else has access to video.

Would love an overview.

TIA

[Junkdrawer]

3. See the TED lecture transcript below....

Geoengineering has been known since 1965.

It's fast, relatively cheap, but under-researched and full of moral hazard. And it does nothing for ocean acidification.

But it's time to take it from the shadows and examine it carefully.

[Junkdrawer]

2. There's a shorter TED lecture w/transcript at this link

http://blog.ted.com/2007/11/13/david_keith/

[RobertEarl]

4. if/when....??? Ha

We are well past the "if" stage and as for the when stage that is NOW.

If we stopped adding the co2 today it would be fifty years before the effect from yesterday would level out.

I hate to tell you this, but it is too late. It has been too late for years now.

[Junkdrawer]

5. Then you understand Critical Threshold:

&feature=player_embedded

At 34:30 (Whole thing is well worth a watch)

[Shared Humanity]

6. Hubris

I think that global shading could be a geo-engineering approach to mitigate global warming. Having said this, to think that we can engineer a solution to global warming in some sort of controlled fashion is hubris, something with which humanity is well endowed.

No good would come of this effort.

I've worked in manufacturing my entire life. The desired state for any manufacturing system or process is "in control and in spec". When a process begins to drift due to some shift in an input, you will find yourself "in control but out of spec". If you have a great deal of process knowledge and can identify the input that has changed, you can bring this input back to its desired value and arrive back to "in control and in spec". If the changed input cannot be brought back to its original value, there is one other option. Having an in depth knowledge of all process variables, including their interactions with each other, would allow for careful changes in other inputs that would bring the system back to “in control and in spec”.This is a lot easier than it sounds and engineers get paid big money to acquire this level of process knowledge. Without this knowledge, simply monkeying with the system or process will quickly deliver you to "out of control, out of spec". We do not have the requisite climate process knowledge to engineer a solution. Monkeying with the process would be a disaster.

[XemaSab]

7. Welcome to DU!

May I ask how you found us?

[Tikki]

8. HI Shared Humanity...Welcome to DU..

Look forward to more of your insightful posts...

Tikki

[Junkdrawer]

9. SRM is hubris, unquestionably dangerous, and will almost certainly have unanticipated side effects..

but it may be necessary.

Ain't that the shits?

That's why I want it to be studied to DEATH before we even think about deploying.

[pscot]

10. We're the tool monkeys

We've been inadvertently "monkeying with the system" for several hundred years. Our inputs have driven the system dangerously out of spec and now we're on the verge of a complete loss of control.

[AverageJoe90]

11. Not quite....we can control this, but it IS a matter of when we get our acts together.

It may very well be true that we may possibly pass, or have passed, the threshold, where keeping warming down to +2*C by the end of this century, but it certainly doesn't mean that things are, or will ever be, out of our control.

What it does tell us, though, is that the longer we wait, the worse things WILL get. And telling people that we can't stop it, is not only not helping us, but the people causing the problem are gladly taking advantage of it.

And given the quite frankly, horrible, run of bad luck these past few years, it may just be a proverbial roll of the dice that determines whether we see +2*C warmth by 2080....or 2040(could be the latter if the methane feedbacks do get significantly worse). Unfortunately, it IS somewhat possible we could perhaps see a 3-4*C increase by this next century even if significant steps are taken to mitigate, halt, and even reverse, this tragic trend.....around 4.5-5*C if little is done; and maybe even 6, 7, or even 8*C if it ends up being business as usual, or even worse, AND we see most, or all of the plausible feedback theories come to life(the former is, thankfully, becoming increasingly less and less likely as more people wake up, but we still have an uphill battle to face!).

Which is why need to keep pushing, and acting. Every individual effort, when possible, really does help.