Scientists weigh geoengineering in global warming battle

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2009-04-19-geoengineering_N.htm

Scientists weigh geoengineering in global warming battle

By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY
Not every crazy idea, say dropping out of Harvard to start a software firm, is a bad one. But you don't have to be Bill Gates to place your bets that way.

Consider atmospheric geoengineering — pumping reflective particles into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight — seen as a way to cut the effects of global warming. In 1991, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines cooled the atmosphere's average temperature worldwide almost one degree Fahrenheit, a kind of "global dimming," serving as an inspiration for the idea. Such high-altitude aerosols, different from the ones found in spray cans, can play a big role in climate.

A http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/314/5798/452">2006 paper in the journal Science, for example, written by the eminent atmospheric scientist Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, suggested that annually blasting roughly 500,000 tons of sulfur (about 7% of yearly sulfur production) into the stratosphere every year for three decades would prevent global warming. But there is that acid rain issue.

Earlier this month, White House science adviser John Holdren found himself at the center of a brouhaha over http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/04/holdren-clarifies-the-white-ho.html">remarks to the Associated Press that geoengineering of all sorts was "mentioned" as the administration pondered means of limiting global warming. Holdren later downplayed geoengineering schemes, after news stories appeared linking atmospheric geoengineering to drought, ozone depletion and acid rain, among other concerns.

…

[Kolesar]

1. "In case of Tipping Point, Break Glass"

Point nozzle at stratosphere and press trigger.

[Nihil]

6. More like "In case of Tipping Point, Break Planet" ...

> A 2006 paper in the journal Science, for example, written by the eminent
> atmospheric scientist Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric
> Research, suggested that annually blasting roughly 500,000 tons of sulfur
> (about 7% of yearly sulfur production) into the stratosphere every year for
> three decades would prevent global warming. But there is that acid rain
> issue.

I propose we leave the SO2 injection process, scale & schedule to volcanoes
as they do it far better, far cheaper and far more sensibly than we could.

If it gets to the point where someone wants to "break the glass" then that
someone should be immediately shot for the sake of future generations.

[Reform]

2. just more proof for me

That the spraying in the skies i have been witnessing over the years is just that.
Contrails hang around for only under a minute, the stuff i see sprayed in my sky in a tic tac toe pattern hangs around for hours and slowly spreads out into dirty looking clouds.
I have my own video footage of this, they do it quite often.
There are many videos out there of them doing this.
I don't know if its sulfur or what it is, but i am no fool and neither is my camera lens.
i just wish the population were told the absolute truth about things that are being done that effect everyone's lives, so matters such as this could be publicly debated.
Say what you will about this whether its crazy or not, i strongly believe this has been a U.N protocol for at least ten years, there is footage of this stuff going on world wide.

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. I haven't seen any convincing evidence of "chemtrails"

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/aeronautics/APEX.html

APEX: Measuring Emissions So That Future Aircraft Fly Cleaner

11.30.04

NASA has been studying various types of emissions from commercial aircraft to develop ways to reduce emissions and protect the environment. In recent years, fine particle emissions from aircraft have been identified as possible contributors to global climate changes and to lowering local air quality.

These emissions are produced when a hydrocarbon fuel (such as modern jet fuel, which is primarily kerosene) does not burn completely. Incomplete combustion often occurs at the lower power settings used for aircraft descent, idling and taxiing. This produces fine carbon particles, or soot, as well as particles of nonvolatile organic compounds. In addition, engine erosion and small amounts of metal impurities in jet fuel can be emitted in engine exhaust. Another type of particle emission is formed when exhaust cools, converting volatile aerosols of sulfur compounds and organic compounds to small solid particles.

These types of emissions are not addressed by current international regulations, which focus on visible smoke; but the international community is concerned about the effects that these emissions may have and is identifying possible regulations. In addition, reducing all types of aircraft emissions is necessary for the U.S aircraft industry to remain competitive in the global market.

Recently, the NASA Glenn Research Center took part in the very successful Aircraft Particle Emissions Experiment (APEX). NASA's DC-8 was used with CFM-56 engines to improve our understanding of particle emissions from commercial aircraft engines. It was the first and most extensive set of data obtained about gaseous and particulate emissions from an in-service commercial engine. Many different instruments were used, and a tremendous amount of data was obtained.

…

[dbt]

7. My problem is just the opposite:

I haven't seen any convincing evidence that these strange emissions in the sky are CONtrails. In my observation of them--now going into year number eleven--they behave exactly opposite to contrails, lingering and expanding instead of dissipating.

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. I watched contrails in the sky as a kid

That's what I saw them do sometimes. It fascinated me. Why did they stay so long some times? Why did they not seem to form at all at other times?

I think most people who are concerned about "chemtrails" never spent much time on their backs looking up at the sky.

http://weatherfaqs.org.uk/node/22
http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/GLOBE/resources/articles/avrams04_duda_eabs.pdf
http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/conference/J1.2.duda.arams.02.pdf
http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/Duda_Minnis.JAMC.I.09.pdf
http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/Duda_Minnis.JAMC.II.09.pdf

[dbt]

17. So did I,

which is why it registered on me so sharply that "contrails" suddenly began behaving in such a contrary manner--in my part of the country--early in 1999. It is precisely because I have spent so much time looking up at the sky that I am concerned about The Trails.

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. Have you considered that conditions in the upper atmosphere may have changed?

That seems to be the thrust of NASA's research.

[Barrett808]

4. Unfortunately, this is no solution for ocean acidification. n/t

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. No, injecting sulfur into the atmosphere isn't a good cure for the ocean acidification

But there are numerous geo-engineering solutions proposed to help neutralize ocean acidification.

Any approach which will lower levels of atmospheric CO₂ will lower oceanic CO₂ levels as well (and vice verse.)
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/07/new-geoengineer.html

[gulfcoastliberal]

8. I subscribe to the argument that geo-engineering is morally bankrupt.

Instead of ending our rapacious ways we seek to preserve them. No thanks.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. So, tell me, how do you feel about bandages?

Let's say you've done something stupid, and injured yourself, and now you're bleeding—a lot—like so much you're going to bleed to death. Do you act to stop the bleeding?

What if, because of your stupidity, you injured someone else, and now they are going to bleed to death? Would you do something to stop their bleeding?

---

You have to understand, if tomorrow we stopped emitting any CO₂ at all; the level in the atmosphere is higher than it has been for millions of years.

Here's the last 400,000 years or so. CO₂ levels were never above 300ppm or so.


Here are current CO₂ levels. We're shooting close to 400ppm.



If we do nothing, we are asking for violent climate change. There's a real chance that we may take the entire ecosystem down with us. I think it's immoral not to consider geoengineering efforts.

Let's face it. At this point, anything we do, with any awareness of its potential effects on the ecosystem is geoengineering. (Plant a tree? You're geoengineering.)


Now, how do you feel about the morality of geoengineering?

[Nihil]

11. I know that we've been over this before but your comparisons here are bogus

I can agree to disagree over things but comparing global sunshades,
ocean iron dumping and SO2 injection to bandages for an individual
and planting a tree is downright dishonest.


Ok ... I've just deleted a couple of paragraphs as I was starting to
get back to our old disagreement but the point I was trying to make here
was that the equivalent to "bandages" and "trees" would be putting
individual CO2 filters on power-station chimneys (or even getting
rid of a coal-fired station) whereas the equivalent to the orbital
sunshades/ocean poisoning/acid rain generation schemes would be to
hand your badly-bleeding victim to a vampire with a machete and a
juice-press.


> Now, how do you feel about the morality of geoengineering?

Exactly the same as before: it's a bad idea. :P

[Dead_Parrot]

12. I think I'm with OK on this...

...first off: it's a moot point, since there seems to be fuck-all we can actually do to engineer our way out this. But, assuming something turns up:

...So, you are in a Transylvanian castle. Vlad is halfway through his meal when you bust in waving the garlic, and he backs up a bit leaving the helpless virgin¹ bleeding on the floor. Do you:

A) Open up with the repeating cross-bow and nail the sucker
B) Attend the poor lass with your first-aid kit, or
C) Both

Go for A, and while you're nailing Vlad the fossil king, the virgin is dying. Go for B, and you might save her from the existing wound but ol' Vlad Tillerson will be eating her legs.

So, you have to do both.

I think that's where we are with geo-engineering. fixing the cause of the problem isn't enough - we're too far past that point. And fixing the problem isn't enough, because the cause will just keep being a source of problems. To save the day, we have to fix that gaping hole in her jugular and kill the beast. Even if all we have is a band-aid, and those bolts are expensive...

----
¹ Got to get you interested somehow. She's blonde, btw.

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. One additional factor here

Culpability on your part. (i.e. somehow, the virgin is in the fix she's in, because of your mistakes.)

We made the mess, it's up to us to clean it up, not just for our own sakes, but for the sake of all the other creatures we share the planet with.

[Dead_Parrot]

15. Depends how you look at it

from an "I'm Jonathan Harker, ohshit ohshit ohshit" moral POV then yes, culpability is relevant. But from a "I'm Van Helsing, here's the situation" engineering POV it's just a set of problems to be tackled. Or not, of course....

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. All metaphors fail under load

They can only take so much stress.

My point is that, thanks to our actions, all of "life as we know it" (that is to say higher order plants and animals) is at risk.

It may be noble to say "we screwed up" and commit suicide en masse to allow them to live, except, at this point, there's a good chance that they won't.

Van Helsing may look at the scenario you've outlined in a dispassionate way, because, "it doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world." Van Helsing's (or Rick's) priority is to keep the world safe.


Once you realize fully what is at stake (sorry) you realize that we've got to take advantage of whatever has a good chance of helping. We're going to have to take some risks.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. I agree that some forms of "geoengineering" seem to be just huckster dreams

No, I don't want to dump lots of sulfur into the air. Thanks, but no thanks. We have enough dead lakes and ponds in NYS as it is.

However, if you tell me there's a good way to draw CO₂ out of the air, without causing greater problems as a side benefit (you, know, like we only need to pump twice as much CO₂ into the air to do it) where do I sign?

[Nihil]

19. I know you're not in favour of that particular one ...

... (sulphur fountain) but it is still a plan being proposed & debated
so was included in my "list" of unwanted geo-engineering proposals.
:hi:

> However, if you tell me there's a good way to draw CO2 out of the air,
> without causing greater problems as a side benefit (you, know, like we
> only need to pump twice as much CO2 into the air to do it) where do I sign?

Probably next to my name as I agree that if/when such a proposal becomes
viable (i.e., without a "miracle happens here" box in the plan), it would
be worth trying as things aren't going to improve enough on their own,
even if there *was* a way to cut all man-made emissions tomorrow.

Planting trees is the best way to get CO2 out of the air with minimal
side-effects but it is not only much too slow for the increasing rate
of CO2 generation, it would require a major mindset change on the part
of the corporations around the world that are busy killing off the
existing trees.

Every other "plan" that I've encountered either glosses over the
side-effects or still has that "miracle happens here" box in place.

Right until the end, there will be the hope that "the miracle cure"
is just around the corner. To play the geo-engineering joker in its
current costly/dangerous/nonworking form now would be to remove any
chance of that miracle cure in the future.

The genie (in the form of the vast fossil carbon stores extracted over
the last few centuries and spewed into the air) is most certainly out
of the bottle. I think we'll only get one chance to put it back and,
so far, none of the suggestions have any likelihood of success.

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. How about slowing things down a bit?

Going back to my bandage analogy for a moment, if you can stop the victim from immediately bleeding to death, you may be able to take the time you gain to address the problem in a better fashion.

So, for example, we cannot shut down all of the coal-fired power plants in the world "overnight." Anyone who says otherwise is delusional or dishonest.

Replacing them all with solar/wind/tidal/nuclear plants immediately is also impossible.

On the other hand, if we could replace some of them today, then we'll have more time before we hit 450ppm (or whatever somewhat arbitrary tipping point you'd care to choose) and in that time, we can improve our alternatives, and develop new ones. ("Cold fusion" anyone?)

We may have more than one chance.

[Nihil]

23. And in doing that, I definitely agree!

> On the other hand, if we could replace some of them today, then we'll have
> more time before we hit 450ppm (or whatever somewhat arbitrary tipping point
> you'd care to choose) and in that time, we can improve our alternatives, and
> develop new ones. ("Cold fusion" anyone?)

I totally agree with you on this (and combining with all of the other "small"
projects like urban albedo increase, insulation, efficiency increases, ...).

:toast:

> We may have more than one chance.

At this scale, we have lots of chances that can indeed add together to make
a better chance. I just don't want to gamble all of this (and the future that
it brings) against any of the top geo-engineering options as the latter are
definitely in the "one-lucky-shot and we're through" category.

[OKIsItJustMe]

25. Yeah, let's try to avoid "a futile and stupid gesture"

However, as I said, any action we take with an idea of somehow affecting the ecosystem is geoengineering. So, to automatically gainsay any scheme simply because it is "geoengineering" is short-sighted.

We've proven to be devastatingly successful in unwittingly changing our environment. Imagine if we put some thought into it!

[Fotoware58]

24. Carbon Sequestration

Merely planting trees isn't going to mitigate the carbon building up in our atmosphere. Actually, it could do quite the opposite. Since mega-fires continue to be propagated and even embraced by some, the carbon from these mega-fires goes directly into our upper atmosphere from the massive columns of smoke and other toxic greenhouse gasses. Last year, I breathed the thick smoke from the California fires all the way in eastern Idaho. Ironically, I'm sure that thick smoke ended up in Yellowstone, as well.

Planting trees only sequesters carbon if the trees grow to mature size and reach an age of over 100 years old. Today's fires burn everything in their paths, releasing ancient carbon from 300 year old trees. Active management of forests can control just where that sequestered carbon ends up. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people, including those in positions of power, think that fires are good for our environment and think we need MORE and BIGGER fires. While clearcutting DOES sequester a bunch of carbon, it does so at the expense of forest ecosystems. We can't sacrifice ecosystem function and services necessary to our survival. Sound and sustainable eco-forestry CAN safely sequester carbon while improving wildlife habitat, increase fire, drought and bark beetle resistance. Sadly, most people have learned that ALL logging is very, very bad.

There actually IS some hope in the recently-passed Omnibus Amendment in the form of Title IV that mandates forest restoration projects over 50,000 acres. Alas, no one discussed the details before passing this new law. No funding or process has started yet and the lag time for getting work done on the ground is probably at least 3 years. The Forest Service has lost a bunch of expertise and is still hamstrung by conflicting rules, laws and policies.

I suspect that it will take a massive transfer of public lands to a private sector group like the Nature Conservancy in order to relax the rules enough to get substantive things done on the ground. I don't see that happening in the next 10 years.

[OKIsItJustMe]

26. A minor quibble…

I believe forests become carbon sinks after 10 or 15 years…
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2008/Sep08/oldgrowthcarbon.html

[Fotoware58]

27. Plantations

For many years, plantations at at extremely high risk to fires, due to ladder fuels and thin bark. They require a substantial amount of "management" until they can fend for themselves against fires. Luckily, clearcutting has been substantially reduced on public lands in the last 15 years. However, there is still plenty of existing clearcuts growing back that need work done. Also, plantations from forest fires continue to be on the rise.

People like Dr. Jerry Franklin and Dr. Stephen Pyne advocate active management of old growth to prepare it for prescribed fires. Eliminating eco-forestry from our forests is a step backwards. Enhancing stand-replacing fires is a step forward towards climate disaster.

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. How to Fix a Climate Emergency

http://www.newsweek.com/id/194610

GLOBAL WARMING

How to Fix a Climate Emergency

As forecasts for global temperatures grow increasingly dire, scientists are taking a serious look at an idea once considered crazy: reengineering the atmosphere.

By Fred Guterl | NEWSWEEK
Published Apr 18, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Apr 27, 2009

The sudden explosion of Mount Pinatubo on June 15, 1991, sent a vast column of ash into the sky, blotting out the sun, killing hundreds and demonstrating one way to save humanity from a potential climate disaster.

The mountain's 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide rose from the Philippines into the stratosphere, blanketing the planet in a haze that reflected part of the sun's heat back out into space. Over the next several years, meteorologists watched in amazement as the haze lowered the earth's temperature by a cumulative total of half a degree Celsius—setting the clock back on global warming. In the century before Pinatubo, greenhouse gases released by human industry had helped raise the earth's temperature by 1 degree.

The effect was temporary—temperatures started rising again after a year or so. But scientists began to wonder if the volcano hadn't revealed a possible weapon against climate change. It takes only a back-of-the-envelope calculation to see that it would be possible to do artificially what the mountain did naturally. A judicious application of sulfur dioxide to the upper atmosphere, which could be accomplished by launching the gas from rockets, spraying it from high-altitude planes or releasing it from a big chimney, would have an almost immediate impact on temperature. And it would cost a thousand times less than even the most optimistic scenarios for cutting emissions. A small group of scientists began looking into how this kind of geo-engineering could be done most efficiently and with the fewest side effects.

Over the past two decades geo-engineering began to include other ways of fixing climate, including new spins on the Pinatubo effect. Using sulfur dioxide or other materials, they aim to reflect sunlight back into outer space. One would boost a series of mirrors into orbit, shading Earth from sunlight, but at a cost that would likely bankrupt the planet. In the 1990s, the controversial inventor of the hydrogen bomb, Edward Teller, proposed floating reflective particles of metal in the atmosphere, adding a Dr. Strangelove air to the geo-engineering field.

…

[Nihil]

22. And these two sentences summarise the problem:

> The effect was temporary — temperatures started rising again after
> a year or so.

> And it would cost a thousand times less than even the most optimistic
> scenarios for cutting emissions.

Being so much "cheaper" (and comparatively easier to do) than actually
cutting emissions means that it has far more appeal to the short-term,
greed-oriented decision-makers than any attempt to actually CUT emissions.
(Not to mention being more photogenic with flashy technology to appeal
to the vanity of the politicians along with the gee-whiz jaw-dropping
morons of the public.)

Being temporary, when the effect of the first "dose" wears off, the
even larger CO2 burden that has accumulated in the meantime will have
an even more severe impact (magnitude + timescale) so the next "dose"
will have to be bigger, ad inf.

> taking a serious look at an idea once considered crazy: reengineering
> the atmosphere

Go blue-green algae, go!