Breaking News

Seminar addresses global warming

Science professor criticizes proposed solutions to environmental problems

By Brian Lewis-Jones

Monday, March 12, 2007

Imagine giant mirrors that orbit the earth to reflect solar radiation. Picture-reflective aerosols shot by cannons into the polar area atmosphere to help grow ice sheets. What about a human-created volcano that pumps sulfur oxides through a giant hose stretching 25 miles above the earth?

These are just a few of the ficticious-sounding theories to quell global warming, proposed by some geoengineers who have a vision to control nature, said James Fleming, professor of science, technology and society at Colby College in Waterville, Maine.

Fleming’s seminar on Friday afternoon, “The Weather and Climate Engineers: Fantasies of Control,” which took place at the Hall Center for the Humanities, tossed around radical ideas of human intervention of global warming — and their unrealistic qualities.

“There’s a gut-level sense that something’s not right here,” Fleming said.

He described geoengineering as an insurance policy that could buy time if society waited to reduce carbon dioxide emissions until it was too late.

He said many geoengineer’s answers to global warming have the possibility of screwing up the environment on a large level — “almost like a Hiroshima effect,” he said.

These radical proposals would attempt to decrease incoming solar radiation by up to 2 percent to provide short-term offsets to long-term heating gains from greenhouse gasses, like driving a truck with one foot on the gas and one on the brake, Fleming said.

pullquote

Basically, temperature is not off the charts yet, but models show that it will be.

-James Fleming, professor at Colby College

“Basically, temperature is not off the charts yet,” he said, “but models show that it will be.”

Brian Drake, lecturer in humanities and western civilization, was one member of the 15-person crowd that attended the seminar. He said most climate reports and proposals seemed idealistic, using military technology and yet-to-be-created technology.

Past proposals also included an increase in forest land to counteract a rise in carbon dioxide levels. However, these biological solutions had their limitations, such as the extent of arable land and water deficiency to keep the sprawling forests alive, Fleming said.

While scientists warn of an impending “tipping point” in the climate system, the general public is also nearing a sociological one that will allow clean energy solutions to be seen as the norm rather than an alternative, Fleming said. Geoengineers can also use the “tipping point” as a ticket to intervene, he said.

Fleming said the planet needed an eco-technic future, which means using environmentally-friendly technology in order to minimize the human influence on global warming. He said history, ethics, science and public policy needed to interact as equal partners to understand the full dimensions of global warming.

Kansan staff writer Brian Lewis-Jones can be contacted at bljones@kansan.com.

— Edited by Katie Sullivan

Comments

dobermanmacleod (anonymous) says...

It is unlikely that mankind will significantly cut their GHG emissions in the short term.

A growing and developing population is likely to increase their GHG emissions (expected to double by mid-century), not so severely cut them so fast as to avoid runaway global warming.

Nature now soaks up about half of mankind's CO2 emissions, but that is expected to reduce 30% by 2030. Furthermore, as the world heats up, carbon sinks will become carbon emitters.

In other words, whatever reasonable cuts we can expect mankind to make in their GHG emissions, they will be overwhelmed by nature.

In particular is melting methane hydrate. Incredibly, hydrate contains twice the carbon of all fossil fuel, and whereas fossil fuel needs to be burned to emit GHG, hydrate needs only to melt.

Briefly, carbon in the soil is "eaten" by microbes, and in the absence of oxygen the microbes emit methane (CH4). Some of that methane gets trapped in ice called hydrate.

There is about 400 billion tons of methane trapped in permafrost hydrate (20% of the land on earth is permafrost). 50% of the surface permafrost is expected to melt by 2050, and over 90% by 2100.

A sudden release of less than 30 billion tons of methane would be like doubling the CO2 in the air.

Worse, there is an estimated 10,000 billion tons of methane hydrate under the ocean. Substancial quantities of this has melted before with catastrophic results (55 million years ago-the PETM ushered in the Age of Mammals, and 250 million years ago-the "Great Dying" killed most life on earth).

In other words, the carbon cycle has been upset before (possibly by volcanic eruptions), causing a chain reaction. Mankind's GHG emissions are over 30 times stronger a trigger than past severe runaway global warming events. This means the chain reaction will happen sooner, unfold faster, and therefore be much, much more severe.

And some suggest adapation?

To summarize, the mitigation strategy of human GHG emission cuts is implausible, because soon runaway global warming makes them too little, too late. Furthermore, past runaway globa warming events make adapation implausible, because the climate change is too severe.

Therefore, the only meaningful solution is to remove the CO2 from the air after it has been emitted. Nature already does this but we are overwhelming her ability to cope.

I suggest improving nature's ability to absorb CO2 with genetic engineering. Perhaps seeding a GMO into the ocean.

March 12, 2007 at 3:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Advertisement