Sunshade geoengineering people apparently have been in the midday sun too long

From the Carnegie Institution , not just aerosol injections, but effective aersol injections. Law of unintended consequences be damned.

Improving effectiveness of solar geoengineering

Washington, D.C.— Solar radiation management is a type of geoengineering that would manipulate the climate in order to reduce the impact of global warming caused by greenhouse gasses. Ideas include increasing the amount of aerosols in the stratosphere, which could scatter incoming solar light away from Earth’s surface, or creating low-altitude marine clouds to reflect these same rays.

Research models have indicated that the climatic effect of this type of geoengineering will vary by region, because the climate systems respond differently to the reflecting substances than they do to the atmospheric carbon dioxide that traps warmth in Earth’s atmosphere. New work from a team including Carnegie’s Ken Caldeira uses a climate model to look at maximizing the effectiveness of solar radiation management techniques. Their work is published October 21st by Nature Climate Change.

Attempting to counteract the warming effect of greenhouse gases with a uniform layer of aerosols in the stratosphere, would cool the tropics much more than it affects polar areas. Greenhouse gases tend to suppress precipitation and an offsetting reduction in amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth would not restore this precipitation. Both greenhouse gases and aerosols affect the distribution of heat and rain on this planet, but they change temperature and precipitation in different ways in different places. Varying the amount of sunlight deflected away from the Earth both regionally and seasonally could combat some of this problem.

By tailoring geoengineering efforts by region and by need, the team—led by California Institute of Technology’s Douglas MacMartin—was able to explore ways to maximize effectiveness while minimizing the side effects and risks of this type of planetary intervention.

“These results indicate that varying geoengineering efforts by region and over different periods of time could potentially improve the effectiveness of solar geoengineering and reduce climate impacts in at-risk areas,” Caldeira said. “For example, these approaches may be able to reverse long-term changes in the Arctic sea ice.”

The study used a sophisticated climate model, but the team’s model is still much simpler than the real world. Interference in Earth’s climate system, whether intentional or unintentional, is likely to produce unanticipated outcomes.

“We have to expect the unexpected,” Caldeira added. “The safest way to reduce climate risk is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

###

David Keith of Harvard and Ben Kravitz, formerly of Carnegie but now at DOE’s Pacific Northwest National Lab, are co-authors on the study.

The Carnegie Institution for Science is a private, nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C., with six research departments throughout the U.S. Since its founding in 1902, the Carnegie Institution has been a pioneering force in basic scientific research. Carnegie scientists are leaders in plant biology, developmental biology, astronomy, materials science, global ecology, and Earth and planetary science.

=================================================================

Here’s another similar press release on the same topic, sort of a “climate justice” spin:

Targeting solar geoengineering to minimize risk and inequality

October 21, 2012

New study suggests that solar geoengineering can be tailored to reduce inequality or to manage specific risks like the loss of Arctic sea ice

Cambridge, Mass., and Washington, D.C. – October 21, 2012 – By tailoring geoengineering efforts by region and by need, a new model promises to maximize the effectiveness of solar radiation management while mitigating its potential side effects and risks. Developed by a team of leading researchers, the study was published in the November issue of Nature Climate Change.

Solar geoengineering, the goal of which is to offset the global warming caused by greenhouse gases, involves reflecting sunlight back into space. By increasing the concentrations of aerosols in the stratosphere or by creating low-altitude marine clouds, the as-yet hypothetical solar geoengineering projects would scatter incoming solar heat away from the Earth’s surface.

Critics of geoengineering have long warned that such a global intervention would have unequal effects around the world and could result in unforeseen consequences. They argue that the potential gains may not be worth the risk.

“Our research goes a step beyond the one-size-fits-all approach to explore how careful tailoring of solar geoengineering can reduce possible inequalities and risks,” says co-author David Keith (pictured at right), Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) and Professor of Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School. “Instead, we can be thoughtful about various tradeoffs to achieve more selective results, such as the trade-off between minimizing global climate changes and minimizing residual changes at the worst-off location.”

The study—developed in collaboration with Douglas G. MacMartin of the California Institute of Technology, Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science, and Ben Kravitz, formerly of Carnegie and now at the Department of Energy—explores the feasibility of using solar geoengineering to counter the loss of Arctic sea ice.

“There has been a lot of loose talk about region-specific climate modification. By contrast, our research uses a more systematic approach to understand how geoengineering might be used to limit a specific impact. We found that tailored solar geoengineering might limit Arctic sea ice loss with several times less total solar shading than would be needed in a uniform case.”

Generally speaking, greenhouse gases tend to suppress precipitation, and an offsetting reduction in the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth would not restore this precipitation. Both greenhouse gases and aerosols affect the distribution of heat and rain on this planet, but they change the temperature and precipitation in different ways in different places. The researchers suggest that varying the amount of sunlight deflected away from the Earth both regionally and seasonally could combat some of this problem.

“These results indicate that varying geoengineering efforts by region and over different periods of time could potentially improve the effectiveness of solar geoengineering and reduce climate impacts in at-risk areas,” says co-author Ken Caldeira, Senior Scientist in the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution for Science.

The researchers note that while their study used a state-of-the-art model, any real-world estimates of the possible impact of solar radiation management would need to take into account various uncertainties. Further, any interference in Earth’s climate system, whether intentional or unintentional, is likely to produce unanticipated outcomes.

“While more work needs to be done, we have a strong model that indicates that solar geoengineering might be used in a far more nuanced manner than the uniform one-size-fits-all implementation that is often assumed. One might say that one need not think of it as a single global thermostat. This gives us hope that if we ever do need to implement engineered solutions to combat global warming, that we would do so with a bit more confidence and a great ability to test it and control it.”

###

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

41 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 21, 2012 7:07 pm

Alas, another means of wasting money. Not by geo-engineering, but by studying geo-engineering, wasting time, energy, and money—other people’s money no less!
How will they explain to their grandchildren around the old glacier face in the back yard that they spent their careers studying how to cool the planet, based on pseudoscience and government/political funding? “Grandpa! How could you be THAT stupid! You want this glaciation!”

Richdo
October 21, 2012 7:17 pm

“Further, any interference in Earth’s climate system, whether intentional or unintentional, is likely to produce unanticipated outcomes.”
Except for increasing CO2 of course, we know every outcome there Bubba!
/sarc

Richdo
October 21, 2012 7:22 pm

Did you know that …
“greenhouse gases tend to suppress precipitation”
There’s a good one. Water vapor (a greenhouse gas AFAIK) thends to suppress precipitation. Who’d a thunk it?

alan
October 21, 2012 7:57 pm

After they solve the problem of incoming sunlight, they should tackle shutting down a major volcano!
The anthropocentric hubris of the Gore crowd knows no limits!

October 21, 2012 8:22 pm

No government will let these naifs have anything sharp to play with. The only “solution” government wants is another stream of tax revenue.

davidmhoffer
October 21, 2012 8:28 pm

They used a model.
A SINGLE model.
Given that the various models use a wide range of forcing for aerosols, it is safe to bet that had they used two or more models, the results would have been all over the map and they would have looked utterly ridiculous.
Not to mention that the IPCC rates the Level of Scientific Understanding of direct aerosols (per AR4 Ch 2) as “medium to low”, of cloud albedo (all aerosols combined) as “low”, black carbon aerosols on snow as “low”, and volcanic aerosols as “low”.
No wonder they caution about actually doing anything of the sort! They know very well that they’re bee essing. They’d pee their pants if they thought anyone was actually going to do it on any scale large enough to matter.

Rhoda Ramirez
October 21, 2012 8:29 pm

Anyone proposing geoengineering solutions should be placed against a wall and shot. To preserve the gene pool, if nothing else.

October 21, 2012 8:44 pm

Totally unreliable and foolish. The models are useless and the variables are as unknown and misunderstood as most of them being used in climatology. This stuff is nice science fiction at best and pure hubris at worst. Many unkind terms come to mind about this stuff and people that foster it. I suspect charlatan is as good as any.

October 21, 2012 9:20 pm

These are some of the most foolish of the CAGW Insane Clown Posse. They are tinkering round with computer models that fail every test and these same models are useless at predicting anything as they are mainly based on a false premise. All their variables are unknown and totally misunderstood. This sort of science fiction dream is one of the most dangerous spin-offs of the CAGW fiasco. Their funding should be terminated immediately.

October 21, 2012 9:27 pm

Let’s intentionally do something to the climate and spend hundreds of years predicting what we’ve done to it.

October 21, 2012 9:30 pm

Geo-engineering is not possible.

Philip Bradley
October 21, 2012 10:41 pm

We have been geo-engineering for 70 years by the various cloud seeding operations. Not to mention the cirrus cloud (contrail) formation by thousands of planes and the millions of tons of aerosols they dump into the atmosphere every year.
The ‘it all could go horribly wrong’ angst is overdone IMO. And these kinds of experiments would lead to more precise quatification of aerosol and cloud effects, which would lead to a more accurate (lower) GHG forcing, and could well be the final nail in the coffin of the model-driven CAGW cult.
So, I say, go for it.

GeoLurking
October 21, 2012 10:49 pm

“Targeting solar geoengineering to minimize risk and inequality”
Risk? Like the risk of screwing with biosphere and potentially making it totally uninhabitable because the model didn’t include some obscure relationship that they overlooked?
“Inequality” Un-equal how? Where in the genome of any organism or individual is the sequence that codes for “equalness?” Hint… the world is not equal, period. All critters are by design, whether intelligent or evolved, to exploit any nuanced benefit from their environment that they can gain. “Equal” has Jack[censored] to do with it.
Who decides what is equitable? What gives them that right? (ans: No one and nothing.)

Mark.R
October 21, 2012 10:55 pm

If this dose work then they will be cutting the UV we need to make vitamin D thus we shall die younger.

dp
October 21, 2012 10:56 pm

These people need to be jailed before they do something irreversibly dangerous. We’ve already had the iron sulphate dumper off the coast of Canada. They can share a cell – that would be very green.

mjk
October 21, 2012 11:09 pm

For once I agree with the sceptics. Geo-engineering solutions are absolute madness. They should not even be studied.
MJK

Michael
October 21, 2012 11:50 pm

Philip Bradley says:
October 21, 2012 at 10:41 pm
“We have been geo-engineering for 70 years by the various cloud seeding operations. Not to mention the cirrus cloud (contrail) formation by thousands of planes and the millions of tons of aerosols they dump into the atmosphere every year.
The ‘it all could go horribly wrong’ angst is overdone IMO. And these kinds of experiments would lead to more precise quatification of aerosol and cloud effects, which would lead to a more accurate (lower) GHG forcing, and could well be the final nail in the coffin of the model-driven CAGW cult.
So, I say, go for it.”
I’ve been trying to find references in scientific papers to airplanes dumping aerosols in the upper atmosphere that people don’t know is happening, what are those aerosol chemicals and why are they doing that? Are they Metallic chemicals?
Possible influence of anthropogenic aerosols on cirrus clouds and anthropogenic forcing
“and from aircraft that deposit their aerosols directly in the upper troposphere”
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/9/879/2009/acp-9-879-2009.html
I found in the studies, “We use sulfate aerosols as a proxy for pollution aerosols”. Why not metallic types of aerosols?
Anthropogenic aerosols may have increased upper tropospheric
humidity in the 20th century
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/4577/2011/acp-11-4577-2011.pdf
This is interesting;
“Present US aerosol concentrations are sufficiently low that future air quality improvements are projected to cause little further warming in the US (0.1 °C over 2010–2050). We find that most of the warming from aerosol source controls in the US has already been realized over the 1980–2010 period.”
Climatic effects of 1950–2050 changes in US anthropogenic aerosols – Part 2: Climate response
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/3349/2012/acp-12-3349-2012.html
So much goo reading on anthropogenic aerosols at ACP site.
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
An Interactive Open Access Journal of the European Geosciences Union
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/full_text_search.html?q=anthropogenic+aerosols&x=3&y=6
I think this is the smoking gun though;
Dr. Jasper Kirkby Explains Prior and Ongoing Atmospheric Geo Engineering by Jet Airplanes

In the beginning of this video to 21 seconds in, you can see him pointing with his laser pointer to an image example of what cloud patterns look like, that are formed in the sky as a result of, “jets dumping aerosols into the upper atmosphere.” Quote is Dr Jaspery Kirkby from CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland.
“There’s plenty of evidence that large regions of the climate are lacking sufficient aerosol to form clouds. Contrails are a well known example of that. These are not smoke trails, these are clouds which are seeded by jets dumping aerosols into the upper atmosphere.”
Full lecture here;
Cosmic rays and climate
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073

Michael
October 22, 2012 12:00 am

Here’s another smoking gun;
Atmospheric Geoengineering with Aluminum Aerosols.mov

J Martin
October 22, 2012 12:14 am

Given the current woeful lack of understanding of the climate as witnessed by the poor accuracy / skill of climate models, added to the fact that we know the sun is entering a quiet phase of unknown depth and extent, then any attempt to geo-engineer the environment can only be described as
suicidally stupid.

michael hart
October 22, 2012 12:14 am

lol
What happens in the models, stays in the models.
Why not just turn down the water vapor feedback-amplification in the models? Problem fixed. No need to write all those extra lines of code.

Mike McMillan
October 22, 2012 12:39 am

davidmhoffer says: October 21, 2012 at 8:28 pm
They used a model.
A SINGLE model.

Yes, but it’s a “state of the art” model.
Let’s save the geo-engineering for the next ice age.

David
October 22, 2012 12:39 am

The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.” – Copy to Clipboard — Albert Einstein

Disputin
October 22, 2012 2:14 am

A Swedish chemists shop:
“I’d like to buy a deodorant”
“Yes Sir, ball or aerosol?”
“Neither. I want it for my armpits.”
What they are proposing is balls.

John Marshall
October 22, 2012 2:27 am

Atmospheric engineering is a stupid, stupid idea from people who know very little about the atmosphere.

Rowland (UK)
October 22, 2012 3:25 am

Aren’t they doing something already? Expanding and long lasting vapour trails from aircraft occur over Colchester, Essex, UK very reguarly. While these are normally produced by high flying aircraft, I witnessed one being caused by a turbo-prop aircraft at much lower altitude below the cloud base just the other day. In fact, I believe that this followed at least two previous passes judging by remnants of trails in the same direction. Meanwhile, the sky is presently 100% cloudy and therefore is obscuring any spraying that might be occurring while the number of aircraft flying over seems to have increased inordinately in the last few days.