Share
Jason Ford
News editor
Geoengineering may be feasible but is it worthwhile?
As film scenarios go, this seems pretty hackneyed but might turn a profit. The premise sees Earth warming gradually, threatening mankind with untold catastrophes unless quick, radical solutions can be found. Luckily, a bunch of scientists have seen this coming and have devised a series of interventions to avert said disasters.
It sound feasible and could make for a night out at the cinema save for the fact that many scientists see this situation as very real and in need of some quick and radical solutions.
The National Snow and Ice Data Center reported earlier this week that levels of Arctic sea ice are the lowest since satellite recording began.
They say that the extent of sea ice fell to 4.10 million square kilometres on August 26, which was 70,000 square kilometres below the September 18, 2007 daily extent of 4.17 million square kilometres.
An even larger loss of sea ice is expected in the coming weeks as the Arctic melt season draws to an end from mid-to-late September.
The ever-reliable Science Media Centre (SMC) drew comment from scientists who put this event into context.
‘The consequences are enormous and represent a huge boost to global warming from two sources: the reduction in global albedo caused by the replacement of ice by open water, and an acceleration of methane release into the atmosphere as the warm open water causes seabed permafrost to melt,’ said Prof Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Physics at Cambridge University.
Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science, added: ‘Polar scientists agree that it is the rise in global average temperature, driven by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, that is driving this rapid loss of Arctic ice.
‘Not only is this having a big impact on Arctic wildlife…but the rapid loss in sea ice is accelerating global warming. Ice reflects more sunlight than sea water, so more heat is being absorbed, increasing the amount of warming.’
Prof Wadhams believes an interim measure to reverse the trend could involve geoengineering, whereby science devises methods of deliberately manipulating an environmental process that affects the earth’s climate. He added that techniques, such as whitening low-level clouds should be ‘investigated with the utmost urgency.’
As recently as August 20 Rob Wood, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Washington, described a possible way to run an experiment to test the concept of marine cloud brightening on a small scale. The clouds would reflect sunlight and, theoretically, counter global warming.
In May this year a SPICE (Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering) field study was cancelled, due in part to ‘governance, intellectual property and public engagement’.
SPICE was designed to investigate the feasibility of spraying a shield of sulphate particles into the stratosphere and was inspired by volcanoes and the way they can affect the climate after eruptions.
SPICE has had its problems but a report out today suggests that similar solar radiation management (SRM) projects are feasible and affordable.
Published in Environmental Research Letters, the study has shown that the basic technology currently exists and could be assembled and implemented in a number of different forms for less than $5bn a year.
According to a statement from IOP Publishing, researchers from Aurora Flight Sciences, Harvard University and Carnegie Mellon University performed an engineering cost analysis on six systems capable of delivering 1-5 million metric tonnes of material to altitudes of 18-30 km: existing aircraft, a new airplane designed to perform at altitudes up to 30km, a new hybrid airship, rockets, guns and suspended pipes carrying gas or slurry to inject the particles into the atmosphere.
Based on existing research into solar radiation management, the researchers performed their cost analyses for systems that could deliver around one million tonnes of aerosols each year at an altitude between 18 and 25km and between a latitude range of 30°N and 30°S.
Despite the findings, the researchers point out that reducing sunlight won’t reduce concentrations of greenhouse gasses or the resulting increase in the acid content of the oceans, a line endorsed by Friends of the Earth who concur that injecting aerosols could bring down global temperatures but with ‘very significant unknown risks to global weather systems and food production.’
Wood urges caution too, saying geoengineering is essentially a ‘quick fix’ when a move to a low-carbon economy would be preferable.
The final word goes to Prof John Shepherd FRS, chair of the Royal Society’s Geoengineering the Climate report.
Speaking in response to today’s Cost analysis of stratospheric albedo modification delivery systemsreport he said: ‘Few of us like the idea of taking purposeful action to manipulate the climate of our world, with great uncertainty about the potential side effects.
‘However, it is vital to undertake assessments like this of geoengineering options, given humanity’s current unfettered appetite for burning fossil fuels.’
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (17)
pdh | 31 Aug 2012 1:31 pm
Okay, let's see....does climate change effect everyone on the planet? Of course. So the question now becomes who is the better arbiter of climate change, which is going to happen NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, the Earth itself or politicians? For one thing, while I greatly respect scientists and their multitudinous data machines and their assessments of geothermic threats, I am less than enthusiastic about the consequences of artificially altering the climate when there is absolutely no way to ultimately determine the consequences of such intervention. But let's just say for the sake of argument that scientists could come up with a way to actually alter the planetary climate to suit themselves. Do you think for one minute that politics would not enter into it? And if politics enters into it, then do you think for one minute that corporate interests who own politicians will not have their say just as they do everything else? Do we really want the same people screwing around with the entire planet's climate "for the good of all" to be the same people who gave us the TSA?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
gabe wikipil | 31 Aug 2012 1:43 pm
Listen to Prof John Shepherd!
"Earth warming gradually, threatening mankind with untold catastrophes unless quick, radical solutions can be found."
If we do something without really understanding what drives climate change we might end up like the overgrown forests that became tinder boxes as a result of fighting every little fire for a century.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57476121/aggressive-fire-suppression-leaves-west-a-tinderbox-making-mega-fires-worse/
If you look at the satellite data, it is obvious that, we had not warmed for a decade, just stayed about the same or even cooled a little. Globally i mean. The US is only 2% of the Earth's surface! We cannot generalize from local data to the global situation.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paul Reeves | 31 Aug 2012 1:46 pm
I just wondered if there is a link to the SMC report/quotes? I see nothing on their web site http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/pages/press_releases/
but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Editor's comments | 31 Aug 2012 1:46 pm
They may not have yet published the quotes online.
John Harrison | 31 Aug 2012 1:58 pm
I read this with some trepidation. Applying a palliative in place of addressing the root cause of alleged climate change has the potential to add to the problems.
Despite our supercomputer predictions of weather we are still unable to determine whether it will rain or shine tomorrow due to chaos principles. If we cannot predict the weather with any degree of confidence, how can we be confident that suggested palliatives such as cloud seeding will not have unpredictable results?
A cautious approach must be taken to evaluate all outcomes of any pilot project before we adopt a "solution" on a grand scale.
By the way, will pumping millions of tons of dust into the atmoshphere mean the end of drying our washing outdoors, more frequent car washing and of course, a growth in respiratory illnesses through inhalation of dust?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Douglas | 31 Aug 2012 2:41 pm
Anybody remember how Yossarian bandaged Snowden's wound, only to find it wasn't the one that was killing him? (Joseph Heller’s Catch 22 for the uninitiated). We don't really know what the earth's wound is like, or how it will kill us, so we shouldn't expend precious resources trying to bandage it, however well intentioned.
On the other hand, we do know the instrument that is inflicting the wound: remobilisation of uncounted millions of tonnes of fossil carbon.
The solution seems obvious to me: stop moving carbon from the earth’s capital account into its current account. In order to do that we must start harvesting the current account, and stop living off capital. Now there is a legitimate target for radical solution-eering!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
brian m | 31 Aug 2012 3:27 pm
The philosophic argument for intervention to try and counter the rise in temperature due to green house gases is strong as of course it was 'non-deliberate' geo-engineering that caused the problem in the first place - use of fossil fuels.
The real dilemma is knowing what the side effects will be, maybe massive carbon capture projects might be a better solution? Or will nature respond with plant life performing better due to the additional CO2, as it has done before, who knows? Given sufficient time it's not a problem for the planet just for us humans!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Richard Annett | 31 Aug 2012 3:39 pm
Whilst we can model the earth's climate to some degree, I am am very afraid of messing with the climate which we cannot predict to any great degree in advance in it's current state.
If we did try to geoengineer climate and it caused some unwanted side effects in a country who pays?
But that might open a pandora's box and some countries could say the current state of the climate has affected them and they want compensation. Who pays?
If we geoengineer Mars then if it goes wrong we are ok. No one loses. I feel Mars will get geoengineered before Earth.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 31 Aug 2012 3:50 pm
The cheapest carbon capture machine is soil - in fact better agricultural and land management can be profitable while sequestering carbon.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
anne | 31 Aug 2012 7:28 pm
Good God people do you never look up at the sky, this has been going on for years. Do any of you know what CO2 is and how much is in the atmosphere, it is a life giving trace gas.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Brad Arnold | 1 Sep 2012 7:35 am
"The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself but in the hot state." --Dr James Lovelock, August 2008
Even though a clean, very very cheap, and super abundant energy technology will soon force us to cut GHG emissions big-time to save money:
"A volume about the size of a #2 pencil eraser of water provides as much energy as two 48-gallon drums of gasoline. That is 355,000 times the amount of energy per volume – five orders of magnitude." ( http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/New-LENR-Machine-is-the-Best-Yet.html ).
This phenomenon (LENR) has been confirmed in hundreds of published scientific papers: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf
"Over 2 decades with over 100 experiments worldwide indicate LENR is real, much greater than chemical..." --Dennis M. Bushnell, Chief Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center
"Total replacement of fossil fuels for everything but synthetic organic chemistry." --Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, NASA
By the way, here is a survey of all the companies that are bringing LENR to commercialization: http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/08/the-new-breed-of-energy-catalyzers-ready-for-commercialization.html
For those who still aren't convinced, here is a paper I wrote that contains some pretty convincing evidence: http://coldfusionnow.org/the-evidence-for-lenr/
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment