National Academy of Sciences: Climate Intervention Reports » Climate Change at the National Academies

[Alex Brown]

(This is a long post -- sorry!)

"Geo-engineering" has become "Climate Intervention" ... a sign of Climate Change at the National Academies.  

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/public-release-event-climate-intervention-reports/

Climate intervention is no substitute for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions and adaptation efforts aimed at reducing the negative consequences of climate change. However, as our planet enters a period of changing climate never before experienced in recorded human history, interest is growing in the potential for deliberate intervention in the climate system to counter climate change. This study assesses the potential impacts, benefits, and costs of two different proposed classes of climate intervention: (1) carbon dioxide removal and (2) albedo modification (reflecting sunlight). Carbon dioxide removal strategies address a key driver of climate change, but research is needed to fully assess if any of these technologies could be appropriate for large-scale deployment. Albedo modification strategies could rapidly cool the planet’s surface but pose envi­ronmental and other risks that are not well understood and therefore should not be deployed at climate-altering scales; more research is needed to determine if albedo modification approaches could be viable in the future.

No, it's not likely that our current record WINTER!!! episode in the Northeast US is due to a quiet "Climate Intervention" experiment gone awry!   Instead, it's a very good example of why we must say "climate change", not "global warming"!

It's more likely the result of a known but poorly understood consequence of the melting of the Arctic Ocean, the "Polar Vortex" effect of variability in the atmosphere's Northern Hemisphere Jet Stream, which previously was confined mostly to high latitudes by the "Polar Front", one of the effects of extremely cold polar air masses.  Climate change in the Arctic and its meteorological consequences was the subject of the talk given by Dr Jennifer Francis, Research Professor at the Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University (http://marine.rutgers.edu/~francis) in the 2013 UMass-Lowell Climate Change Initiative "Teach-in" event.  Dr Francis is an interdisciplinary researcher in oceanography, meteorology, and Arctic science, whose 2012 paper with Stephen Vavrus (U.Wisconsin-Madison) continues to be highly influential in those scientific fields, and in whatever remains of science and environmental journalism (e.g. in the Washington Post, 20 Nov 2014).  Several web resources provide a technical introduction:

• See Francis, J. A. and S. J. Vavrus, 2012: Evidence Linking Arctic Amplification to Extreme Weather in Mid-Latitudes, Geophys. Res. Lett., Vol. 39, L06801, doi:10.1029/2012GL051000 PDF; 
  
• Also a series of entries providing a layman's introduction to the Jet Stream on the blog Skeptical Science,
  
• And a blog series on "Arctic Oscillation" by Prof. Ricky Rood on Weather Underground which cites this important paper.   
  
• An explanation of the "Arctic Oscillation" between a strong Polar Vortex condition (typical, historical cold Arctic Ocean) and weak Polar Vortex (atypical, present warmed Arctic Ocean) is at http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1967#ao-nao; 
  
• An illustration showing the typical and atypical paths of the Jet Stream is combined at http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/jet.jpg. 
• Dr Francis explains this "Arctic Amplification" in fairly technical presentation for atmospheric scientists and meteorologists in a YouTube video linked in that Washington Post article.
  
• While maps of Arctic Ocean ice in visible light often don't show dramatic change over recent decades, Dr Francis' 2013 talk at UML included an animation of maps of sea ice age classification from 1987 through mid-August 2012 which clearly shows the Arctic Ocean's old, thick ice cover diminishing as it empties through the Fram Strait to the North Atlantic, where it meets the wind-driven warm, saline Gulf Stream warming Europe at the surface -- cooling it rapidly.  The cooled saline water's density increases enough that it descends rapidly to the ocean floor to become the North Atlantic Deep Water mass, which flows through the ocean basins of the world, to upwell in the North Pacific after about 1000 years.  This is the "thermohaline circulation (THC)" or "meridional overturning circulation (MOC)".
  

