The Thermostat Hypothesis

Guest Essay by Willis Eschenbach

Abstract

The Thermostat Hypothesis is that tropical clouds and thunderstorms, along with other emergent phenomena like dust devils, tornadoes, and the El Nino/La Nina alteration, actively regulate the temperature of the earth. This keeps the earth at an equilibrium temperature.

Several kinds of evidence are presented to establish and elucidate the Thermostat Hypothesis – historical temperature stability of the Earth, theoretical considerations, satellite photos, and a description of the equilibrium mechanism.

Historical Stability

The stability of the earth’s temperature over time has been a long-standing climatological puzzle. The globe has maintained a temperature of ± ~ 3% (including ice ages) for at least the last half a billion years during which we can estimate the temperature. During the Holocene, temperatures have not varied by ±1%. And during the glaciation periods, the temperature was generally similarly stable as well.

In contrast to Earth’s temperature stability, solar physics has long indicated (Gough, 1981; Bahcall et al., 2001) that 4 billion years ago the total solar irradiance was about three-quarters of the current value. In early geological times, however, the earth was not correspondingly cooler. Temperature proxies such as deuterium/hydrogen ratios and 16O/18O ratios show no sign of a corresponding warming of the earth over this time. Why didn’t the earth warm as the sun warmed?

This is called the “Faint Early Sun Paradox” (Sagan and Mullen, 1972), and is usually explained by positing an early atmosphere much richer in greenhouse gases than the current atmosphere.

However, this would imply a gradual decrease in GHG forcing which exactly matched the incremental billion-year increase in solar forcing to the present value. This seems highly unlikely.

A much more likely candidate is some natural mechanism that has regulated the earth’s temperature over geological time.

Theoretical Considerations

Bejan (Bejan 2005) has shown that the climate can be robustly modeled as a heat engine, with the ocean and the atmosphere being the working fluids. The tropics are the hot end of the heat engine. Some of that tropical heat is radiated back into space. Work is performed by the working fluids in the course of transporting the rest of that tropical heat to the Poles. There, at the cold end of the heat engine, the heat is radiated into space. Bejan showed that the existence and areal coverage of the Hadley cells is a derivable result of the Constructal Law. He also showed how the temperatures of the flow system are determined.

“We pursue this from the constructal point of view, which is that the [global] circulation itself represents a flow geometry that is the result of the maximization of global performance subject to global constraints.”

“The most power that the composite system could produce is associated with the reversible operation of the power plant. The power output in this limit is proportional to

where q is the total energy flow through the system (tropics to poles), and TH and TL are the high and low temperatures (tropical and polar temperatures in Kelvins).

The system works ceaselessly to maximize that power output. Here is a view of the entire system that transports heat from the tropics to the poles.

Figure 1. The Earth as a Heat Engine. The equatorial Hadley Cells provide the power for the system. Over the tropics, the sun (orange arrows) is strongest because it hits the earth most squarely. The length of the orange arrows shows relative sun strength. Warm dry air descends at about 30N and 30S, forming the great desert belts that circle the globe. Heat is transported by a combination of the ocean and the atmosphere to the poles. At the poles, the heat is radiated to space.

In other words, flow systems such as the Earth’s climate do not assume a stable temperature willy-nilly. They reshape their own flow in such a way as to maximize the energy produced and consumed. It is this dynamic process, and not a simple linear transformation of the details of the atmospheric gas composition, which sets the overall working temperature range of the planet.

Note that the Constructal Law says that any flow system will “quasi-stabilize” in orbit around (but never achieve) some ideal state. In the case of the climate, this is the state of maximum total power production and consumption. And this in turn implies that any watery planet will oscillate around some equilibrium temperature, which is actively maintained by the flow system. See the paper by Ou listed below for further information on the process.

Climate Governing Mechanism

Every heat engine has a throttle. The throttle is the part of the engine that controls how much energy enters the heat engine. A motorcycle has a hand throttle. In an automobile, the throttle is called the gas pedal. It controls incoming energy.

The stability of the earth’s temperature over time (including alternating bi-stable glacial/interglacial periods), as well as theoretical considerations, indicates that this heat engine we call climate must have some kind of governor controlling the throttle.

While all heat engines have a throttle, not all of them have a governor. In a car, a governor is called “Cruise Control”. Cruise control is a governor that controls the throttle (gas pedal). A governor adjusts the energy going to the car engine to maintain a constant speed regardless of changes in internal and external forcing (e.g. hills, winds, engine efficiency, and losses).

We can narrow the candidates for this climate governing mechanism by noting first that a governor controls the throttle (which in turn controls the energy supplied to a heat engine). Second, we note that a successful governor must be able to drive the system beyond the desired result (overshoot).

(Note that a governor, which contains a hysteresis loop capable of producing overshoot, is different from a simple negative feedback of the type generally described by the IPCC. A simple negative feedback can only reduce an increase. It cannot maintain a steady state despite differing forcings, variable loads, and changing losses. Only a governor can do that.)

The majority of the earth’s absorption of heat from the sun takes place in the tropics. The tropics, like the rest of the world, are mostly ocean; and the land that is there is wet. The steamy tropics, in a word. There is little ice there, so the clouds control how much energy enters the climate heat engine.

I propose that two interrelated but separate mechanisms act directly to regulate the earth’s temperature — tropical cumulus and cumulonimbus clouds. Cumulus clouds are the thermally-driven fluffy “cotton ball” clouds that abound near the surface on warm afternoons. Cumulonimbus clouds are thunderstorm clouds, which start life as simple cumulus clouds. Both types of clouds are part of the throttle control, reducing incoming energy. In addition, the cumulonimbus clouds are active refrigeration-cycle heat engines, which provide the necessary overshoot to act as a governor on the system.

A pleasant thought experiment shows how this cloud governor works. It’s called “A Day In the Tropics”.

I live in the deep, moist tropics, at 9°S, with a view of the South Pacific Ocean from my windows. Here’s what a typical day looks like. In fact, it’s a typical summer day everywhere in the Tropics. The weather report goes like this:

Clear and calm at dawn. Light morning winds, clouding up towards noon. In the afternoon, increasing clouds and wind with showers and thundershowers developing as the temperature rises. Thunderstorms continuing after dark, and clearing some time between sunset and early hours of the morning, with progressive clearing and calming until dawn.

That’s the most common daily cycle of tropical weather, common enough to be a cliché around the world.

It is driven by the day/night variations in the strength of the sun’s energy. Before dawn, the atmosphere is typically calm and clear. As the ocean (or moist land) heats up, air temperature and evaporation increase. Warm moist air starts to rise. Soon the rising moist air cools and condenses into clouds. The clouds reflect the sunlight. That’s the first step of climate regulation. Increased temperature leads to clouds. The clouds close the throttle slightly, reducing the energy entering the system. They start cooling things down. This is the negative feedback part of the cloud climate control.

The tropical sun is strong, and despite the negative feedback from the cumulus clouds, the day continues to heat up. The more the sun hits the ocean, the more warm, moist air is formed, and the more cumulus clouds form. This, of course, reflects more sun, and the throttle closes a bit more. But the day continues to warm.

The full development of the cumulus clouds sets the stage for the second part of temperature regulation. This is not simply negative feedback. It is the climate governing system. As the temperature continues to rise, as the evaporation climbs, some of the fluffy cumulus clouds suddenly transform themselves. They rapidly extend skywards, quickly thrusting up to form cloud pillars thousands of meters high. In this way, cumulus clouds are transformed into cumulonimbus or thunderstorm clouds.

The columnar body of the thunderstorm acts as a huge vertical heat pipe. The thunderstorm sucks up warm, moist air at the surface and shoots it skyward. At altitude the water condenses, transforming the latent heat into sensible heat. The air is rewarmed by this release of sensible heat and continues to rise within the thunderstorm tower.

At the top, the rising much dryer air is released from the cloud up high, way above most of the CO2, water vapor, and other greenhouse gases. In that rarified atmosphere, the air is much freer to radiate to space. By moving inside the thunderstorm heat pipe, the rising air bypasses any interaction with most greenhouse gases and comes out near the top of the troposphere. During the transport aloft, there is no radiative or turbulent interaction between the rising air inside the tower and the surrounding lower and middle troposphere. Inside the thunderstorm, the rising air is tunneled through most of the troposphere to emerge at the top.

In addition to reflecting sunlight from their top surface as cumulus clouds do, and transporting heat to the upper troposphere where it radiates easily to space, thunderstorms cool the surface in a variety of other ways, particularly over the ocean.

1. Wind driven evaporative cooling. Once the thunderstorm starts, it creates its own wind around the base. This self-generated wind increases evaporation in several ways, particularly over the ocean.

a) Evaporation rises linearly with wind speed. At a typical squall wind speed of 10 meters per second (“m/s”, about 20 knots or 17 miles per hour), evaporation is about ten times greater than at “calm” conditions (conventionally taken as 1 m/s).

b) The wind increases evaporation by creating spray and foam, and by blowing water off of trees and leaves. These greatly increase the evaporative surface area, because the total surface area of the millions of droplets is evaporating as well as the actual surface itself.

c) To a lesser extent, the surface area is also increased by wind-created waves (a wavy surface has a larger evaporative area than a flat surface).

d) Wind-created waves in turn greatly increase turbulence in the atmospheric boundary layer. This increases evaporation by mixing dry air down to the surface and moist air upwards.

e) As spray rapidly warms to air temperature, which in the tropics can be warmer than ocean temperature, evaporation also rises above the sea surface evaporation rate.

2. Wind and wave driven albedo increase. The white spray, foam, spindrift, changing angles of incidence, and white breaking wave tops greatly increase the albedo of the sea surface. This reduces the energy absorbed by the ocean.

3. Cold rain and cold wind. As the moist air rises inside the thunderstorm’s heat pipe, water condenses and falls. Since the water is originating from condensing or freezing temperatures aloft, it cools the lower atmosphere it falls through, and it cools the surface when it hits. Also, the droplets are being cooled as they fall by evaporation.

In addition, the falling rain entrains a cold wind. This cold wind blows radially outwards from the center of the falling rain, cooling the surrounding area. This is quite visible in the video below.

4. Increased reflective area. White fluffy cumulus clouds are not very tall, so basically they only reflect from the tops. On the other hand, the vertical pipe of the thunderstorm reflects sunlight along its entire length. This means that thunderstorms reflect sunlight from an area of the ocean out of proportion to their footprint, particularly in the late afternoon.

5. Modification of upper tropospheric ice crystal cloud amounts (Lindzen 2001, Spencer 2007). These clouds form from the tiny ice particles that come out of the smokestack of the thunderstorm heat engines. It appears that the regulation of these clouds has a large effect, as they are thought to warm (through IR absorption) more than they cool (through reflection).

6. Enhanced night-time radiation. Unlike long-lived stratus clouds, cumulus and cumulonimbus often die out and vanish in the early morning hours, leading to the typically clear skies at dawn. This allows greatly increased nighttime surface radiative cooling to space.

7. Delivery of dry air to the surface. The air being sucked from the surface and lifted to altitude is counterbalanced by a descending flow of replacement air emitted from the top of the thunderstorm. This descending air has had the majority of the water vapor stripped out of it inside the thunderstorm, so it is relatively dry. The dryer the air, the more moisture it can pick up for the next trip to the sky. This increases the evaporative cooling of the surface.

8. Increased radiation through descending dry air. The descending dry air mentioned above is far more transparent to surface radiation than normal moist tropical air. This increases overall radiation to space.

In part because they utilize such a wide range of cooling mechanisms, cumulus clouds and thunderstorms are extremely good at cooling the surface of the earth. Together, they form the governing mechanism for the tropical temperature.

But where is that mechanism?

The problem with my thought experiment of describing a typical tropical day is that it is always changing. The temperature goes up and down, the clouds rise and fall, day changes to night, the seasons come and go. Where in all of that unending change is the governing mechanism? If everything is always changing, what keeps it the same month to month and year to year? If conditions are always different, what keeps it from going off the rails?

In order to see the governor at work, we need a different point of view. We need a point of view without time. We need a timeless view without seasons, a point of view with no days and nights. And curiously, in this thought experiment called “A Day In the Tropics”, there is such a timeless point of view, where not only is there no day and night, but where it’s always summer.

The point of view without day or night, the point of view from which we can see the climate governor at work, is the point of view of the sun. Imagine that you are looking at the earth from the sun. From the sun’s point of view, there is no day and night. All parts of the visible face of the earth are always in sunlight—the sun never sees the nighttime. And it’s always summer under the sun.

If we accept the convenience that the north is up, then as we face the earth from the sun, the visible surface of the earth is moving from left to right as the planet rotates. So the left-hand edge of the visible face is always at sunrise, and the right-hand edge is always at sunset. Noon is a vertical line down the middle. From this timeless point of view, morning is always and forever on the left, and afternoon is always on the right. In short, by shifting our point of view, we have traded time coordinates for space coordinates. This shift makes it easy to see how the governor works.

The tropics stretch from left to right across the circular visible face. We see that near the left end of the tropics, after sunrise, there are very few clouds. Clouds increase as you look further to the right. Around the noon line, there are already cumulus. And as we look from left to right across the right side of the visible face of the earth, towards the afternoon, more and more cumulus clouds and increasing numbers of thunderstorms cover a large amount of the tropics.

It is as though there is a graduated mirror shade over the tropics, with the fewest cloud mirrors on the left, slowly increasing to extensive cloud mirrors and thunderstorm coverage on the right.

After coming up with this hypothesis that as seen from the sun, the right-hand side of the deep tropical Pacific Ocean would have more clouds than the left-hand side), I thought “Hey, that’s a testable proposition to support or demolish my hypothesis”. So in order to investigate whether this postulated increase in clouds on the right-hand side of the Pacific actually existed, I took an average of 24 pictures of the Pacific Ocean taken at local noon on the 1st and 15th of each month over an entire year. I then calculated the average change in albedo and thus the average change in forcing at each time. Here is the result:

Figure 2. Average of one year of GOES-West weather satellite images taken at satellite local noon. The Intertropical Convergence Zone is the bright band in the yellow rectangle. Local time on earth is shown by black lines on the image. Time values are shown at the bottom of the attached graph. The red line on the graph is the solar forcing anomaly (in watts per square meter) in the area outlined in yellow. The black line is the albedo value in the area outlined in yellow.

The graph below the image of the earth shows the albedo and solar forcing in the yellow rectangle which contains the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone. Note the sharp increase in the albedo between 10:00 and 11:30. You are looking at the mechanism that keeps the earth from overheating. It causes a change in insolation of -60 W/m2 between ten and noon.

Now, consider what happens if for some reason the surface of the tropics is a bit cool. The sun takes longer to heat up the surface. Evaporation doesn’t rise until later in the day. Clouds are slow to appear. The first thunderstorms form later, fewer thunderstorms form, and if it’s not warm enough those giant surface-cooling heat engines don’t form at all.

And from the point of view of the sun, the entire mirrored shade shifts to the right, letting more sunshine through for longer. The 60 W/m2 reduction in solar forcing doesn’t take place until later in the day, increasing the local insolation.

When the tropical surface gets a bit warmer than usual, the mirrored shade gets pulled to the left, and clouds form earlier. Hot afternoons drive thunderstorm formation, which cools and air conditions the surface. In this fashion, a self-adjusting cooling shade of thunderstorms and clouds keeps the afternoon temperature within a narrow range.

Now, some scientists have claimed that clouds have a positive feedback. Because of this, the areas where there are more clouds will end up warmer than areas with fewer clouds. This positive feedback is seen as the reason that clouds and warmth are correlated.

I and others take the opposite view of that correlation. I hold that the clouds are caused by the warmth, not that the warmth is caused by the clouds.

Fortunately, we have way to determine whether changes in the reflective tropical umbrella of clouds and thunderstorms are caused by (and thus limiting) overall temperature rise, or whether an increase in clouds is causing the overall temperature rise. This is to look at the change in albedo with the change in temperature. Here are two views of the tropical albedo, taken six months apart. August is the warmest month in the Northern Hemisphere. As indicated, the sun is in the North. Note the high albedo (areas of light blue) in all of North Africa, China, and the northern part of South America and Central America. By contrast, there is low albedo in Brazil, Southern Africa, and Indonesia/Australia.

Figure 3. Monthly Average Albedo. Timing is half a year apart. August is the height of summer in the Northern Hemisphere. February is the height of summer in the Southern Hemisphere. Light blue areas are the most reflective (greatest albedo)

In February, on the other hand, the sun is in the South. The albedo situation is reversed. Brazil and Southern Africa and Australasia are warm under the sun. In response to the heat, clouds form, and those areas now have a high albedo. By contrast, the north now has a low albedo, with the exception of the reflective Sahara and Rub Al Khali Deserts.

Clearly, the cloud albedo (from cumulus and cumulonimbus) follows the sun north and south, keeping the earth from overheating. This shows quite definitively that rather than the warmth being caused by the clouds, the clouds are caused by the warmth.

Quite separately, these images show in a different way that warmth drives cloud formation. We know that during the summer, the land warms more than the ocean. If temperature is driving the cloud formation, we would expect to see a greater change in the albedo over land than over the ocean. And this is clearly the case. We see in the North Pacific and the Indian Ocean that the sun increases the albedo over the ocean, particularly where the ocean is shallow. But the changes in the land are in general much larger than the changes over the ocean. Again this shows that the clouds are forming in response to, and are therefore limiting, increasing warmth.

How the Governor Works

Tropical cumulus production and thunderstorm production are driven by air density. Air density is a function of temperature (affecting density directly) and evaporation (water vapor is lighter than air).

A thunderstorm is both a self-generating and self-sustaining heat engine. The working fluids are moisture-laden warm air and liquid water. Self-generating means that whenever it gets hot enough over the tropical ocean, which is almost every day, at a certain level of temperature and humidity, some of the fluffy cumulus clouds suddenly start changing. The tops of the clouds streak upwards, showing the rising progress of the warm surface air. At altitude, the rising air exits the cloud, replace by more air from below. Suddenly, in place of a placid cloud, there is an active thunderstorm.

“Self-generating” means that thunderstorms arise spontaneously as a function of temperature and evaporation. They are what is called an “emergent” phenomenon, meaning that they emerge from th background when certain conditions are met. In the case of thunderstorms, this generally comes down to the passing of a temperature threshold.

Above the temperature threshold necessary to create the first thunderstorm, the number of thunderstorms rises rapidly. This rapid increase in thunderstorms limits the amount of temperature rise possible.

“Self-sustaining” means that once a thunderstorm gets going, it no longer requires the full initiation temperature necessary to get it started. This is because the self-generated wind at the base, plus dry air falling from above, combine to drive the evaporation rate way up. The thunderstorm is driven by air density. It requires a source of light air. The density of the air is determined by both temperature and moisture content (because curiously, water vapor at molecular weight 16 is only a bit more than half as heavy as air, which has a weight of about 29). So moist air is light air.

Evaporation is not a function of temperature alone. It is governed a complex mix of wind speed, water temperature, and vapor pressure. Evaporation is calculated by what is called a “bulk formula”, which means a formula based on experience rather than theory. One commonly used formula is:

E = VK(es – ea)

where

E = evaporation

V= wind speed (function of temperature difference [∆T])

K = coefficient constant

es = vapor pressure at evaporating surface (function of water temperature in degrees K to the fourth power)

ea = vapor pressure of overlying air (function of relative humidity and air temperature in degrees K to the fourth power)

The critical thing to notice in the formula is that evaporation varies linearly with wind speed. This means that evaporation near a thunderstorm can be an order of magnitude greater than evaporation a short distance away.

In addition to the changes in evaporation, there at least one other mechanism increasing cloud formation as wind increases. This is the wind-driven production of airborne salt crystals. The breaking of wind-driven waves produces these microscopic crystals of salt. The connection to the clouds is that these crystals are the main condensation nuclei for clouds that form over the ocean. The production of additional condensation nuclei, coupled with increased evaporation, leads to larger and faster changes in cloud production with increasing temperature.

Increased wind-driven evaporation means that to get the same air density, the surface temperature can be lower than the temperature required to initiate the thunderstorm. This means that the thunderstorm will still survive and continue cooling the surface to well below the starting temperature.

This ability to drive the temperature lower than the starting point is what distinguishes a governor from a negative feedback. A thunderstorm can do more than just reduce the amount of surface warming. It can actually mechanically cool the surface to below the required initiation temperature. This allows it to actively maintain a fixed temperature in the region surrounding the thunderstorm.

A key feature of this method of control (changing incoming power levels, performing work, and increasing thermal losses to quelch rising temperatures) is that the equilibrium temperature is not governed by changes in the amount of losses or changes in the forcings in the system. The equilibrium temperature is set by the response of wind and water and cloud to increasing temperature, not by the inherent efficiency of or the inputs to the system.

In addition, the equilibrium temperature is not affected much by changes in the strength of the solar irradiation. If the sun gets weaker, evaporation decreases, which decreases clouds, which increases the available sun. This is the likely answer the long-standing question of how the earth’s temperature has stayed stable over geological times, during which time the strength of the sun has increased markedly.

Gradual Equilibrium Variation and Drift

If the Thermostat Hypothesis is correct and the earth does have an actively maintained equilibrium temperature, what causes the slow drifts and other changes in the equilibrium temperature seen in both historical and geological times?

As shown by Bejan, one determinant of running temperature is how efficient the whole global heat engine is in moving the terawatts of energy from the tropics to the poles. On a geological time scale, the location, orientation, and elevation of the continental land masses is obviously a huge determinant in this regard. That’s what makes Antarctica different from the Arctic today. The lack of a land mass in the Arctic means warm water circulates under the ice. In Antarctica, the cold goes to the bone …

In addition, the oceanic geography which shapes the currents carrying warm tropical water to the poles and returning cold water (eventually) to the tropics is also a very large determinant of the running temperature of the global climate heat engine.

In the shorter term, there could be slow changes in the albedo. The albedo is a function of wind speed, evaporation, cloud dynamics, and (to a lesser degree) snow and ice. Evaporation rates are fixed by thermodynamic laws, which leave only wind speed, cloud dynamics, and snow and ice able to affect the equilibrium.

The variation in the equilibrium temperature may, for example, be the result of a change in the worldwide average wind speed. Wind speed is coupled to the ocean through the action of waves, and long-term variations in the coupled ocean-atmospheric momentum occur. These changes in wind speed may vary the equilibrium temperature in a cyclical fashion.

Or it may be related to a general change in color, type, or extent of either the clouds or the snow and ice. The albedo is dependent on the color of the reflecting substance. If reflections are changed for any reason, the equilibrium temperature could be affected. For snow and ice, this could be e.g. increased melting due to black carbon deposition on the surface. For clouds, this could be a color change due to aerosols or dust.

Finally, the equilibrium variations may relate to the sun. The variation in magnetic and charged particle numbers may be large enough to make a difference. There are strong suggestions that cloud cover is influenced by the 22-year solar Hale magnetic cycle, and this 14-year record only covers part of a single Hale cycle. However, I have yet to find any significant evidence of this effect on any surface weather variables, including clouds.

Conclusions and Musings

1. The sun puts out more than enough energy to totally roast the earth. It is kept from doing so by the clouds reflecting about a third of the sun’s energy back to space. As near as we can tell, over billions of years, this system of increasing cloud formation to limit temperature rises has never failed.

2. This reflective shield of clouds forms in the tropics in response to increasing temperature.

3. As tropical temperatures continue to rise, the reflective shield is assisted by the formation of independent heat engines called thunderstorms. These cool the surface in a host of ways, move heat aloft, and convert heat to work.

4. Like cumulus clouds, thunderstorms also form in response to increasing temperature.

5. Because they are temperature driven, as tropical temperatures rise, tropical thunderstorms and cumulus production increase. These combine to regulate and limit the temperature rise. When tropical temperatures are cool, tropical skies clear and the earth rapidly warms. But when the tropics heat up, cumulus and cumulonimbus put a limit on the warming. This system keeps the earth within a fairly narrow band of temperatures (e.g., a change of only 0.7°C over the entire 20th Century).

6. The earth’s temperature regulation system is based on the unchanging physics of wind, water, and cloud.

7. This is a reasonable explanation for how the temperature of the earth has stayed so stable (or more recently, bi-stable as glacial and interglacial) for hundreds of millions of years.

Further Reading

Bejan, A, and Reis, A. H., 2005, Thermodynamic optimization of global circulation and climate, Int. J. Energy Res.; 29:303–316. Available online here.

Richard S. Lindzen, Ming-Dah Chou, and A. Y. Hou, 2001, Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?, doi: 10.1175/1520-0477(2001)082<0417:DTEHAA>2.3.CO;2, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society: Vol. 82, No. 3, pp. 417–432. Available online here.

Ou, Hsien-Wang, Possible Bounds on the Earth’s Surface Temperature: From the Perspective of a Conceptual Global-Mean Model, Journal of Climate, Vol. 14, 1 July 2001. Available online here (pdf).


5 2 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

415 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 15, 2009 12:21 pm

John W. (11:18:30) :

…food yields will see a significant drop this year. The longer the cooling trend persists, the scarcer it will become.

It’s already started: click

hunter
June 15, 2009 12:24 pm

Rob,
Dr. Pielke has demonstrated and posted a great deal of information shwoing that the GCM’s have no real predictive ability.

Ron de Haan
June 15, 2009 12:29 pm

woodfortrees (Paul Clark) (10:18:56) :
This is a really beautiful theory, and nicely written too. It appeals to my intuition – which is why I first became interested in all this – that the Earth (Gaia) has more homeostatic tricks up her sleeve than we’ve realised yet. It’s the kind of thing James Lovelock wrote about (daisyworld!) before he went off the deep end into catastrophic AGW theory.
But I think it’s worth thinking about *why* Lovelock stopped believing Gaia could ride this out with her “governors” as she has before. Is it not possible that in other ways – deforestation, soil erosion, ocean pollution (you know, all those ‘traditional’ Green concerns) – we are damaging the “governor” itself? Would the thunder-cloud mechanism work so well over a deforested area, with no transpiration, no leaf surfaces and no bacterial clouds to seed the rain? This is a genuine question – are your maps high enough resolution to see differences in albedo effect over (say) deforested Haiti vs. lush Dominica?
Paul, you are correct.
Large scale cutting down of the tropical rain forrest will effect weather patterns.
I think it is a great importance that we take care of our biosystems which are extremely vulnerable to our quest for cheap food and especially to the generation of bio fuels.
However, our consumption of fossil fuels and the production of CO2 has nothing to do with it.
On the other hand, our continents can’t get much greener as they are today.
Thanks to the slightly elevated levels in CO2.
One other point, in Indonesia, Costa Rica and Panama, I have seen deforested area’s 10 – 20 years ago. When I visited those area’s recently they were covered again with new forrests.
We underestimate the power of nature to restore damages caused by volcanic eruptions, wild fires etc.
The same goes for the coral reefs that were destroyed by the US and Frensh nuclear programmes.
Today these reefs are completely restored.
I am convinced that taxing fossil fuels by CO2 taxes is a waste of money since real problems have to be confronted.
We can only confront these problems with healty economies and prosperity.
Today’s environmental problems in China and India for example were those we had in the sixties and seventies. We have leaned up our act, our cars and factory emissions have been cleaned up and the same will happen in China and India, but not by taxing CO2.
We have to spread knwoledge, technology and prosperity instead of spreading the wealth.
The biggest harm to our societies, our economies and our environment are socialist and fanatic greens who intend to send us back into the middle ages.
It is nice that you have mentioned Haiti as an example.
This Island has been ruled by corrupt crooks that sold out their population leaving them with a pool of mud to bake cookies.
We should not accept any ruler to treat his people and his country like that.

Dodgy Geezer
June 15, 2009 12:30 pm

Anyone else seen this item on the BBC?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5392134.stm
It shows a historical temperature set for the UK which indicates that current temperatures are not unusual at all. I trust the misguided journalist will be severely dealt with….

pwl
June 15, 2009 12:31 pm

For shorthand, not that it’s needed, I’ll call this the Honeywell Hypothesis! Nice picture of Earth in the Honeywell Thermostat control unit! Excellent graphic!
Very interesting hypothesis.
Why is the temperature set around it’s current settings… that’s what I didn’t get on the first pass through the article. Why not 10c warmer or 20c cooler?
Also, don’t the ice ages really change the temperature more than +-3 degrees (c or f?) unless you’re averaging out over a long time…?
What kind of ACTUAL experiments can be conducted (pun intended) to demonstrate, aka prove, beyond a shadow of doubt that this Honeywell Thermostat Hypothesis has a connection to objective reality?
I of course ask the AWG Hypothesis folks the same question and so far no takers… other than those that want to play hockey…
The experiment last week proved to bring everyone back to Earth, so to speak. We need more actual experiments to prove or disprove each Climate Hypothesis or component thereof. Let’s get our thinking caps on and warm up those brains!

John F. Hultquist
June 15, 2009 12:31 pm

John W. (11:18:30) :
John F. Hultquist (10:16:13) :
… We need and ice age in a hurry.
I’d rather not, thank you very much!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Can we have just if tiny one – just to make these folks look like the (-blank-) they are?
ps: I commented on the Booker post yesterday.

realitycheck
June 15, 2009 12:33 pm

Very interesting and well-written article. Keep them coming!

John W.
June 15, 2009 12:35 pm

Smokey,
The scary part is that the forecast drops in yield are all based on the effect of prolonged winter conditions. None of the forecasters seem to have asked what will happen to yield if there is an early onset of winter conditions?
Personally, I plan on hoarding. 8^)

pwl
June 15, 2009 12:43 pm

An idea for an experiment would be to park one or more satellites at some distance from Earth, say at one of the Lagrange Points and have it measure the energy that is radiated from Earth in a full spectrum of frequencies including visible and infrared. This would tell us the amount of energy the Earth is actually radiating. Doing the same with the energy coming in from the Sun should allow us to compare the two over time and correlate that with weather patterns and cloud coverage across the entire globe.
Would that work to test The Thermostat Hypothesis?

Adam from Kansas
June 15, 2009 12:50 pm

VG: It almost looks like NOAA’s maps have a warm bias in the Northern Hemisphere and a somewhat cold bias in the Southern Hemisphere.
plus it looks like Unisys is showing NOAA’s ‘predicted’ El Nino is started to run out of steam.
The UAH temp. site is back up, the channel Roy Spencer uses is showing the 2009 temps. just below the yellow line again. Also noticing the Mexico region forecast map on Intellicast, no wonder Texas upwards to my state is getting or is about to get a heatwave, the heat is getting sucked out of an area from Northern Mexico to the middle of Central America, they get cooler air, we get warmer air.
http://www.intellicast.com/Global/Temperature/Maximum.aspx?location=MXZS0123

Sandy
June 15, 2009 1:11 pm

It seems to me that if Man had never emitted significant CO2 then the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere today would be
precisely the same.
The Ocean wouldn’t have it any other way.
Also with large ice caps do you get 2 sets of Hadley cells between the equator and pole or just one set from the equator to the ice cap edge? (Guessing massive katabatic winds).

bill
June 15, 2009 1:15 pm

pwl (12:43:02) :
An idea for an experiment would be to park one or more satellites at
Are these that I posted earlier, what you are looking for:
http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/data/erbe/
http://nit.colorado.edu/atoc5560/week13.pdf
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/homerbe.html
http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/publications/Harrison%20et%20al%20JGR%2095%20D11%2018687-18703%201990.pdf
http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/7/4/pdf/i1520-0442-7-4-559.pdf
Note that the erbe data is satelite measured radiation budget. I.e. clouds/thunderstorms/etc are included.

June 15, 2009 1:20 pm

pwl (12:31:22) :
[…]
Why is the temperature set around it’s current settings… that’s what I didn’t get on the first pass through the article. Why not 10c warmer or 20c cooler?
Also, don’t the ice ages really change the temperature more than +-3 degrees (c or f?) unless you’re averaging out over a long time…?
[…]

If you look at the long-term averages…Since the Cambrian, Earth has had a fairly steady average surface temperature of ~22C. Over the last 600 million years, the Earth has experienced four “ice ages”…Late Ordovician, Pennsylvanian-Lower Permian, Upper Jurassic-Lower Cretaceous and Upper Tertiary-Quaternary. Three of the four ice ages lowered the Earth’s average temperature to ~12C…The U. Jurassic-L. Cretaceous ice age was a bit warmer (~17C).
In degrees Kelvin, the ice ages average ~285K and the warm periods ~295k…The median is ~290K. That’s about a +/-2% variation from the mean.
Within the current ice age (Plio-Pleistocene/Holocene), Earth’s average temperature oscillates between glacial and interglacial episodes. During the glacial episodes, Earth’s average temperature was about 6-7C lower than it is today. During the interglacial episodes, the average temperature has ranged from the current level to 3-4C warmer.

Craig Loehle
June 15, 2009 1:42 pm

Fantastic Willis–great job. A really big confirmation of your theory is that during ice ages the climate was quite dry globally. The tropical rain forests such as the amazon shrank and fragmented. The Eastern US forests were dominated by pine/oak woodland. etc. This is because the heat engine was cooled down by all the ice (high albedo) and thus not as much evaporation was going on.

Basil
Editor
June 15, 2009 1:45 pm

VG (11:05:52) :
so whats up with this?
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.6.15.2009.gif
compared with this?
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
maybe NOAA = AGW agenda?

Reminds me of Anthony, dedicating a blog post to explaining the blip in the ice data each June.
I’ve answered this question at least a couple of times before: different climatologies (i.e. different base periods for computing anomaly).

Indiana Bones
June 15, 2009 1:51 pm

Ron de Haan (10:28:20) :
Who takes the WSJ serious anymore?
No thinking person. The MSM has taken on a distinct Ringling Bros. appearance.

Willis Eschenbach
June 15, 2009 1:53 pm

First, my thanks to Anthony for allowing me to post here, and for his marvelous picture of the earth’s thermostat at the top of the article.
Second, my thanks to all who have contributed. And yes, StuHugFJ, I am the same person you knew in Fiji.
There seems to be some confusion about the difference between a governor and negative feedback. In my terminology at least, a governor uses both negative and positive feedback to control a system so that it maintains a steady state. Negative feedback by itself is like say the effect of air friction on a car. As you increase your speed, the friction goes up, reducing your speed. It is a negative feedback affecting your speed. However, it is only a negative feedback, it can never speed the car up.
A governor, on the other hand, is quite different. It must perforce be able to increase as well as decrease the overall performance. In other words, when the earth gets too cold, the governor must be able to warm it up, and when it gets too cool, the governor must cool it down. A simple negative feedback cannot do that.
In order to maintain a steady state, governor also must be able to bring the system back to the starting point. In terms of temperature, it must be able to more than just reduce the size of an increase, it must actively cool the earth down to (or in practice below) the starting point. This is what thunderstorms can do.
Regarding evidence that the Thermostat Hypothesis is correct, the averaged photos of the tropical ocean are the best evidence that I have been able to think of to date. They are strong evidence in that they were a testable proposition resulting from my Thermostat Hypothesis, and in the event, the test agreed with the Hypothesis. In common with much of climate science, however, it is difficult to test. Any suggestions in this regard would be most welcome.
I was surprised when I analyzed the tropical ocean photo average (Figure 2) that the threshold was so evident. Albedo is about flat level until 10:30, when a rapid rise causes an average insolation loss of about 60 W/m2. This also seems like strong evidence in support of the Thermostat Hypothesis.
Now, having been wrong many times in my life, I would not be surprised to be wrong again. But if you do not agree with my proposed climate control mechanism, then what is it that has kept the earths temperature so constant through millennia of volcanoes and meteor strikes and changing continental positions and a host of other phenomena that could easily have sent the earth spiraling into excess heat or cold?
This is not a rhetorical question. If the cloud cover of the earth were to change the tropical albedo from its current ~30% to say 20%, it would let in about than 30W/m2 more energy than the earth currently receives, enough to fry the earth completely … but we know that has not ever happened. So if my hypothesis is wrong, as it may be, then what is responsible for the temperature stability of the earth?
Again, my thanks and best regards to all, and a hat tip to Anthony Watts for the science, the style, and the general ambience of this most excellent site.
w.
PS – for those who have mentioned being interested in modeling this type of understanding of climate, I refer you again to the most interesting papers by Bejan and by Ou listed at the end of the head post.

Craig Loehle
June 15, 2009 2:02 pm

Someone asked about the nightime. Having lived in the South I can tell you that we would pray for late afternoon thundershowers because then the evening might be bearable. By removing a huge amount of water vapor from the air the thunderstorm allows night time heat to escape, and thus while it takes water vapor (a GHG) to create clouds, the storms remove water vapor from the air. This mechanism is discussed by Spencer.

tallbloke
June 15, 2009 2:04 pm

Great Essay Willis – thank you. I’ve always wondered what linked GLAAM to temperature, and you have shone light on that for me.
Ron de Haan, thanks for your post too, fascinating about the clouds being seeded by updrafted pollen, dust etc.
Other albedo factors acting as negative feedbacks:
Late summer vegetation lightens in colour as it dries and withers.
Algal blooms on oceans also reduce the absorption of insolation.

Aron
June 15, 2009 2:07 pm

Yet more proof that billions of dollars won’t buy you a cent’s worth of intelligence if you don’t know how to purchase some science books and an internet connection to read sites like WUWT.
Paul McCartney wants a a certain carnivore called Homo Sapiens Sapiens to turn to vegetarianism to fight global warming.
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/06/paul-mccartney-gets-celebs-go-veggie
Has the world gone veggie since 1998 when temperatures peaked? Considering the economic growth in developing countries since then I think not. More meat is being consumed than at any time since the Jurassic Era.
McCartney should go back to India and this time instead of smoking lots of pot and hanging out with charlatan gurus he should meet all those millions of people who are vegetarian because they are too poor to afford the meat and dairy products that their bodies sorely need to meet nutritional requirements. They cannot afford to eat five veggie meals a day like he can either. He once tried to convince the Dalai Lama to turn to vegetarianism. His request was turned down because the Dalai Lama said his doctor recommended he eat meat otherwise he would be too weak to perform his duties on just a couple of bowls of rice and beans a day. Now look at the millions of Indians who toil the fields under the baking sun on less than 400 calories a day and imagine what they would think of this McCartneyism.
Between pot headed celebrities and Marxist political activists we have a cacophony of pure unadulterated, unscientific and elitists nonsense.

kmye
June 15, 2009 2:11 pm

“The globe has maintained a temperature of ± ~ 3% (including ice ages) for at least the last half a billion years during which we can estimate the temperature. During the Holocene, temperatures have not varied by ±1%.”
I think I may just be being slow today, but can someone explain what this actually represents? 3% of what, the absolute temperature? Meaning absolute zero would be -%100?

June 15, 2009 2:28 pm

Nasif Nahle (11:21:26) :
The Correl. Coefficient for TSI/HSG is 1 and, for TSI/SP is 0.67. Isn’t that exciting?
Not really, because the data has too few degrees of freedom, for the correlation coefficient to mean anything. Start with 1000 data points of random data, then compute the mean of the first half and of the last half. that cooks the points down to only two data points [the averages] with a correlation of 1.00000, but a significance of 0.000000.
Dena (11:23:13) :
My understanding of the earth/moon system is that the moon is moving away from the earth because the rotation of the earth is transfered to the moon. This results in the earth’s day getting longer over time. Could the same thing be happening in the earth/sun system resulting in the earth’s temperature remaining within the range that Anthony’s system will work?
The solar tidal effects are smaller than the moons and the distance is 400 times larger, so there’ll be discernible effect on the distance between the sun and the Earth due to tidal effects. When the solar system formed almost 5 billion years ago there were significant changes in the distances, but that stopped when the ‘dust cleared’.

Willis Eschenbach
June 15, 2009 2:29 pm

kmye, thanks for your question, viz:

I think I may just be being slow today, but can someone explain what this actually represents? 3% of what, the absolute temperature? Meaning absolute zero would be -%100?

3% of the temperature in Kelvins, as you suggest, the absolute temperature.
w.

John Galt
June 15, 2009 2:35 pm

OT: It’s Time to Cool the Planet with Geoengineering
————–
It’s Time to Cool the Planet
Cutting greenhouse gases is no longer enough to deal with global warming, says Jamais Cascio. He argues that we also have to do something more direct—and risky.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204771304574181522575503150.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
By JAMAIS CASCIO
If we’re going to avoid climate disaster, we’re going to have start getting a lot more direct. We’re going to have to think about cooling the planet.
The concept is called geoengineering, and in the past few years, it has gone from being dismissed as a fringe idea to the subject of intense debates in the halls of power. Many of us who have been watching this subject closely have gone from being skeptics to advocates. Very reluctant advocates, to be sure, but advocates nonetheless.
The Journal Report
See the complete Environment report.
What has changed? Quite simply, as the effects of global warming have worsened, policy makers have failed to meet the challenge. As a result, if we want to avoid an unprecedented global catastrophe, we may have no other choice but to reduce the impact of global warning, alongside focusing on the factors that are causing it in the first place. That is, while we continue to work aggressively to reduce the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere, we also need to consider lowering the temperature of the Earth itself.
To be clear, geoengineering won’t solve global warming. It’s not a “techno-fix.” It would be enormously risky and almost certainly lead to troubling unforeseen consequences. And without a doubt, the deployment of geoengineering would lead to international tension. Who decides what the ideal temperature would be? Russia? India? The U.S.? Who’s to blame if Country A’s geoengineering efforts cause a drought in Country B?
Also let’s be clear about one other thing: We will still have to radically reduce carbon emissions, and do so quickly. We will still have to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, and adopt substantially more sustainable agricultural methods. We will still have to deal with the effects of ecosystems damaged by carbon overload.
View Full Image
Viktor Koen
But what geoengineering can do is slow the increase in temperatures, delay potentially catastrophic “tipping point” events—such as a disastrous melting of the Arctic permafrost—and give us time to make the changes to our economies and our societies necessary to end the climate disaster.
Geoengineering, in other words, is simply a temporary “stay of execution.” We will still have to work for a pardon.
Nothing New
Altering the Earth’s temperature, of course, is hardly anything new. Human civilization has been changing the Earth’s environment for millennia, often to our detriment. Dams, deforestation and urbanization can alter water cycles and wind patterns, occasionally triggering droughts or even creating deserts. On a global scale, industrial activity for the past 150 years or so has changed the Earth’s atmosphere, threatening to raise average world temperatures to catastrophic levels, even if we were able to stop releasing carbon into the atmosphere immediately.
What we’re talking about with geoengineering, however, is something new. It’s a more deliberate manipulation of the environment, rather than a byproduct of other activities. And while we know more than we did just a few years ago about how it might work, there are still plenty of unknowns.
Geoengineering mainly takes two forms: temperature management, which moderates heat by blocking or reflecting a small portion of the sunlight hitting the Earth; and carbon management, which gradually removes large amounts of carbon from the atmosphere (as opposed to simply reducing the amount of additional carbon we’re releasing into the atmosphere). Temperature management is the more likely course of action, as it has the advantage of potentially quick results, while carbon-management techniques that would have a global impact might take decades or centuries to show results.
Sun Block
Temperature-management proposals boil down to increasing how much sunlight the Earth reflects, rather than absorbs. (Increasing the planet’s reflectivity by 2% could counter the warming effects of a doubling of CO2 emissions.) While a variety of techniques have been suggested, some don’t pass the plausibility test, either due to cost, clear drawbacks, or both.
For instance, one proposal would place thousands of square miles of reflective sheets in the desert to reflect sunlight—an interesting plan, until you realize that this would effectively destroy desert ecosystems. Another proposal calls for launching millions of tiny mirrors into orbit, where they would block some sunlight from reaching the atmosphere. But one study of the orbiting-mirror plan concluded that, to keep pace with the continual warming, we’d need to launch one square mile of sunshade into orbit every hour.
Join the Discussion
Jamais Cascio says that cutting greenhouse-gas emissions is no longer enough to deal with global warming. He advocates a form of geoengineering called temperature management, which moderates heat by blocking or reflecting a small part of the sunlight hitting the Earth. What do you think of these proposals?
Two approaches hold the most promise: injecting tons of sulfates—essentially solid particles of sulfur dioxide—into the stratosphere, and pumping seawater into the lower atmosphere to create clouds. A recent report in the journal Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry Discussions identified these two approaches as having a high likelihood of being able to counter global temperature increases, and to do so in a reasonably short amount of time.
The sulfate-injection plan, which has received the most study, is explicitly modeled on the effects of massive volcanic eruptions, such as Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines; in the months after the 1991 eruption, global temperatures dropped by half a degree Celsius.
To trigger a drop in global temperatures, we’d need to loft between two million and 10 million tons of sulfur dioxide (which combines with oxygen to form sulfate particles) into the lower stratosphere, or at about 33,000 feet. The tiny particles suspended in the atmosphere act like a haze, reflecting a significant amount of sunlight—though not enough to notice at ground level (except for some superb sunsets).
While this seems like a large amount, several studies have shown it could be done using some combination of high-altitude balloons, dispersal in jet-aircraft exhaust, and even more exotic platforms such as artillery shells. As with volcanic sulfates, the particles would eventually cycle out of the atmosphere, so we’d have to refresh that two to 10 megatons of sulfur dioxide roughly every year.
Stratospheric sulfate injection appeals to many geoengineering proponents for a few reasons. It doesn’t require a massive leap in technology to carry out successfully; arguably, we could start doing it this year, if we needed to. It’s relatively cheap, probably costing just a few billion dollars a year. And because stratospheric sulfate injection emulates an effect of volcanic eruptions, we already have some idea of what to expect from it—for better and worse. We know, for example, that the cooling effect could start within weeks of the injection process.
We also know that stratospheric sulfates will likely damage the ozone layer (as happened after Mount Pinatubo erupted), potentially resulting in more skin cancer and damage to plants and animals. In addition, the scattering of sunlight will reduce the efficiency of some kinds of solar power, and some studies have suggested that it could disrupt monsoonal rain cycles.
While efforts to curb carbon emmissions are under way, some scientists argue more drastic measures need to be taken to combat global warming. WSJ’s science columnist Robert Lee Hotz discusses geo-engineering with environmental experts Alan Robock and Dale Jamieson.
A Higher Chance of Clouds
The other high-impact proposal, cloud brightening, increases the amount of reflected sunlight by making more clouds and thickening existing ones. One idea is to use ships to propel seawater thousands of feet in the air, where it would form or increase cloud cover.
The technique has both advantages and disadvantages compared with the sulfate-injection method. Lofting seawater into the air to seed cloud formation would have fewer environmental side effects than the sulfates, and may allow for targeted use to counter droughts. Because it would be relatively low altitude, it wouldn’t have the same scattering effect on sunlight as sulfate injection.
But increasing the extent and thickness of cloud cover could also have at least as powerful an effect on rainfall patterns as sulfate injection, increasing downpours in one area or contributing to unexpected droughts in others. Finally, the technologies required for cloud brightening are still experimental, though initial proposals look to be markedly more environmentally benign than those used for sulfate injection.
Both solutions could present a more dramatic problem if the geoengineering was to stop abruptly. According to some studies, global temperatures would spike once the geoengineering steps were ended, actually exceeding for a short time where they would have been without any geoengineering. Afterward, the temperature increase would continue as if nothing had been done to slow it. While this doesn’t mean we’d have to undertake geoengineering indefinitely, it underscores why geoengineering must be accompanied by carbon cuts.
Also, neither would do anything to solve other problems that arise from excessive levels of carbon dioxide, such as oceans becoming more acidic from increased carbon loading.
The Political Impact
Any kind of geoengineering would also face other issues. Most prominent are the political concerns. Since geoengineering is global in its effects, who determines whether or not it’s used, which technologies to deploy, and what the target temperatures will be? Who decides which unexpected side effects are bad enough to warrant ending the process? Because the expense and expertise required would be low enough for a single country, what happens when a desperate “rogue nation” attempts geoengineering against the wishes of other states? And because the benefits and possible harm from geoengineering attempts would be unevenly distributed around the planet, would it be possible to use this technology for strategic or military purposes? That last one may sound a bit paranoid, but it’s clear that any technology with the potential for strategic use will be at the very least considered by any rational international actor.
There are also more mundane questions of liability. If, for example, South Asia experiences an unusual drought during cyclone season after geoengineering begins, who gets blamed? Who gets sued? Would all “odd” weather patterns be ascribed to the geoengineering effort? If so, would the issue of what would have happened absent geoengineering be considered relevant?
Consider the Alternative
With all of these drawbacks, why would I consider myself an advocate of geoengineering, no matter how reluctant? Because I believe the alternative would be worse.
The global institutions we rely on to deal with a problem like climate change seem unable to look past short-term roadblocks and regional interests. At the same time, climate scientists are shouting louder than ever about the speed and intensity of environmental changes coming from global warming.
In short, although we know what to do to stop global warming, we’re running out of time to do it and show no interest in moving faster. So here’s where geoengineering steps in: It gives us time to act.
That’s if it’s done wisely. It’s imperative that we increase funding for geoengineering research, building the kinds of models and simulations necessary to allow us to weed out the approaches with dangerous, surprising consequences.
Fortunately, the deployment of geoengineering need not be all or nothing. Though it would have the greatest impact if done globally, some models have shown that intervention just in the polar regions would be enough to hold off the most critical tipping-point events, including ice-cap collapse and a massive methane release.
Polar-only geoengineering strikes me as a plausible compromise position. It could be scaled up if the situation becomes more dire and could be easily shut down with minimal temperature spikes if there were unacceptable side effects.
Still, we can’t forget: Geoengineering is not a solution for global warming. It would simply hold temperatures down temporarily, doing nothing about the causes of climate change, let alone ocean acidification and other symptoms of a carbon overdose. We can’t let ourselves slip back into business-as-usual complacency, because we’d simply be setting ourselves up for a far greater disaster down the road.
Our overall goal must remain the reduction and then elimination of greenhouse-gas emissions as swiftly as humanly possible. This will require feats of political will and courage around the world. What geoengineering offers us is the time to make it happen.
–Mr. Cascio, based in the San Francisco Bay area, is a futurist and Senior Fellow at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. He can be reached at reports@wsj.com.

June 15, 2009 2:38 pm

Aron (14:07:41) :
Between pot headed celebrities and Marxist political activists we have a cacophony of pure unadulterated, unscientific and elitists nonsense.

Really deep!..but why to separate, in your sentence, pot headed…..political activists…you told me both used to eat from the same pot.
When got inspired they use to fight boredom creating NGOs which disgustingly interfere with our peaceful third world common life.

1 4 5 6 7 8 17