Via press release
Palo Alto, CA—Scientists at the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology have taken a new approach on examining a proposal to fix the warming planet. So-called geoengineering ideas—large-scale projects to change the Earth’s climate—have included erecting giant mirrors in space to reflect solar radiation, injecting aerosols of sulfate into the stratosphere making a global sunshade, and much more. Past modeling of the sulfate idea looked at how the stratospheric aerosols might affect Earth’s climate and chemistry. The Carnegie researchers started out differently by asking how, if people decided what kind of climate they want, they would go about determining the aerosol distribution pattern that would come closest to achieving their climate goals. This new approach is the first attempt to determine the optimal way of achieving defined climate goals. The research is published in the September 16, 2010, issue of the Environmental Research Letters.
“We know that sulfate can cool the Earth because we have observed global temperature decreases following volcanic eruptions,” explained lead author George Ban-Weiss. “Past computer model simulations have shown that injecting sulfate uniformly into the stratosphere could reduce the surface temperature of the Earth, but the equator would be over cooled and the poles under cooled. You would also make the Earth drier, and decrease surface water runoff.”
The Carnegie scientists ran five simulations using a global climate model with different sulfate aerosol concentrations depending on latitude. They then used the results from these simulations in an optimization model to determine what distribution of sulfates would come closest to achieving specified climate goals. They then tested these distributions in the global climate model to assess how well the climate goals were met.
They found that with more sulfate over the poles than in tropical regions, the temperature distribution was more like that of a low carbon dioxide climate. However, changes in the water cycle were most effectively diminished when the sulfates were distributed nearly uniformly.
They found that if the right amount of uniformly distributed aerosols were put into the stratosphere, the magnitude of the temperature change could be diminished by 90% and the change in runoff by two-thirds. Under another scenario with aerosol distributions varying latitudinally as a parabola, the magnitude of temperature change was reduced by 94%, but then runoff changes were only reduced in half.
“Changes in temperature and the hydrological cycle cannot be simultaneously minimized because the hydrological cycle is more sensitive to changes in solar radiation than are surface air temperatures,” explained Ban-Weiss.
“Our optimization model worked well because the complex climate models indicate that much of the climate system operates as a very linear system. This is surprising when you hear all the talk of tipping points,” remarked co author Ken Caldeira. He continued, “Of course, this is just one model and it does not include all processes that are important in reality. Our results are illustrative and do not provide a sound basis for making policy decisions.”
The specific climate goals and metrics used were somewhat arbitrary. “The study was primarily aimed at developing a new methodology for looking at the climate problem,” said Caldeira.
“It’s important to stress that geoengineering options can never reverse all of the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions. For example, it doesn’t reverse ocean acidification. And it obviously has associated risk. So geoengineering is not an alternative to greenhouse gas emissions reductions.” said Ban-Weiss.
###
Image caption– Climate model results relative to the low-CO2 climate. The left side shows results when temperature differences are minimized. The right side shows results when precipitation minus evaporation (PminusE) is minimized. The upper panel shows results for temperature and the bottom panel shows results for precipitation minus evaporation. In the model, geoengineering reduces the amount of change in both temperature and precipitation minus evaporation caused by high CO2 concentrations. Using a parabolic distribution of aerosols (more aerosols in the polar regions) slightly improves the cancellation of temperature changes but slightly degrades the ability to reverse changes in precipitation minus evaporation.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m baffled – we banned CFC’s based on a tenuous hypothesis, and now we want to inject sulfate aerosols? Maybe my chemistry is bad, but doesn’t this promote acidic pollutants?
There is a better choice: A traditional Amrican sure: CASTOR OIL
Believe me! After a good doses you’ll feel like levitating, you would have forgotten all about that ……what was it?, was it not something about if the Sun,….no,no, the stars, no, no, something about weather?….Bah! Who cares!
Amazing photo! O____O
“They then used the results from these simulations in an optimization model”
Let me get this straight. They used the results of computer modeled simulations as actual input data for an optimization model? And based on the results from the optimization model, we’ll know how to geo-engineer the planet?
What could go wrong?
Seriously, this isn’t science -its Sim(Earth)Science
Gaylon says:
September 17, 2010 at 8:01 am
“The statement above has to be the most…I mean what do you say to such idiocy?”
I believe the best term is “hubris”. Those who believe they know what the climate should be for all life on the planet are well beyond simple arrogance.
Geo Engineering: Let’s burn Washington and the EPA headquarters.
From the press release: “…injecting aerosols of sulfate into the stratosphere making a global sunshade…”
How do they do that?
Air planes…
A rose by any other name is still a rose.
The Carnegie scientists ran five simulationsusing a global climate model with different sulfate aerosol concentrations depending on latitude. They then used the results from these simulations in an optimization model to determine what distribution of sulfates would come closest to achieving specified climate goals. They then tested these distributions in the global climate model to assess how well the climate goals were met.