I have some comments here, partly based on "The Discovery of Global Warming", a web hyperlinked history of climate change science by Spencer Weart (American Institute of Physics):

1. This set of effects was largely unknown and unanticipated even by atmospheric scientists until about 2010.
2. The THC/MOC ocean circulation was unknown until oceanography was able to clearly identify water masses and their motion, in the early 1970s.
3. Oceanographer Wallace Broecker, who developed the idea of a global "conveyor belt" driven by the THC/MOC, linking the circulation of the global ocean, and who coined the phrase "global warming" in 1975, and who has been described as a "geoengineering pioneer", wrote about unpredictability of the planet's climate system:
• "We have clear evidence that different parts of the earth's climate system are linked in very subtle yet dramatic ways. The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth's climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches. Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change."
4. Most scientists believe that all geoengineering as discussed in these National Academy of Sciences reviews has "risks that are not well understood and therefore should not be deployed at climate-altering scales".
5. This description of what is presently known about the planet's climate systems and these risks of "deployment at climate-altering scales" is likely beyond the comprehension of most citizens who are aware and concerned about anthropogenic climate change.
6. The mass of legislators and elected decision makers in the United States are now neither aware of the facts of climate science, nor concerned.
7. Many industrial decision makers in the United States are aware but actively hostile to the facts of climate science for business interest reasons, supporting propaganda in opposition to climate science, and often science itself.
   

Are we faced with an insoluble public education problem?  I've been trying to distill the facts above about our winter weather, into a two-minute "elevator pitch" on "climate change, not global warming".   No luck so far!

On Monday, February 9^th, 2015, the White House honored eight local heroes who are “Champions of Change for Climate Education and Literacy”, in the Climate Education and Literacy Initiative, launched by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), which focused on connecting Americans of all ages with the best-available, science-based information about climate change -- and among them was UML's Prof. David Lustick.  From the White House press release:

• David Lustick, Associate Professor of Science Education, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Nashua, NH
• David Lustick is an Associate Professor of Science Education at the University of Massachusetts Lowell’s Graduate School of Education, where he conducts research on adult learning and climate-change communication.  As Principal Investigator on two informal-science learning projects, David leads a team of interdisciplinary professionals who are all dedicated to engaging communities with climate science.  Cool Science displays K-12 student artwork about climate change throughout the local transit authority in Lowell, MA.  ScienceToGo.org is a multi-faceted learning campaign on the Boston Subway featuring “Ozzie the Ostrich,” who engaged Bostonians with the reality, relevance, and hope associated with climate change.  Both projects utilize out-of-home media and social networks to engage the riding public with science-learning opportunities during their daily routines.

I want to commend Prof Lustick on his simple but effective campaign to alert citizens of all ages to the depth and complexity of the problems we face in even discussing climate change science in today's political and cultural environment.  I'm grateful to be associated with UML, and with David and other faculty and students participating in the Climate Change Initiative, who are all struggling with this problem.

--
Alex_...@uml.edu
http://faculty.uml.edu/abrown
(978) 934-3199 desk
(617) 308-9456 mobile

[Alex Brown]

I wrote: 

"Geo-engineering" has become "Climate Intervention" ... a sign of Climate Change at the National Academies.   
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/public-release-event-climate-intervention-reports/

This pair of reports declares clearly that curbing emissions is necessary, but recognizes debate over emergency response to failure of the global energy industry to respond;  it contrasts "Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)" and sequestration as relatively benign, but very expensive and slow, compared with "Albedo Modification", injection of aerosols and particulates into the atmosphere, which has large risks.

The growing problem of changing environmental conditions caused by climate destabilization is well recognized as one of the defining issues of our time. The root problem is greenhouse gas emissions, and the fundamental solution is curbing those emissions. Climate geoengineering has often been considered to be a "last-ditch" response to climate change, to be used only if climate change damage should produce extreme hardship. Although the likelihood of eventually needing to resort to these efforts grows with every year of inaction on emissions control, there is a lack of information on these ways of potentially intervening in the climate system.

