Faculty of 1000

Post-publication peer review

“What about the oceans?” Climate change reversal scheme has its doubters

Posted by stevepog on 16 December, 2009

With most of the science media, green movement and world leader attention focused on Copenhagen and climate change right now, it would be remiss of us not to mention a new evaluation which looks at one of numerous papers promising new ways to tackle the greenhouse effect.

The reviewer, Robie Macdonald, from the Institute of Ocean Sciences in Canada, looked at a paper in Geophysical Research Letters that discussed stratospheric geoengineering as a way to curtail greenhouse gas emissions.

MacDonald said:

This paper estimates the costs of putting sufficient aerosols into the stratosphere to slow down or reverse global warming. For possibly as little as several billions of dollars per year, one might cool the planet, stall or reverse ice melting, thwart sea-level rise, and increase the terrigenous sink for CO2 through enhanced primary production.

MacDonald quite rightly has issues with this proposed technique, as it may on one hand help produce planet-cooling sulfate aerosols but on the negative, as Ars technica also reported, “it would also produce more droughts and worsen ozone depletion. And, crucially, it would do nothing to reverse ocean acidification”.

In a time when the media is not quite sure which side of the climate change `debate’ to be on and newspapers are running unchecked stories which deny climate change exists, alongside comment pieces from an unqualified former vice-Presidential candidate (Sarah Palin) to anti-skeptics (George Monbiot), stratospheric geoengineering could take off as the next big thing in climate change reversal (if there could ever be such a beast).

*By the way, the suggested methods of using military aircraft and artillery shells to save the planet sound a little too Armageddon for my liking.

Advertisements

3 Responses to ““What about the oceans?” Climate change reversal scheme has its doubters”

  1. zeitgeiber said

    This is an important drum to beat: knowing that a geoengineered world is not the same thing as a world with pre-industrial levels of CO2 is the only way to avoid the moral hazard of pursuing research into geoengineering.

    • stevepog said

      thanks for the support. It would be crazy to suggest that the world could be turned back to pre-industrial revolution or pre-civilisation greenery but its right that geoengineering shouldn’t be lumped in the same morality-laden boat with genetic engineering

  2. Tom Droste said

    As an American, I am so proud of Sarah Palin for what she is speaking out about. Have you read her book? I did and it is so informative. Do you think she will run in 2012? I hope so, I would volunteer for her campaign. Click here if you’d like to check out my site. Thank you again for a very educational web site. Have a great day!

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

 
%d bloggers like this: