Subscription Center
Sep 1, 2009 08:30 PM | 28
Do you really want to start messing with the atmosphere? If not, then stop emitting so much CO2. Or so argues the U.K.-based Royal Society, the same people who brought you Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin and Stephen Hawking. A new report by the Society analyzes so-called geoengineering—"the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment," or consciously tweaking Earth's climate in an attempt to stave off global warming—and finds that it is feasible and worth studying carefully, but probably not something we want to get involved in.
Artificial volcanoes, mirrors in space or other climate-altering schemes might be the last, best hope for mankind if we don't get started reducing greenhouse gas emissions pronto—specifically a 50 percent reduction (at minimum) in global emissions from 1990 levels by mid-century, according to a 12-member panel convened by the Society. "Geoengineering and its consequences are the price we may have to pay for failure to act on climate change," said report chair and climate modeler John Shepherd of the University of Southampton in a prepared statement. "Used irresponsibly or without regard for possible side effects, geoengineering could have catastrophic consequences similar to those of climate change itself."
After a year spent examining various ideas, the Society panel split geoengineering into two camps—dubbed Carbon Dioxide Removal and Solar Radiation Management—and opted primarily for the former. Examples include artificial trees to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere or even real trees in restored forests. After all, taking CO2 out of the atmosphere is simply reversing the climate experiment we've been engaged in since, well, at least the founding of the Royal Society in 1663.
Of course, that more sensible solution is also more costly. It would be cheaper to simply go the route of managing solar radiation—for instance, by pumping sulfate and other aerosols into the atmosphere, thereby mimicking the cooling blanket of a major volcanic eruption, and keeping that up continuously until the underlying problem resolves itself, however long that might take. This approach might have a few significant side effects, potentially including, but not limited to acid rain, the elimination of the ozone layer in the stratosphere, and years without summers.
So why even consider it? "If we are confronted with a climate emergency and decide we cannot tolerate any more warming, engineering some system to deflect more sunlight back to space would likely be the primary option available to cool the Earth quickly," said report coauthor and climate scientist Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University in a prepared statement. "We need to study these options now so that we can understand the pluses and minuses in case we need to deploy them."
Already marked as minuses, according to the report, are the charcoal soil amendment known as biochar, fertilizing the ocean with iron to promote plankton blooms, and schemes to make Earth more reflective by putting mirrors across deserts (or, for that matter, painting roofs white) because, in the latter case, it's just not deemed to be very effective. A similar report from the U.K.'s Institution of Mechanical Engineers, however, found a little more merit in the white roofs technique as well as the aforementioned artificial trees or carbon dioxide-sucking algae turned to biofuel.
My personal favorite is what I call the fleet of Flying Dutchmans—crewless ships spraying saltwater into the air to increase cloud cover. According to research from the University of Texas and the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank, global warming could be solved by spending a mere $9 billion on such ships.
Nevertheless, as the report states: "The safest and most predictable method of moderating climate change is to take early and effective action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. No geoengineering method can provide an easy or readily acceptable alternative solution to the problem of climate change." And shading the Earth one way or another from the sun would do nothing to stop climate change's other major impact: more acidic oceans.
But geoengineering is serious business. Everyone from the American Meteorological Society to Obama's science advisor John Holdren—and now the Royal Society whose motto is "Take nobody's word for it"—has endorsed further study of these seemingly mad scientist schemes because we may need them. And that's because mankind's most massive geoengineering scheme to date—climate change courtesy of greenhouse gas emissions—is already going gangbusters.
Image: Courtesy of NASA
Tags:
greenhouse gas emissions,
climate change,
royal society,
artificial trees,
carbon dioxide,
geoengineering,
mad scientist,
global warming
More News Blog:
Next: Music to Monkeys' Ears? Try Metallica, or the Metro
Previous: Sick mobile app tracks H1N1, other outbreaks near you
See what we're tweeting about
BoraZ Barack Obama Should Call for End of All War, Not Just War on Terror http://t.co/h7GVnj3iHk by @Horganism at #SciAmBlogs
sciamblogs Barack Obama Should Call for End of All War, Not Just War on Terror http://t.co/owGtX2Qco4 by @Horganism at #SciAmBlogs
Horganism Barack Obama Should Call for End of All War, Not Just War on Terror. http://t.co/SrQprqdj4m via @sciam
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
28 Comments
Add CommentOne of the more interesting things in the Royal Society report is an attempt to evaluate geoengineering options in terms of their effectiveness, affordability, timeliness and safety (see http://2020science.org/Nj for a fancy graphical visualization).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese are highly subjective ratings, but do provide some sense of which options might be more or less worth pursuing - depending on which criteria you place more weight on.
The homo sapien is an idiot and has brought on his own early extinction. Why would anybody want to save this moronic species? Please please please don't endow the species with intelligence, its only the few that are intelligent the rest morons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou minority who think, don't have kids, sit back let them breed like rabbits and die from starvation, they deserve this fate.
"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
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is estimated that mankind will increase emissions about 50% by 2030 (not cut them over 50% by 2050). Furthermore, natural emissions will dramatically increase as permafrost melts and forests burn. Besides, any carbon diet strategy would be dependent upon clean coal:
"The vast majority of new power stations in China and India will be coal-fired; not "may be coal-fired"; will be. So developing carbon capture and storage technology is not optional, it is literally of the essence." --"Breaking the Climate Deadlock," Tony Blair, June 26, 2008
But, Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, has estimated that capturing and burying just 10 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted over a year from coal-fire plants at current rates would require moving volumes of compressed carbon dioxide greater than the total annual flow of oil worldwide -- a massive undertaking requiring decades and trillions of dollars. "Beware of the scale," he stressed."
"Few seem to realise that the present IPCC models predict almost unanimously that by 2040 the average summer in Europe will be as hot as the summer of 2003 when over 30,000 died from heat. By then we may cool ourselves with air conditioning and learn to live in a climate no worse than that of Baghdad now. But without extensive irrigation the plants will die and both farming and natural ecosystems will be replaced by scrub and desert. What will there be to eat? The same dire changes will affect the rest of the world and I can envisage Americans migrating into Canada and the Chinese into Siberia but there may be little food for any of them." --Dr James Lovelock's lecture to the Royal Society, 29 Oct. '07
Yeah, I wonder if mankind will just suffer a massive natural cull rather than dim the sun a little (more) using an aerosol. I suppose people will look different at the problem when their stomach is empty and their children are crying because they are hungry.
Royal Society, the same people who brought you Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin and Stephen Hawking!! This is drivel. These people may be members, and this Report shows how far down into drivel and nonsense the Society has stooped.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"consciously tweaking Earth's climate in an attempt to stave off global warming" - what evidence is there that there is "global warming"? The satellite data over 30 years showed a zero anomaly in June and 0.4deg in July. This is noise. Sea surface temperatures were 0.1deg higher.
"best hope for mankind if we don't get started reducing greenhouse gas emissions" this is hysterical political nonsense. Mankinds emissions of so called "greenhouse" gases is next to bugger all, and has no impact on the climate. There is no evidence or science to this.
You think there is?
What falsifiability tests have the speculation that CO2 drives average global temperatures actually passed? There is not even a correlation, much less causation.
What would the Earth's climate look like if mankind didn't emit any CO2 over the last 100years? it must be very different? how?
this is not science, it is not even science fiction, it is voodoo
William Phillips-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8233632.stm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust because you won't accept the evidence doesn't mean there isn't any. There isn't any progress in your movement, just sounds like a broken record.
sdickey5. Hilarious.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe've all seen this graph. It's it frequently displayed in the numerous articles that debunk it. No Medieval Warm Period, no Little Ice Age. Furthermore, the proof of its own falsehood is right there in front of your eyes, yet your indoctrination has blinded you to it:
Note that temperatures are rising AHEAD of CO2 and at every CO2 maxima temperatures are DECREASING. Oops! And I thought the story went "higher CO2 = higher temps".
So by the best piece of 'evidence' (in the form of a web link to someone else's propaganda) you could produce to give William Phillips his comeuppance, you have shown him to be EXACTLY RIGHT! No causation, no correlation.
Thanks for that. And for proving how Global Warming Alarmism can turn your own lying eyes against you. Leave the facts and figures to people that can understand them. And do your fellow countrymen a favor and stay home on election day...
AAAA+ - Another Asinine Alarmist Article. Notice how they all are really pleas for "more study"? or was that more money? Oh well, one in the same; can't risk losing job in a global meltdown, so one must scream louder!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRoyal Society must want their share of the $126 billion annual carbon trade.
Big Climate = Big Corruption
AAAA+ - Another Asinine Alarmist Article. Notice how they all are really pleas for "more study"? or was that more money? Oh well, one in the same; can't risk losing job in a global meltdown, so one must scream louder!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRoyal Society must want their share of the $126 billion annual carbon trade.
Big Climate = Big Corruption
Have you global warming deniers never heard of insurance?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article may be optimistic and maybe not. Scientists are telling us that there is some chance we are as little as 10 years away from falling off a climate precipice with permafrost methane emissions and ocean acidification forming the leading edge of a very steep slope. So what if they are right are wrong and in 10 years we hit an irreversible climate slide. Do we throw you global warming deniers in slave labor camps as punishment for your stupidity?
With a World War II type effort we could within 10 years replace all of our dirty expensive air polluting fossil fuel energy sources with a worldwide build of cheap mass produced clean green nuclear power. Westinghouse's recent China sale pegs new nuclear at less than 2 cents kwh way cheaper than all alternatives including burning fossil fuels.
A win win solution and cheap insurance indeed.
A very good proposal to combat climate change is the Desertec plan to built large concentrated solarpower stations in the deserts, thus producing electricity and desalinating water that can be used to turn deserts back into agricultural productive land. Since these solarpowerplants are built mainly in poor regions it can help develop those nations and fight poverty. Poverty is the main problem, since poor people multiplicate much faster, and the increase of people worsens the problems of climate change, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou act like that side isn't winning the debate....
"sethdayal" be careful for what you wish, If we don't fall off the climate cliff in 10 years do we throw you in a slave labor camps to pay for the damage the warmer's are trying to cause to the economies of the world in their religious quest for world domination.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe world has been warmer before, the earth has been cooler before, the earth will be warmer again, the earth will be cooler again, the last thing we need is a government entity with its hand on the thermostat for the earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfalling off a climate precipice ???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe evicence for this is?
Over the last 30 years, average global temperatures as measured by satellites (UAH) indicate a monthly temperature anomaly of zero degrees C in June 2009 and 0.4 degC in July 2009. Satellite temperatures of sea surface temperatures indicate an increase of 0.1degC over the same period. Both show considerable variation. Argos measurements of ocean temperatures show cooling since 2003. Antarctica ice is at its maximum extent since satellite monitoring began, and the Arctic has lost maybe 5% of its ice area. What evidence is there that this is not just noise, or natural climate variation?
If the hysteria that average global (or ocean) temperatures are being driven ever upward by increasing anthropogenic emissions of CO2 is science , what falsifiability tests has this passed?
With atmospheric CO2 increasing, and average global and ocean temperatures static or falling, and there does not appear to be even a correlation much less a causation between them. What irrefutable scientific evidence exists that CO2 is a temperature forcer?
If the climate is changing because of anthropogenic emissions of CO2 over the last 100 years, which presumably is swamping any natural variation, then I assume that climate would look very different if these emissions were not in the atmosphere. What would the climate look like now, and how would I know?
If climate models predicting Armageddon as a result of anthropogenic emissions of "greenhouse gases" are relying on positive feedback mechanisms to make CO2 look like a significant climate forcer, what evidence is there that these positive feedback mechanisms actually exist? What successful predictions have been made by climate models that would indicate their reliability?
During the Ordovician period, atmospheric CO2 levels were up to 11 times the current value, yet during this period the Earth was in an ice age. If CO2 is a significant and dominant forcer of temperatures, why?
William Phillips... I agree that climate change is an inaccurate science at present with many factors playing a role and related positive and negative feedbacks reinforcing either 'greenhouse' or 'icehouse' effects. But, one thing you should do is to research facts and then present ideas, and not having a fixed idea and then search for facts that only support your idea.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor example, you correctly stated that the Ordovician greenhouse atmosphere was rich in CO2. The Ashgill was a long period of the Ordovivian where massive calcareous sedimentation took place, where even at high latitudes CO2 was sequestered in carbonates on the shallow shelf, depleting the atmosphere in CO2. The result was cooling, initiating the glaciation which initiated the sea-level drop.
Actually, the temperature is rising at exactly the same time that the CO2 peaks, it only appears to rise slightly before because it rises much faster.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt drops off after CO2 peaks and falls itself because that is when the Earth has to re stabilize itself [i.e., an ice age]
Of course, the principal point of the graph is that in no time during the Earth's history has its atmosphere been loaded with so much CO2 as it is today.
Whether you believe CO2 causes, or is correlated with the increasingly hot climate around the globe is also beside the point of that particular graph.
That particular graph simply points out the correlation between increasing CO2 and hotter climates, as well as the fact that the Earth's atmosphere has never been riddled with as much CO2 as it is riddled with today.
I agree with Mr Phillips.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid the "climate models" predict the "little ice age"?
We appear to be very certain of the coming man-made catastrophe, yet we can not predict the next ice age. By the way, the average inter-glacial period last about 10,000 years. The current one has lasted 11,500 years.
In a recent SA article, it was stated that the ice ages (which compose 90% of the time over the past 400,000 years) were caused by the earth's orbit, tilt, and wobble.
One would certainly think that we could predict such parameters.
I don't think that anyone would dispute that an ice age would be considerably more detrimental to the human race than the predicted global warming.
Where is the scientific community on this issue?
JBH
JBH... There's no fixed time for an interglacial. Even glacial periods have lasted between 40,000 and 100,000 years, which makes one think that the Milankovitch theory of climate change is not perfectly worked out; in particular, the largest observed response is at the 100,000-year timescale, but the forcing is apparently small at this scale, in regard to the ice ages. Various feedbacks (from carbon dioxide, cosmic rays or from ice sheet dynamics) are invoked to explain this discrepancy. This relates to the weak theory of Earth's orbit, tilt and wobble, and other factors have to play a role.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know where Mr. Phillips gets his facts from when he states that 'Argos measurements of ocean temperatures show cooling since 2003', when in fact this summer saw the warmest ocean surface temperatures on record for July (62.5 F), surpassing the last record high in 1998, and combined average global land and ocean surface temperature that ranked fifth-warmest since global records began in 1880 according to data from the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
NOAA data also showed the highest ocean surface temperature on record for June and the sixth warmest June on record for land temperatures. For both months, ocean surface temperatures were 1.06 degrees F higher than the 20th century average.
There are many factors that play an important role in climate change and we have to consider the positive feedbacks that reinforce it. For example, if oceans get warmer more methane and CO2 will be released by them into the atmosphere, reinforcing the 'greenhouse effect'.
But one thing if for sure... A ten-second gamma ray burst originating from an exploding star within 6,000 light years of Earth would strip the Earth's atmosphere of half of its ozone almost immediately and kill us. But humanity still does not comprehend that we are so small and insignificant... But we do play a role in this 'insignificant blue dot', which belongs not only to us but to all the other living things.
Hahaha, William Phillips posted the EXACT SAME message on another climate change article about the record high sea temperature levels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/record-warm-sea-surface-temperatures/
He goes by the name oil shrill. Duplicate message. Literally identical, except for a small introduction. I'm not sure it's even worth it to respond to him, since I imagine that he's not actually listening to the answer. He's probably only trying to get people who read this to doubt the information.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8236797.stm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe 20th Century is the first century for which how much energy we're getting from the Sun is no longer the most important thing governing the temperature of the Arctic"
Why would you attempt to fix what you cannot prove is actually broken? The fossil record is replete with countless global warming episodes without any corresponding human involvement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn insight to the answer for this question the article is predicated upon can be found in the last paragraph. "because mankind's most massive geoengineering scheme to dateclimate change courtesy of greenhouse gas emissionsis already going gangbusters."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe intellectual and moral paradigm that created the problem has already demonstrated it lacks the understanding to resolve it. And the potential downsides of geoengineering 'experiments' on such a scale, funded and rushed out for political expediency could even make matters far worse.
The only hope and solution is the humility to recognize our limitations and change the existing paradigm. Easier done than said: http://www.energon.org.uk
Is geoengineering our last hope? The answer is to be found in the last paragraph: "because mankind's most massive geoengineering scheme to date—climate change courtesy of greenhouse gas emissions—is already going gangbusters."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe same intellectual and moral paradigm that created the problem has no chance of resolving it . And experiments on such a massive scale, funded and rushed out for political convenience could potentially make matters far worse .
The only hope mankind has is to change the existing paradigm of human existence! Easier done than said: http://www.energon.org.uk
Pay attention the next three winters and you should have an epiphany! You will come to understand that the world is actually slip sliding away into a new Little Ice Age.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, the hysterical, wildly-zealous mob that are trying to out-law fossil fuels and economically ruin those who are involved in fossil fuels or dependent on them propose "solutions" to a non-existant problem that will actually even make the approaching problem even worse.
Well, a little bit worth. The real truth of the matter is that the greenhouse effect of the trace gas CO2 in the atmosphere is too trivial to matter. It is the wild legislation, including the monstrosity of Cap and Trade, that will cause needless human suffering.
Whether you believe the science behind global warming or not, is immaterial. (I guess the Royal Society, and NASA, TheNational Academy of Science, to name a few, at just a bunch of fanatics and gangsters.) The fact is that continued use of fossil fuels results in unacceptable environmental impact. Wheather it is the disaster of mountain top removal coal mining, coal sludge disposal/hiding, combustion by product disposal, contaminate water, human illness, and the list goes on.... and on.... Alternatives to fossil fuels are becoming available and anything we can do to hurry their devleoplent the better off we will all be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this3 cheers for the fleet of Flying Dutchmans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegards,
iFollow Humanity
<a href="http://www.ifollowhumanity.com/">Humanity above all</a>
3 cheers to the fleet of Flying Dutchmans..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegards,
iFollow Humanity
<a href="http://www.ifollowhumanity.com/">Humanity above all</a>