The issues are explained briefly with sufficient technical detail in a summary preface shared by both reports:

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/climate-intervention-brief-final.pdf

Some background and a parallel British study are also described in a Guardian article today:

Scientists urge global 'wake-up call' to deal with climate change
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/10/geoengineering-should-not-be-used-as-a-climate-fix-yet-says-us-science-academy

emphasizes

The two-volume report, produced over 18 months by a team of 16 scientists, was far more guarded than a similar British exercise five years ago which called for an immediate injection of funds to begin research on climate-altering interventions.  The scientists were so sceptical about geo-engineering that they dispensed with the term, opting for “climate intervention”. Engineering implied a measure of control the technologies do not have, the scientists said.

That British report from a Royal Society commission (https://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2009/geoengineering-climate/) also emphasizes the fundamental need for a transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, and contrasts CDR with "Solar Radiation Management (SRM)", but does recognize these as planetary engineering proposals and goes on to discuss the governance and control procedures necessary to begin research and development.

Key recommendations:  

• Parties to the UNFCCC should make increased efforts towards mitigating and adapting to climate change, and in particular to agreeing to global emissions reductions of at least 50% on 1990 levels by 2050 and more thereafter. Nothing now known about geoengineering options gives any reason to diminish these efforts;  
• Further research and development of geoengineering options should be undertaken to investigate whether low risk methods can be made available if it becomes necessary to reduce the rate of warming this century. This should include appropriate observations, the development and use of climate models, and carefully planned and executed experiments.

For what it's worth, Bill Gates is a supporter of geoengineering (and nuclear power). 

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/bill-gates-the-rolling-stone-interview-20140313

We're heading for big trouble, right? 

Absolutely. That's why I happen to think we should explore geo-engineering.­ But one of the complaints people have against that is that if it looks like an easy out, it'll reduce the political will to cut emissions. If that's the case, then, hey, we should take away heart surgery so that people know not to overeat. I happened to be having dinner with Charles Koch last Saturday, and we talked a little bit about climate change.

And what was the conversation like? 

He's a very nice person, and he has this incredible business track record. He was pointing out that the U.S. alone can't solve the problem, and that's factually correct.  But you have to view the U.S. doing something as a catalyst for getting China and others to do things. The atmosphere is the ultimate commons. We all benefit from it, and we're all polluting it. ...

An easy out for politicans would mean successful completion of a classic business plan formulated by Fred Koch and his family when the limits to fossil fuel based growth were analyzed and published by M.King Hubbert in 1948.  I remember the International Geophysical Year (IGY) of 1957 as the dawn of the Space Age but was too young to understand its greater significance.  Charles Keeling's publication of observed change in atmospheric CO2 followed in 1960.

[Alex Brown]

Union of Concerned Scientists Webinar

Climate Intervention: National Research Council Reports

Register Today

You are invited to a webinar briefing on two recently released reports from the National Research Council. Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration and Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth. Date: Friday, February 27 Time: 2:30-3:30 p.m. EST Presenters: Dr. Marcia McNutt, editor-in-chief, Science, and former director of the U.S. Geological Survey Dr. David W. Titley, director, Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk, Pennsylvania State University, and former rear admiral of the U.S. Navy Moderated by Dr. Brenda Ekwurzel, UCS senior climate scientist. http://action.ucsusa.org/site/Survey?SURVEY_ID=28842&ACTION_REQUIRED=URI_ACTION_USER_REQUESTS&autologin=true&rtgro=

[Alex Brown]

I wrote: 

No, it's not likely that our current record WINTER!!! episode in the Northeast US is due to a quiet "Climate Intervention" experiment gone awry! 

But today ...

Spy agencies fund climate research in hunt for weather weapon, scientist fears

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/15/spy-agencies-fund-climate-research-weather-weapon-claim

A senior US scientist has expressed concern that the intelligence services are funding climate change research to learn if new technologies could be used as potential weapons. ...