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
All money going to the global warming cause should be directly funneled into developing clean energy technologies, preferrably harnessing tidal forces and coriolis currents. There's enough energy flowing through those systems to provide enough electricity for the planet many times over.
Link
Got lucky yesterday when there was a tornado warning within a couple miles of my house. No damage but did get some video of a rotating wall cloud. Looked very threating on my way home.....I did not have my camcorder at work so i did not get the drive in which would been great footage. The darn thing was winding down when i got back into my truck to begin filming just down the street. It began moving away so it was all i could do to keep up. The lightning which was bad on my way home, almost had stop when i started filming. I will put it on here when it becomes available....Still may get in one more shot in the next couple of hours but not counting on it........ I live west of Orlando about 25 miles near a little town called Mascotte........
That's the phrase to keep in mind. We should be working to eliminate causes of change, not to counteract them with opposite causes.
As you can see, global temperatures dropped all the way to the 40th warmest on record, from the warmest last year (for January) and almost half a degree colder than the warmest decade on record.
STL, is that the egg, the chicken, or an omlette?
Anyone else besides me watching this squall line moving into South Florida? Hasn't lost much strength. Been letting people around me know that severe weather is on the way. Anyone want to comment on this squall line?
It doesnt look nearly as intense as the one that came through our area yesterday.
Somewhat broken up from what I can see on radar. I think ya'll will get some heavy rain, and like you said earlier flooding. Though any flooding will most likely be localized street flooding.
Arent you guys still in a drought situation?
Good Lord. Are you kidding me?
Btw, I'm in SW Miami, it's dark, raining and have had several unusual "howling wind" spells since last night.
Sounds good. How do we do this - tunnels? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
14. cchsweatherman 11:47 AM CST on February 13, 2008
Anyone else besides me watching this squall line moving into South Florida? Hasn't lost much strength. Been letting people around me know that severe weather is on the way. Anyone want to comment on this squall line?
It doesnt look nearly as intense as the one that came through our area yesterday.
Somewhat broken up from what I can see on radar. I think ya'll will get some heavy rain, and like you said earlier flooding. Though any flooding will most likely be localized street flooding.
Arent you guys still in a drought situation?
Doppler Radar just indicated a Tornado over Cooper City where I live. I'm going to be making some calls to see if a tornado touched down there. I'm worried right now.
To answer your question, we are still in a deep drought here in Florida, but not so much Miami-Dade county. Lake Okeechobee has received over 6 inches of rainfall throughout the past 24 hours.
Much better idea: Keep the tropical Pacific cool (i.e. La Nina) - much more natural and effective:
Sounds good. How do we do this - tunnels? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Throw buckets of ice cubes into the tropical Pacific
I'll fire up the ice maker!
Sounds more reasonable that purposely firing sulfur into the Stratosphere.
Yesterday they had nearly 4 (that the news reported) sightings of funnel clouds here in the Baton Rouge area alone. I believe 2 tornados touched down in our area too.
I've never in my life seen the sky so dark.
cchs...Let us know something once it's all over. The whole torando thing worries me for you guys down there.
Yesterday they had nearly 4 (that the news reported) sightings of funnel clouds here in the Baton Rouge area alone. I believe 2 tornados touched down in our area too.
I've never in my life seen the sky so dark.
Just finished making calls to people I know who are in Cooper City and they have told me that they did not see a tornado, although there is some wind damage from this line. I'll see soon enough in about two hours what occurred at my house. Hopefully, I won't have much to clean up, but I know that I will have some cleanup to come; mainly sweeping up and raking branches and leaves.
Yea I think Dude had one too many 420's if you get my drift
I agree
Ahhh...the voice of sanity. Thanks StormW. Lets indeed spend the money cutting emissions, creating a new, green economy and let Mother Nature heal.
I kinda like the idea of cutting down any emissions, and leaving Mother Nature alone. This old earth has taken care of itself for BILLIONS of years.
Well said Storm! I agree fully. Don't mess with Mother Nature!
who've been smoking crack, or something
stronger even!
Are you kidding? Mother Nature corrects itself,
or the sun will blow up and that'll be it! The
IPCC has no proven data to support their
conclusions anyway as surface temperatures are
biased and non-scientific.
Geoengineering is a joke! Like many other
things, we need to throw more money down the
crapper because it's just the way we are and
how our system works(or doesn't)!
Thanks MichaelSTL for posting the anomaly graphics of past years in comparison with this year. What strikes me most is the drastic drop in average temperatures in Central Asia (-8°F) compared to the more than 11°F over average in Siberia and North Europe.These areas just remain outside the current cooling trend. Seems like everybody is getting a decent winter except the Europeans and the Russians. *lol*
As I posted in one of the previous blog entries (right before the Doc posted another entry so probably noone read it), the Baltic Sea has currently the smallest areal ice cover in recorded history (over 300 years). This blog in English sums it up quite nicely. Normally about 45 % of the entire Baltic Sea are frozen in winter, in severe winters up to 96 % (record-breaking ice cover in 1987 when it went down to South Sweden and Germany).
I hear ya! Maybe I should run...probably wouldn't get elected though.
Storm, You are a smart man so you would not fit in. Besides why would you put yourself and family through that mess?
did you see were Shell Oil will be outfitting 7 of their rigs with equipment to measure weather data and wave data. Heard it today in the news.
Agree with most of the folks on this launching large quatities of sulfur into the Stratospere as a really bad idea right now (sorry Mr. Nobel).......Let's wait a few more decades to see what Mother Nature has in store (and if things truly worsen)......Given all of the recent, and sometimes locally catastropic, natural events around the world (floods/earthquakes/tsunamis/tropical storms/drought) in recent years, I would not count out some type of massive volcanic eruption somewhere on the planet in the next several years which would "naturally" take care of the problem without having to spend billions..........
Viewing: 1 - 51
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 — Blog Index