Geo-engineering interlude and other SRM considerations

Over the last couple of weeks I have hopefully given you a bit of insight into key features of the main solar radiation management (SRM) approaches.  I expect that you have been able to gauge the imperfect nature of the methods proposed, that their feasibility (cost, effectiveness and risks) are flawed.  They should not go ahead without question nor further investigation. There are numerous reasons that I ask you to think beyond what I've been able relay to you, as there is so much more to consider beyond the summarised version I have so far portrayed:

• Local/regional scale impacts: Where will be subjected to the most significant climate and weather anomalies due to geo-engineering? Who will be affected? To what extent are these societies and ecosystems able to successfully adapt to these adverse conditions? What are the financial implications? These are all questions that require thorough evaluation before such measures be taken.  Take the South Asian Summer monsoon for example. I’ve referred to several studies forecasting the disruption of this monsoon system under the influence of geo-engineering (such as Bollasina et al, 2011).  The lives of 1.5 billion people in South Asia alone are intrinsically linked to this dynamic system.  The success of their water resources, agriculture, ecosystems, health and economies is shaped by the 70-80% of annual rainfall that falls in just 4 short months.  Compounded by high levels of poverty and a significant reliance on agriculture in this region, the acknowledged sensitivity of the monsoon system ensures that this region is highly vulnerable to geo-engineering.  The capabilities of such large and growing populations to adapt, and the financial implications (the cost of adaptation and the potential losses induced by declines in productivity) need to be fully appreciated.  This applies to all sensitive areas, including consideration to the impacts on the biosphere.

• Unexpected outcomes: No amount of modelling can guarantee the future outcomes of geo-engineering.  There is much progress to be made towards further understanding the non-linear and variable nature of climate and its associated feedbacks.  The knowledge that we lack is reflected within our models, as their performance is dependant on the data and parameters we put into them. We have a long history of ‘accidentally’ altering our natural environments (acidification, global warming, holes in the ozone), with many of the mechanisms driving this change becoming apparent once the negative impacts have been realised.  Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but can we afford to risk unpredictable climate changes when the stakes are so high?  Similarly, with the stakes being so high execution of the more feasible SRM techniques would be need to be meticulously executed.  As with our history of ‘unexpected’ impacts, we also have a long history of just doing things wrong – everyone makes mistakes, but can we afford to? If we consider the possibility of implementing stratospheric aerosols.  If we found ourselves in a situation whereby we were had been successfully geo-engineering our climate for an extended period of time and something went wrong (somebody forgot to do something, a system failed, or we find that the negative impacts are simply to great), that leads us to a new problem - the termination problem (Matthews and Caldeira, 2007).  If geo-engineering were to stop abruptly subsequent years would undergo a rate of climate warming 20 times greater than we are currently experiencing (with 20 times more catastrophic impacts?).  Where A2 is a scenario for continued global warming, GEO showing the effect of geo-engineering and OFF_2025/2050/2075 indicating the abrupt stopping of geo-engineering at for each of those respective years; the diagram demonstrates that the longer we employ geo-engineering, the more significant the termination would be.

Figure from Matthews and Caldeira (2007)

          ... which raises a new point, geo-engineering is a commitment – if we start we can’t 

          simply stop! We would be committing future generations to sustaining an SRM   

          program.

• High levels of CO2 are still high! A final point I’d like to raise is that of global warming not being a lone symptom of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.  Thus, to treat this one symptom with SRM geo-engineering neglects the other real threat of ocean acidification.  Integrated within the Earths biogeochemical cycle, the ocean is a key sink for C02. As we have emitted C02 in to the atmosphere, the ocean has taken up equivalent to half these emissions serving to lower the average pH by 0.1.  Already we are seeing significant impacts on ocean biota, such as coral bleaching and subsequent food web alterations.  Based on past records it has been estimated that if we continue on our current trajectory of CO2 emissions the pH of the ocean will decline by a further 0.4 by 2100 with devastating impacts on ocean biodiversity and associated food-webs including human livelihoods (Royal Society, 2009).  Ice core records indicate that in the past Earth has experienced substantially higher atmospheric C02 than at present.  However, the fastest know increase was 80ppm over 6000 years IPCC (2001). Slow changes accommodate inertia in the ocean systems, such that they can gradually alter and buffer the impacts of changing CO2 levels. After 200 short years of rapidly increased CO2 draw down into the oceans not only are we experiencing dramatic impacts, but the oceans will require tens of thousands of years to fully readjust.  Artificial means of reducing acidification are currently not an option; the only sure solution is to reduce emissions.  If we fail to remedy ocean acidification, additionally the rate of CO2 draw down will decline thus increasing the demand for geo-engineering.  For me this highlights the need to directly address CO2 emissions and not SRM!

And with that, over the next few posts I am going to move on to the remaining category of geo-engineering, CDR. These methods could be considered a form of mitigation as they address the issue of high atmospheric CO2 concentrations.  Will these prove to be viable options or by entertaining these ideas are we simply ignoring the elephant in the room?

SRM: Surface methods

The final approach considered under the category of SRM geo-engineering is that of increasing surface albedo.  This blog won’t be overly extensive as there a re a few fundamental limitations to this concept that negate the need (as well as the ability) to fully critique it.

Increasing the surface albedo is a method that proposes doing exactly what it says on the tin.  Though, since the Earth is not one uniform surface there are several ways in which this could be achieved (Royal society, 2009):

• Whitening roofs, road and pavements in urban settlements

            - cost: 1% of earths land surface $300 billion per year

• Increase more reflective crop varieties

            - cost: unknown

• Installing reflective materials into the desert

            - cost: $ trillions per year and extensive ecological consequensces.

• Reforestation

            - cost: unknown

The overlying issue with these techniques is their inefficiency (relative to cost!) compared to other SRM methods.  What has become apparent as I’ve been blogging it that SRM methods closer to earth are less efficient and more limited in reducing global temperatures whilst having a much more significant regional or local climate signature.  This area of SRM is no different, and would likely have the greatest regional impacts and the smallest overall global climate forcing concordant with its direct implementation on the Earth itself. 

In order to achieve the adjusted albedo necessary to correct global warming, extensive resources and investment would be required due to the shear spatial extent at which such methods would need to be implemented.  This also poses another problem, there are limitations to how far the earths surface albedo can be significantly altered (arguable some of the above options would exceed what is reasonable!), as such, with climate continuing to warm, this method, like cloud whitening, has a use-by date dicatated by our climbing CO2 levels.

The literature surrounding these methods falls short of some of the previous SRM approaches.  Perhaps this should be considered to be representative of the lack of support in these areas due to their ineffective and unfeasible nature.

Conclusion

Regardless of the individual environmental impacts of each of these methods (which regionally would be quite significant!), these methods are fundamentally limited by their inability to effectively and fully achieve the desired level of global climate cooling.

As promised: stratospheric sulphate aerosols vs. cloud brightening (Jones et al., 2010)

Jones et al. (2010):

Employing the HADGEM2-AO GCM to conduct 60 year simulations, this study sought to establish how these two methods compared in terms of climate impacts.

In summary:

Both techniques were able to sufficiently reduce global temperatures, though Stratospheric sulphates were considered more effective.  The variation between the two was most evident in the geographic distribution of these changes ...

Largely it would be considered that the stratospheric method produced more uniform changes in forcing, and thus the distribution of climatic effects deviated far less from the temperature equivalent natural conditions. The diagrams below the deviation of rainfall for the two methods, with each varying in terms of distribution and magnitude, though it is clear that the marine cloud method produces the most severe deviation. 

                                          (a) SO2

                                         (b) Marine clouds

The uneven and very regionally focussed climate perturbations induced by marine cloud brightening, is also reflected in changes in sea ice extent.  The increase in sea ice extent was far less for this technique than when compared to the more globally distributed effects of stratospheric sulphate injections.  

What the authors draw from these results is that the effectiveness and nature of climatic changes induced by these methods is largely dependent on distribution and location of application.  

Conclusions

The marine cloud method in this study used what is considered to be a reliable and efficient seeding regime, but it restricts application to the eastern coasts of the Pacific ocean and the south Atlantic and therefore more anomalous climatic outcomes and inefficiency.  Though marine cloud seeding regimes could be more global, they are still restricted and such regions (as the ones used in this study), if more efficient, would still dominate the forcing.  Comparatively stratospheric aerosol applications can be much more widely applied, and the nature of stratospheric circulation aids such distribution, yielding in this model more desirable climatic outcomes. 

SRM: Marine cloud brightening (MCB)

So marine cloud brightening brings SRM into the tropopause.  It consists of smaller scale, regional changes in albedo by increasing the concentration of cloud micro-droplets in localised marine cloud systems, basically making clouds whiter and therefore reflect more solar radiation.

So how would it work...?

Increased micro-droplet concentration can occur by increasing the concentration of particles that act as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN); though if too large these particles will increasing precipitation, thus reducing micro-droplet concentration.  Subsequently to minimise research and engineering costs, naturally occurring CCN have been proposed in the form of sea salt - a highly abundant and readily, not to mention freely, available resource!  

The complicated bit about implementing this would be distribution, how do we go about injecting sea salt into the lower atmosphere? This could be possible via aircraft or being projected from ocean vessels.  Though, due to very short residence time (<10 days), it has been calculated that 1500 ocean vessels, each with 28 billion nozzles, distributing >50 cubic meters of sea water droplets per second,  would be required to counteract a doubling of natural levels of atmospheric CO2.  Thats a lot of energy required in a time when we are supposed to be making cutbacks! Fortunately, those clever scientists (Salter et al., 2008), concerned about further exacerbating CO2 emissions, have proposed a low carbon option in the form of 'Flettner rotor ships' (see below); these are wind-powered, unmanned, remote controlled ships that can be moved with the seasons to desirable locations (allowing targeted cooling!) whilst spraying sea water droplets into the lower atmosphere. However, the plans aren't as comprehensive as they may seem, the technology required between drawing on sea-water and it's effective utilization in cloud seeding is far from complete, the intricacies involved are beyond the needs of this blog, but they would sufficiently prevent efficient and effective implementation in the near future.  The overall feasibility the  Flettner vessels is still unknown.

The capacity for MCB to mediate climate warming is limited to the doubling CO2, beyond this this method could only feasibly be used to stabilise climate.  As such, in the case of a climate emergency (which at our current increasing rate of CO2 emissions will hopefully occur  beyond doubling natural levels of CO2), this method is unlikely to be a considered option in returning us to pre-industrial temperatures, though it could be used to keep temperatures below a critical threshold.

Cost

There has been little in the way of analysing cost-effectiveness of this method, but ocean water is far from expensive so that reduces costs significantly.  It has been suggested that the fleet of Flettner vessels could cost in the region of £2 billion (Salter et al., 2008), which depending on the cost of maintenance could make them a cost-effective long-term investment in comparison to the high annual costs of the previous SRM methods.  But, how much additional investment is required for research and development of the appropriate technology?

Environmental impacts 

So lets begin with the positives:

• Global temperature reduction: Various models indicate that the potential to increase albedo will be substantial enough to balance the radiative forcing of doubling CO2 concentrations (Latham et al., 2008; Rasch et al., 2009; Jones et al., 2010 ... to name but a few!).  As such it is possible for us to counteract global warming, excellent this is a good start!  Latham et al. (2011) have established that such temperature reductions will also address ice loss in the poles.
• Targeted regional temperature reductions: Unlike stratospheric aerosols, which are difficult to confine regionally due to stratospheric circulation, this method could enable us to address just those areas most susceptible to the effects of global warming, should we be hesitant to implement engineering on a global scale!  Latham et al. (2008) were able to demonstrate, through modelling, that focussing on cloud modification in the North Atlantic we may be able to reduce summer ice retreat.  
• Reduce hurricane spawning and intensification: The links between extreme weather and climate change are still being explored (Check out Andy's blog for more on this!).  It is still being established whether intensification of hurricanes is a likely symptom of increased sea surface temperature due to global warming.  Due to the potential for regional application of cloud brightening, it would be possible to focus cooling sea surface temperatures in areas of hurricane spawning and intensification.

... If only it was that simple! If you play with clouds, you inevitably affect precipitation.

 Now the negatives;

• Precipitation patterns: despite different models using different strategies (location, intensity, season) the message is largely the same, that precipitation will largely decline and patterns will change.  The amazonian basin is subject to significant precipitation reductions which are essential for the productivity of the rainforest, though it is difficult to gauge the impact as the magnitude of precipitation decline is imprecise.   
• Localised changes in albedo:  Though previously put as an advantage, this could also be a huge disadvantage due to the interconnected and non-linear nature of the planet's climate and weather systems.  Little is understood about how this would firstly affect regional climate, but also how these changes may perturbate the rest of the global system.  
• Unbalanced effects: Highlighting the non-linear nature mentioned in the precious point, the link between temperature reduction and resolving loss of polar ice is somewhat out of sync (Latham et al., 2008).  Correcting global temperatures doesn't fully resolve ice loss at the poles (possibly partially due to reductions in precipitation), similarly, the forcing required at each the poles appears to also be different. 
• Not directly an environmental impact, but knowledge and modelling limitations make it difficult to fully anticipate the extent of these impacts.  Cloud seeding not only increases cloud albedo, but it will also reduce precipitation as well as increasing cloud cover and longevity, the relationships and climatic responses of which are little understood.  As such they are not incorporated into modelling and the regional and global effects are unknown.   These undesirable effects fo cloud seeding are likely to exacerbate the negative impacts on global and regional climate. 

Conclusion

Much like the other techniques this has its pros and cons. It lacks the ability for immediate implementation, the climatic intricacies appear to be little understood and it may not have the capacity to fully rectify anthropogenic climate warming.  We don't have significant examples to draw on to really understand the effects (such as volcanic eruptions and stratospheric aerosols) and much more research is needed to really gauge the feasibility of this method as the current models are significantly lacking.  Jones et al. (2011) compare the modelled impacts of sulphate aerosols and MCB ... it looks as though sulphate aerosols comes out as the overall winner (but I'll save that for the next blog!)

"not exactly disinterested science"

Also on the Guardian:


Following up on their earlier article and my blogs about public support for geo-engineering, the focus has shifted onto the short-fallings of the Mercer et al. (2011) study.  Apparently, the study was "not exactly disinterested science" ... I think I may have mentioned this, but if the experts agree then it must be true!

Did nobody tell them about geo-engineering?

So the most recent predictions are out!  This week, a Guardian article highlighted that the International Energy Agency (IEA) study suggesting that at our current rate we have only 5 years left before reaching a critical climatic threshold and rendering ourselves to an irreversible climate.  Could such predictions see a push towards geo-engineering?

SRM: In the stratosphere ... more on the environmental impacts

And now for the environmental supplement of stratospheric aerosol injections…

Climatic patterns

Where sulphate aerosol can combat global warming they pose severe diruption global precipitation.  Higher temperatures cause more evaporation (and precipitation), however aerosol cooling not only reduces evaporation, but also alters global temperature gradients and therefore precipitation distributions; Goldstein et al. (2010) highlights the numerous studies predicting aerosol induced precipitation reductions by up to 10%.  There would likely be disproportionate declines in some regions, putting already hydrologically sensitive areas at further risk. Primarily studies have indicated that climate in the tropics would be most significantly prone to such precipitation declines, most significantly both Asian (Bollasina et al., 2011) and African Summer monsoons would reduce in intensity.  The consequences of such alterations could put billions of lives at risk in regions where water and food supplies are already at a tipping point. 

Alternative strategies have been proposed.  One of the effects of global warming already in motion is that of Arctic warming.  Melting ice sheets and reductions of summer ice extent are a reality, not just a projection of the future.  Some have proposed the injection of sulphates at the poles with the intention of addressing Arctic warming whilst progress is made toward CO2 mitigation, without reducing tropical precipitation.  These methods raise as many doubts as tropical injections, though they are arguably cheaper to implement as sulphur injections would not be required in winter (3Tg per year instead of 5Tg), significant impacts to tropical summer monsoons appear to be unavoidable (Robock et al., 2009).

Acidification

The inevitable fallout and deposition of sulphate aerosols has been raised as a potential issue.  However,  a study by Kravitz et al. (2009) has indicated that the although this acidic deposition would increase.  The midlatitudes would experience the largest absolute increase, though such level would be masked in such regions by urban deposition; comparatively the largest relative to its baseline values would be experienced in pristine environments such as Antarctica.   The magnitude in both instances is relatively insignificant, however ...  In relation to the ocean acidification induced by CO2 over recent decades, sulphate deposition would be 2 orders of magnitude less.  Similarly, relative to the critical loading values associated with the most sensitive terrestrial areas (Kuylenstiernaet et al., 2001), the maximum value of point deposition calculated was at least an order of magnitude less.  Subsequently it appears that acidification in relation to sulphate aerosols SRM would be of minimal consequence.  However, the study recognises that the spatial and temporal resolution of the study may potential disguise larger loading in smaller scaled regions, whilst the effects on terrestrial water bodies couldn’t be assessed in this study, a significant short-falling in-light of the already declining water quality experienced globally. 

Ozone

Though global surface temperatures are cooled but sulphate aerosols, the stratosphere is in fact warmed.  Such warming has the potential to inducing lofting of the ozone layer, raising it to altitudes that will increase photochemical destruction of the ozone (McCormick et al., 1995).  A double edged sword;  by reducing solar radiation passing through the earths atmosphere, the photochemical reactions required for ozone production are also liable to be reduced.  This impact is further supported by studies indicating that volcanic eruptions such as Pinatubo have shown significant reductions in the ozone (Brasseur and Granier, 1992).  Tilmes et al. (2009) concluded that should stratospheric sulphate aerosol injections be implemented that this could set back ozone hole recovery by 30 years. 

Primary productivity

With crop growth and other plants being photosynthetic it is reasonable to assume that reductions in solar radiation would be detrimental.  However, research has suggested that plant productivity would conversely increase due to increased light use efficiency associated with more diffuse radiation (Mercado et al., 2009).  After the atmospheric sulphate loading of the Mount Pinatubo episode in 1991, deciduous forest productivity increased by up to 23% (Gu et al., 2003).   That said, should drought conditions be initiated by sulphate injections, then plant productivity will decline in affected regions regardless of the influence of reduced solar radiation levels.

Also...

Two other issues, not as directly significant but important nonetheless, whitening of the skies and energy capture.   Declining blue skies is not only a problem aesthetically, but also could have severe psychological implications (Robock,2008).  Whilst the energy capture point refers to solar power, should we reduce solar passage through the atmosphere we subsequently compromise a key source of renewable energy in some countries, Murphy (2009) indicated that in California, peak capacity for solar energy generation decline form 90% to 60% peak capacity in summer of 1992 proceeding Mount Pinatubo's eruption.

Depending on the technique implemented, there will also be varying degrees of environmental compromise associated with implementation.

Conclusions

Though some perceived problems have been remedied by certain studies, namely ideas about plant productivity and acidification, other problems are still remain; each of these issues has a significant weighting in opposing implementation.  The changes in precipitation patterns could have vital implications on livelihoods, economies and biodiversity for example, outweighing the value of diffuse radiation for primary productivity.

SRM: In the stratosphere

One of the hottest topics in geo-engineering is that of injecting aerosols into the stratosphere, primarily sulphate aerosols.  The idea behind such proposed methods was first mentioned by Budyka in 1974 and is inspired by nature itself; the stratosphere contains a layer of aerosols that scatter solar radiation away from the earth and are therefore contributing to the planetary albedo.  There are two options for this method, engineered aerosols or sulphate particles.  Despite the potential offered by the engineered approach, sulphate particles are considered a more viable option at present as they require somewhat less research; they would be simple to implement and we already know a fair amount about the effects of dramatically increasing sulphate aerosols due to explosive volcanoes.

Volcanic climate forcing …

Volcanic eruptions project vast volumes of debris into the atmosphere; sulphur dioxide (SO2) emitted during the eruption oxidises in the atmosphere to form Sulphuric aerosols.   If larger enough eruptions can deposit SO2 into the stratosphere where it is retained long enough to subsequently increase the global albedo and reduce solar radiation reaching the surface, inducing a net cooling. Due to a combination of instrumental and palaeo- ice core records we have a good record by which to correlate volcanism with climate:

Mount Pinatubo (McCormick et al., 1995)

The infamous Mount Pinatubo eruption of 1991 produced 20 x 1012 g  (20 Tg) of SO2.  Compared with an average of 1958-91, there was a cooling of 4.3Wm-2 between 40 N and 40 S and average decline of 0.7 degrees C globally.  By 1993, however, the radiation balance was reinstated, thus the perturbation was short-lived.

Palaeo-records

However, the palaeo-record has enabled us to extend our understanding back beyond this instrumental period, during which time has been very explosive volcanism has been limited.  GISP2 ice-core records have revealed that not only are volcanic injections of sulphate aerosols capable of inducing short term climate cooling, but that the cumulative effect of frequent, large scale eruptions can result in persistently cooler global temperatures.  Such frequent and explosive volcanism is coincident with, and thus considered to have at least partially been the cause of cooling in the early Holocene (Zeilinski et al., 1994; Bradley, 2003) and the latter half of the Maunder Minimum (Bradley, 2003). As such, it can be established that, although the cooling effect of sulphate injections are relatively short-lived, continual or frequent contributions into the stratosphere can induce persistent cooler global temperatures.

It can be concluded therefore that based on current knowledge, this appears to be a highly effective option and efficient which would demonstrate results in little over a year.

How?

There are a whole variety of ideas being explored.  The main ideas include distribution into the stratosphere via planes, artillery fire and stratospheric balloons.  At present the most viable option would be that of the plane, as the military already use the necessary specification of aircraft; some modifications would be required but near immediate implementation could occur.   Other ideas, which at this stage in their development sounds a bit far-fetched to say the least, include a tall tower potentially reaching upto 114km, using balloons for support and  a space elevator running on solar power  (Robock, 2009)…

But what are the risks?

• Change in regional precipitations leading to drought in Africa and Asia
• H2SO4 deposition 
• Ozone depletion
• No more blue skies
• Less solar power
•  Environmental impact of implementation

And the cost:

Table 1. Adapted from Robock (2009).  The costs for different methods of injecting 1Tg of a Sulphur gas per year into the stratosphere

Method	Annual Cost ($)
planes	225,000,000 – 4,175,000,000
Artillary fire	30,000,000,000
Balloons	21,000,000,000 – 30,000,000,000

Conclusion

The efficiency and feasibility of this method renders it a strong possibility.  Modes of implementation are available, thus there would be no delay reliant on developing the necessary technologies.  And though the costs are large, they are substantially reduced in comparison to those proposed through space-based SRM, and are cheaper than investing in technologies as an alternative to CO2 emissions.  The next blog will be looking at the environmental risks more closely.

SRM: In space … more about the environmental impacts

To expand upon my last blog, I feel it is necessary to provide more detail about the environmental implications of space-based methods of solar radiation management.  I am therefore going to explore how much we actually know about the likely effects on the ozone and global climate.

Ozone

The role of changes in the ozone layer needs to be further understood.  I have been unable to track down any quantitative studies that project the extent to which sun shielding could decrease ozone production; this is primarily a stratospheric photochemical process reliant on solar radiation thus it is important that impacts of reducing radiation are explored.  Regardless, Ross and Toohey (2008) have indicated that the ozone is under significant threat due to this method, simply due to launching sunshields into orbit.  As much as 20% losses of ozone have been estimated due to this aspect alone.  Reductions in the ozone are liable to have huge implications climatically, ecological and on human health and agriculture.  

Climate projections

As previously mentioned, Lunt et al. (2008) modelled the effects of restoring global temperatures to that of pre-industrial levels, such that they were able to assess how far a space-based SRM world deviates from a pre-industrial world in relation to a future world of increased CO2 levels.  The results of the study concluded that despite restoring global temperatures, the SRM world differed significantly from a pre-industrial world in the following ways:

• Reduced latitudinal temperature gradient, compounded by cooler tropics
• Hydrological cycle intensity reduced most notably in the tropics
• Arctic sea-ice declined
• Seasonality of temperatures weakened
• The ENSO responded with reduced amplification
•  The Atlantic Ocean overturning strengthened

The impacts of such changes could have significant ecological and human repercussions most notably in the tropical and polar regions.  However, comparatively the study indicated that the changes liable to occur solely from increased atmospheric CO2 would be far more dramatic and detrimental. The diagram indicates the differences in projections of temperature, sea ice depths and precipitation between an SRM world (a,b,c) and a 4 x pre-industrial CO2 world (d,e,f).  For each of the three environmental variables, the diagram highlights that the SRM world (a,b,c) shows substantially less deviation from pre-industrial values.

Adapted from Lunt et al. (2008)

This study, despite being one of few fully-coupled ocean-atmosphere dynamic GCM models applied to such studies, is still limited; lacking incorporation of what would be significant vegetation, stratosphere and ozone feedbacks. Thus this study is far from conclusive in suggesting that a sun-shielded world is the better of two evils.

Other impacts related to this method such as plant productivity and solar power will be assessed later in the blog as there are also significant in relation to other SRM methods.

Conclusion

In the first instance perhaps sun-shielding doesn’t appear to be all that damaging environmentally, relative to not implementing SRM.  However, very little in depth research has been done into distinct regional impacts, and all lack incorporation of essential feedback systems.  Perhaps such projections are beyond our present modelling capabilities, but what is important is that where and how severe the effects of space-based SRM is still largely unknown and further investigation is required, results of lone studies such as Lunt et al. (2008) are not strong enough to condone such methods.

SRM: In space ...

Reading up on this aspect of SRM has been somewhat surreal, with phrases such as ‘lunar glass’, ideas inspired by Saturn’s rings, not to mention the immense scales (temporal and spatial) and quantities necessary to reduce solar insolation by the 2% that estimations state will counteract CO2 induced climate warming.  The prospect of taking the engineering power of man beyond the confines of our own planet is also a daunting prospect (I actually find this idea terrifying, and can’t help the images of Futurama, Star Wars and Dr Who reverberating round my head!).  How do people feel about blasting 10 trillion reflective discs, 1.5 million km into space (Royal Society, 2009) … 1 million at a time … every minute … for more than 30 years … ? – this sounds crazy but the science behind this is real!


How would it work?

One thing is sure, that sun shields would be effective.  By placing reflective or refractive material, be that discs or dust particles into orbit around the earth, the solar energy entering the Earth’s system will be reduced.  There is no physical limit on the extent of reduction (unlike other SRM methods which I’ll cover later), this may become very important if the critics’ fears are realised and geo-engineering diminishes societies desire to cap and reduce CO2 emissions; the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more solar reflection/refraction is required, thus in this scenario, opportunity for expansion is crucial.


Feasibility?

This method, however, becomes less feasible when the logistics are considered.  The cost of implementing and maintaining such technology is posing to be a difficult balance.  The mass of sunshields is proportional to solar reduction and the cost of launching increases with mass.  Subsequently, various technologies have been developed such that a smaller mass of sunshields can produce the same solar degree of reduction, but these technologies are dramatically more expensive to engineer, thus until in-situ space production is possible, this remains a drastically expensive option (McInnes, 2010).   The expense of a proposal such as that posed by Angel (2006) is estimated to cost in the region of $100 billion per year, which exceeds current global financial investments in renewable energy technologies by an entire order of magnitude (Robock, 2008).  This solution is financially unfeasible.

This method also contradicts claims that SRM can be used as a quick fix in a climate emergency.  As highlighted earlier, it is evident that initiation of such technology will take decades to implement.  Thus, if this option is further explored, it suggests that we’re committing ourselves to a future of climate manipulation, rather than preparing ourselves for an emergency.


Risks?

Such engineering may lie outside the Earth’s system, but that doesn’t mean it evades environmental side effects.  These include: ozone depletion, changes in regional climate and reduced primary production, it could even compromise the efficiency of renewable solar energy capture.  Modelling these methods has been explored, however, not too a degree adequate enough to fully appreciate the extent of the possible side effects.  One model by Lunt et al. (2008) in comparison with pre-industrial climate, describes significant temperature reductions at the tropics and warming at high latitudes resulting in a reduced latitudinal temperature gradient.  Subsequent reductions in sea ice were also simulated, along with intensity reduction of the hydrological cycle, intensification of Atlantic Ocean overturning and less variability in ENSO.  That said, the authors claim that this deviation from pre-industrial climate is less than we're experiencing in a climate warmed by CO2.

Conclusion:

These methods are imaginative and exciting, but completely unpractical, for financial and logistical reasons if not due to the possible side effects. 

SRM...

Okay so just a brief blog to give you some idea as to where I’m going with the next few posts (subject to additional blogs if I come across any news worthy items etc).  I’m going to get stuck into the SRM debate, discussing each of the core methods:

·      Space-based methods

·      Increased stratospheric albedo

·      Increased atmospheric albedo

·      Increased surface albedo

Each requires individual consideration, as the cost, feasibility, effectiveness and potential risks are method-dependant according to the technology required and the way in which they can potentially disrupt the Earth's system (The Royal Society, 2009).

Working my way from the outside in, first up for scrutinisation are the space-based methods …

Illustration by Stephanie McMillan @ Code green

Public understanding...

Since global warming and geo-engineering are such contentious issues, it is important that the debate is opened up to a more public forum for discussion.  This is a particularly pressing necessity at present as geo-engineering is increasingly progressing towards testing these ideas (if a last minute hesitation regarding social implications hadn't emerged, SPICE project testing would have begun earlier this month), and as it stands are going ahead without much appreciation for how the wider public feels about such initiatives. 

In my last brief blog I highlighted the article in the Guardian, which claimed that there was  public support for geo-engineering.  I have since looked at the research paper it was referencing (Mercer et al., 2011), and largely what I took from the paper, is not so much support, but the lack of public understanding of geo-engineering.  At the onset the survey identified that less than 24% of the 2893 participants had actually heard of either geo- or climate-engineering, and that only 8% were able to adequately describe geo-engineering.  As the authors state, this is higher than previously anticipated, but it still strikes me as an unacceptable level of understanding if these large-scale global climate manipulations are to be given the go-ahead.

This also poses another problem regarding the nature of this survey; lack of prior knowledge begged the need to provide a brief explanation of the climate system, SRM, its benefits and risks.  The paper acknowledges the potential for bias (as the three academics concerned are certainly pro geo-engineering), and states that every effort was made to provide neutral information.  However, 38% of the participants felt the questions and information were biased in favour of SRM, with only 2% feeling as though it were biased against.  The need for inclusion of public opinion requires such surveys; on the other hand, whilst public understanding remains so limited, the value of such studies will be compromised.  It would be interesting to see the result of a survey undertaken by academics opposing SRM, whether the subtle biases inevitable in their study would produce vastly different results. 

Here is a brief summary of some key results:

• 72%, to varying degrees, support furthering understanding of geo-engineering
• This support nearly halved when considering actual deployment, coupled with an increase in uncertainty amongst participants.
• 64% of participants agreed that humans should not be manipulating climate.

I’d like to highlight the third and final statistic; nearly two thirds of participants agreed that humans should not manipulate climate, which in light of the support for research and implementation suggests that a proportion of participants therefore feel that circumstances dictate it necessary that this agreement be waivered.  This highlights one of the key points raised by Gardiner (2010), that the ‘perfect moral storm’ posed by climate change, provides ‘morally exceptional circumstances’ perfectly suited for moral corruption, thus something deemed unacceptable (climate manipulation), can become acceptable (geo-engineering).  

BBC: 72% of people support SRM geo-engineering ... or do they?

Today the BBC featured an article that shows geo-engineering to be in public favour!  It discusses the newly published study by Mercer, Keith and Sharp reporting the results of an internet-based survey of 3105 people across USA, Canada and UK.  The BBCs immediate claim states that 72% of participants 'support' SRM; eventually it gets round to informing the reader that 'support', in this case, regards the research of SRM and not necessarily implementation ... very different levels of support!  This study promises to be an interesting read! Considering the known bias of the academics running the study, I particularly look forward to checking out the nature of the survey and the way in which they have interpreted the results, after all 72% is a high level of support from what I suspect isn't an entirely clued up public ... personally, before starting this blog I can honestly say I knew awfully little about geo-engineering, and I still feel I have a lot to learn before making any conclusions as to how I feel about it!

... I'll check out the study and report back on what I find! 

Illustrated: Geo-engineering methods

Adapted from image by G360 @ University of Exeter

This diagram illustrates some of the various geo-engineering methods which have been proposed, green is indicative of CDR methods and yellow of SRM.

Understanding geo-engineering …

Before I sink my teeth into the debate at hand, perhaps I should first clarify what is meant by the ambiguous term “geo-engineering” …

The experts offer the definition “the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change" (The Royal Society, 2009); for me this definition offers very little clarification as to what geo-engineering actually involves, to do so requires a bit of background knowledge about the Earth’s energy balance:

Much of the solar radiation that reaches the Earth’s surface is absorbed (but not all – this becomes important later!) and re-emitted as warming infrared radiation.  Although, not all the re-emitted infrared continues on its path beyond the Earth’s atmosphere, a proportion is retained in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases, a natural and necessary occurrence (else the earth would be pretty cold right now!).   However, burning of fossil fuels for example has increased the concentration of greenhouse gases, thus the atmosphere is retaining more infrared radiation and the world is getting warmer!

So what do we do about it?  

Well, if your rooms getting too hot what do you do? You have two options:

·      Turn down the thermostat and reduce the heat energy going in

·      Crack open a window and allow more heat to escape. 

…It’s simple.

These basic ideas exemplify how geo-engineering aims to re-adjust the Earth’s energy balance such that less infrared radiation is retained within the atmosphere.  Thus geo-engineering concepts fall into one of two categories: solar radiation management (SRM) which reduces the energy going into the climate system and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) which allows more heat to escape.

Solar Radiation Management (SRM)

SRM alters the energy balance of the planet by increasing its albedo, directly reducing the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth’s surface and the consequential amount of warming infrared radiation emitted into the atmosphere. Such manipulations span from proposals intent on increasing the proportion solar radiation that is reflected from the Earths surface, to reducing the amount of solar radiation penetrating the atmosphere entirely.  SRM is very much the centre of the geo-engineering debate, with pro geo-engineering scientists (such as Ken Caldeira, David Keith and Paul Crutzen) portraying such technology as a quick fix in the event of a climate emergency, due to its potential for maximum efficiency and effectiveness (supposedly its cheap and easy as well!).  Conversely, the geo-engineering sceptics are up in arms about such manipulations that don’t alleviate the high concentration of atmospheric C02 and pose the threat of further distorting our climate system.  So should we put on our ‘seatbelt’ in anticipation of a climate crash as posed by Caldeira? As tempting as this might be, would we simply be relieving the symptoms instead of finding a cure? – These are kinds of discussions I’m keen to explore!

 Cardon Dioxide removal (CDR).

CDR, of the two, is regarded as the more sustainable option, working directly to correct the excessive concentration of C02 in the atmosphere.  It stands to reason that this would reduce the greenhouse effect, inducing cooler temperatures by enabling more infrared radiation to escape.  This option looks far more appealing as it directly addresses the primary cause of climate change and has fewer climatic uncertainties.  The downside, however, is that this option can be costly and by no means a quick fix, delays in climatic response mean that this type of approach needs to be implemented fairly quickly if we are to continue burning fossil fuels at the current rate!

So the debate thickens … do we develop and implement geo-engineering technology? If so, do we implement CDR and/or SRM? I warn you, don’t hedge your bets too soon, as I’m going to delve further into some of the utterly bizarre and brilliant techniques that have been proposed.