Geoengineering: should we pump sulfur into the stratosphere?
Professor Paul Crutzen, winner of the 1995 Nobel Prize for his work on the Antarctic ozone hole, has proposed an emergency geoengineering solution to cool off the planet: dump huge quantities of sulfur particles into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight. His paper, "Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections: A Contribution to Resolve a Policy Dilemma?" was published in the August 2006 issue of the journal Climatic Change. A recent editorial in the New York Times by Ken Caldeira called for more research into geoengineering schemes like this to cool the planet, proposing that 1% of the $3 billion federal Climate Change Technology Program should be spent thusly.
Dr. Crutzen proposes that balloons or artillery guns could propel burning sulfur into the stratosphere, where chemical reactions would convert the sulfur to highly reflective sulfate aerosol particles. This is the same process that occurs when a major volcanic eruption throws sulfur high into the atmosphere, cooling the planet. The 1992 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines cooled the Earth by about 0.5° C the following year. Crutzen estimates that a lesser amount of sulfur would be required to compensate for a doubling of carbon dioxide, and that the cost of lofting the required sulfur into the stratosphere would be about $132 billion. These costs would be per year, since the sulfur only stays in the stratosphere about a year.
Could it work? Sure it could. Volcanos periodically pump huge quantities of sulfur into the stratosphere, cooling the planet. Wunderblogger Dr. Ricky Rood shows a nice plot in his blog this week showing how three major volcanic eruptions in the past 50 years have cooled off the planet. Are there problems with the scheme? Yes, many:
1) The climate might undergo substantial and disruptive changes. Evaporation from the oceans would lessen, changing precipitation patterns. The sulfate aerosols would warm the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, changing the stability of the atmosphere. This would affect thunderstorm activity and large-scale weather patterns. Increased warming of Europe and Asia in winter has been noted after volcanic eruptions, for example. A 2005 study tied an increase in greenhouse gases and sulfur particles to drought in the Sahel region of Africa. Increasing greenhouse gases and sulfur particles even further might intensify drought conditions there.
2) The small sulfur particles might settle into the upper troposphere, where they might act as condensation nuclei for the formation of cirrus clouds. An increase in these high cirrus clouds may warm the planet, since they keep heat from escaping to space.
3)Stratospheric sulfur causes destruction of the protective ozone layer. The 1982 eruption of the El Chichon volcano reduced ozone by 16% at 20 km altitude at mid-latitudes. Decreased ozone would result in an increase in ultraviolet light at the surface, potentially increasing skin cancer rates.
4) Acid rain would increase.
5) The scheme would do nothing to reduce CO2, and the oceans would continue to acidify. The rate of acidification of the Earth's oceans is causing concern that regional collapses of the food chain may occur later this century.
6) A sudden collapse of the effort to keep firing sulfur into the stratosphere, due to the lack of political will to continue to fund this expensive effort, would result in a sudden transition of the climate to a radically warmer state. The resulting shock to the world's weather might cause dramatic changes that would be difficult to adapt to.
7) What do you do if the scheme causes serious climate problems in a country that then threatens war unless the effort is stopped?
Conclusion
As climate scientist Ray Pierrehumbert wrote in a 2007 blog on RealClimate.org, "It's not really insurance. It's more like building a lifeboat, but a lifeboat based on a design that has never been used before which has to work more or less perfectly the first time the panicked passengers are loaded into it." Pierrehumbert thought that the proposal to spend $30 million of the annual $3 billion climate change research budget was far too much money.
I'm not a big fan of geoengineering schemes. It makes far more sense to spend this kind of money of reducing carbon emissions, since the cure may be worse than the disease. Still, research into geoengineering should continue. We need to keep all of options open for the very uncertain future of our climate. When you're team's down two touchdowns late in the game, sometime you have to take risks you ordinarily would not take. But how much money should be spent on geoengineering research? If you're a wunderground member, take the wunderpoll at the right.
Jeff Masters
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 — Blog Index
Dvorak Intensity: 3.5
Storm Force Winds within 30 NM from the center.
Additional Information
------------------------
Nicholas has intensified to Category 2 overnight and further intensification is likely. Nicholas is currently moving in a westerly direction but is expected to
adopt a more southerly track towards the Pilbara coast over the next couple of days.
It is possible gales may affect coastal communities between Wallal and Whim Creek late on Saturday and extend to adjacent inland parts on Sunday. Gales are expected to develop in coastal areas between Whim Creek and Onslow on Sunday
Tropical Cyclone Watches/Warnings
-----------------------------------
A Cyclone WARNING is current for coastal areas from Wallal to Whim Creek.
A Cyclone WATCH is current for coastal areas from Whim Creek to Onslow and adjacent inland parts of both the Watch and Warning zones.
The Cyclone Warning for coastal areas from Cape Leveque to Bidyadanga and the Cyclone Watch from Bidyadanga to Wallal is cancelled
Forecast and Intensity
----------------------
12 HRS: 16.3S 119.0E - 55 knots [CAT 2]
24 HRS: 16.9S 118.6E - 65 knots [CAT 3]
48 HRS: 18.8S 118.2E - 85 knots [CAT 3]
Water as a reason for war will really only come into play if civilization has already broken down. As long as that remains stable, the countries with the means to desalinate the ocean waters will do so.
However, that's based entirely on humans remaining rational. But I think we all know human do some very irrational things for no apparent reason...
America should lead in new technologies of energy conservation by mandating a more progressive timetables in industry.
Sadly this does not matter when Russia, China, and India freely pollute the atmosphere and water with seemingly hardly any emissions or hazardous waste programs in place at all.
I don't know if I agree with this, that it doesn't matter. I believe it matters a whole lot. I believe it is very hard to mandate that Russia, China and India clean up their emissions and pollutants when the mandating countries are still in the top five or ten polluters worldwide. It's hard to convince me to clean up my mess while you are standing in yours. Somebody has to seek the moral high ground and set an example.
Besides, if these three countries are polluting so heavily, SOMEBODY needs to be cutting back.
On top of that, population size doesn't automatically equal emissions and pollutants. For example, India's large population doesn't automatically mean India has more cars than the US does (I'm not saying I did the research to specify either way).
I'm just not a proponent of doing something wrong because "everybody else is doing it".
On top of that, population size doesn't automatically equal emissions and pollutants. For example, India's large population doesn't automatically mean India has more cars than the US does (I'm not saying I did the research to specify either way).
I'm just not a proponent of doing something wrong because "everybody else is doing it".
Baha, the countries of India and China don't have the number of cars the US does ... yet. However they would like to be living the life that we in the US do. They have access to the coal and petroleum to make giant strides toward that by the exact methods the US did ... but there are a lot more of them.
The Most Populous Nations
1 China: 1.32 billion (about 20% of world population)
2 India: 1.12 billion (about 17%)
3 United States: 300 million (about 4.6%)
I don't advocate doing nothing either but it's futile for the US to act alone. We need to keep them from following our path even if means giving big discounts on technology we develop.
Probably true, however there is a difference when a country is making a significant attempt to curb there pollutants and co2 emissions (debatable if they are the same thing) while the other countries do nothing and are asked to do nothing.
The US spends more on pollution control as percent of our GDP than any countries in the world except for Austria and The Netherlands. We are tied with Switzerland for third in that category. Russia, China and India are not even on a list of the top 20. In addition none of those countries are required by the Kyoto Treaty, which only covers CO2, to reduce CO2 at all. It's easy to sign a treaty when you don't have to do anything. China's fossil CO2 emissions increased in 2006 by 8.7%, while in the USA, comparable CO2 emissions decreased in 2006 by 1.4%. Although this may just be a one year deal it shows that the US is far better equipped and able to reduce emissions.
The idea that the US just goes maryly along without regards to the environment is a handy myth that is not born out by the facts. The US citizenry, government and industries are amongst the most environmentally conscious and regulated in the world. China, Russia and India are not even in the ball park, literally and figuratively.
Can we do more, yes, should we do more yes, will we do more, we always do. Will China, Russia and India do more? Not in the foreseeable future, if at all.
source
Other Sources
Link
Link
I see GeoEngineering as a dangerous thing to play with until will know exactly what the out come will be so that we don't have any unexpected surprises. We can't afford anymore surprises at this point. There is too much at stake.
Other than that, perhaps Boston Harbour, and the outlet from the MS River are potentially represented - the rest? Confusing at best. Such as: Why would Nova Scotia be lit up like a Christmas tree? While the western coasts of the Bahamas show so "clean"?
I'm not sure that the map is supposed to represent "clean" vs "dirty", though I'm sure there is some correlation. I interpreted it to mean "heavily used" vs "lightly used" by humans. In that context the map makes lots of sense to me. I've already commented on the correspondence between the Bahama Banks and the blue areas in the Bahamas. [Well, I don't see the comment, so to basically recap: The blue areas in the Bahamas and off the Belizean coast correspond with shallow, reef and shoal filled waters. Hence the lower utilization.] (Compare that map with any relief map of the Bahamas, and the similarities will immediately strike you.)
In the case of Nova Scotia, that area of the N. Atlantic is one of the most heavily fished in the world, and I seem to recall increasing concerns being expressed about how much longer the Grand Banks area will be able to sustain the level of overfishing it has experienced over the years.
Back to the Bahamas for a second: the blue may in one sense be construed as "clean", at least here. A combination of a relatively small population and an underlying consciousness that those crystal clear waters are a key component of our tourism industry has so far limited the overfishing and overpollution of the western waters. How long we'll be able to sustain this, however, with encroachments by Dominican, Haitian and other nationalities' fishermen, is yet to be determined.
I don't advocate doing nothing either but it's futile for the US to act alone. We need to keep them from following our path even if means giving big discounts on technology we develop.
I think you have a good point. There's no point saying "do as I say, not as I do". The technology and lifestyle millions in China, India and Russia are seeking is largely fashioned after the American "dream" that has been pitched to them very successfully over the years by American big business. I think America still has enough clout in the world community to reshape public opinion about what it's "necessary" to have. Of course, as you say, a "green" lifestyle also has to be made both accessible and affordable.
Very thought provoking, that.
Actually I don't think your points are that far away from the topic at all. The drying up of water sources worldwide is a key reason why all kinds of ideas are being bruited about, even "crazy" ones like that suggested in the blog topic.
I don't want to believe we as a race can't find solutions to our problem before the war of the waters breaks out or we find we need to take up the intrepid professor's suggestion.
oh my
GW is real - until you have been to to see the receding glaciers with your own eyes you shouldn't subscribe to the Deniers or Coolies moronic rants.
GW and GC are real because climates do change. What is hard for people to understand is that they can change fast. Take Greenland for example. Prior to the little ice age of the 1700's, Greenland was that, green. The Vikings were raising sheep on pasture land. In a matter of a few short years Greenland went from pasture land to snow fields. Because they did not adapt, the Vikings largely left.
With regard to China and their power plants, it is the law that these coal-fired plants they are building have scrubber systems. However, it is not the law that they be used. As long as the rest of the world can pollute at will, why would we promote crippling a cleaner economy.
Viewing: 101 - 128
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 — Blog Index