Though the Chaiten volcano, depicted above, was emitting Hydrochloric Acid not SO2
Keep your dirty hands off of my Mother Earth.
Surface coatings on freshly-erupted volcanic ash are highly acidic, due to the influence in volcanic plumes of aerosols composed of strong mineral acids (primarily H2SO4, HCl and HF)
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2009AM/finalprogram/abstract_166742.htm
Well, need a break. Last night I dreamed I was in a huge greenhouse built on a giant platform in outer space, orbiting a sunburned, potato chip crispy planet Earth. Huey, Dewey and Louie were buzzing about and tending to the forest. Bruce Dern zipped by on a dune buggy looking thing, that’s what woke me up.
When I really did wake up I looked out and the wonderful forest was still there! Whew!
So geoengineering is not an alternative to greenhouse gas emissions reductions.” said Ban-Weiss.
This research is quite interesting. The panic about CO2 and calls for radical policies to go “carbon free” rest on possibilities that temperature sensitivity is at the higher range of estimates; action “now” is demanded because it will decades for the extent of the problem to manifest; and then it is claimed, we will be doomed. CO2 reduction policies are claimed to be “insurance” against the worst possible effects; but such “insurance” will come at a very high price with currently proposed mitigation strategies.
Aerosol injection is a much cheaper insurance policy, if in 30 or 60 years, the most alarmist predictions are proved correct, then the technology can be used; at which time understanding of climate and atmospheric sciences will be much improved. So geoengineering is an alternative to CO2 reduction.
And it will have to be because no matter how many wind-mills we put up in the US and other western nations, CO2 is going up as China and many other developing nations build coal power plants; and increase use of petroleum.
Hey Anthony, I wonder how they would do aerosol injecting?
“Leon Brozyna says:
September 16, 2010 at 10:07 pm
“Our results are illustrative and do not provide a sound basis for making policy decisions.”
Talk about a gift for understatement! The same can be said for the other models. All these schemes remind me of a B-movie sci-fi thriller, in which the well meaning scientist runs his experiment, convinced in his own mind that great things await the earth, and all mayhem ensues. The earth is saved at the last minute by the scientist’s most vocal critic.
Who will save us now? What does the script say?”
I’m still in the process of writing the script, but I have to tell you I was pretty excited when I read this, because I thought of so many more possibilities for the novel I’m in the process of outling and eventually writing. I have to remember to email this to myself, so I can keep it for my research file.
(Yep, the people in my novel will have done this, while the PDO remained negative and the AO was negative and the Sun decided to take a prolonged nap and I think you all get the picture…)
[snip – crude]
models are not data.
In a way I envy my grandchildren. They are going to read this history and then laugh, not realizing some sane people had to go through a lot to fight these loons from destroying the planet with their “best of intentions”.
Los Angeles barely saw the sun all summer. Looked a lot like ‘June gloom’, a normal blanket of fog over the beach cities the early days of summer, except that this lasted all day, most every day until late afternoon/evening. Temperatures averaged 65-73 This dull silvery blanket continues with sunshine now appearing earlier, usually by noon. During this period of time I observed an absence of the lingering patterns of contrail lines. No tic tac toe’s, no x’s, no gradual spreading of these to block the sun. Have they just changed up the spraying methods? I have lived in L.A. for over 50 years and in the last decade have seen changes in our skies that are truly alarming. If one questions the active spraying the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ marks as a response.
Why don’t they try it in a smaller scale first?. It’s easy, just spray through the ACS and enjoy it!. That would be a “robust” test. (Of course, no tricks, like masks, allowed).
Wait just a minute! Do I have this straight? This toying with nature.
Five simulations -> optimized climate model -> climate model -> we now know how to cool the UHI which is causing the global temperature stations to register a ‘too warm’ reading of 1ºC?
Have mercy on us!
Please, please consider this alternative. See all of the volcanoes across the eons. See how they seem to correlate near cool periods? Could the earth as it cools cause the crust to contract closing the tiny cracks and crevasses that were open in a warmer earth, when the crust had swelled due to higher temperature, and gases in the mantle could escape via these pores. Soil and rocks do expand with heat and contract with lower temperatures don’t they? A cooler earth as a whole would then tend to trap these internal gases and molten rock causing pressure to build, then, pop, we call them volcanoes! Caution! They could be thinking exactly opposite of what is real. Best not to act like a god until you are a god, or better, like the commercial, “It’s not good to fool Mother Nature!”
Maybe in this way it would allow the earth to release all pressure when cool to insure a long period of minimal volcanoes as it warmed back up. Is that how the earth manages itself via simple physics? I hope they say we don’t know for sure.
re: wayne September 17, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Seems that could be looked at from exact the opposite side. My only point was I don’t think we know enough of exactly how the earth system works, so, please, keep your hands off of it.
Reading these comments made me wonder what eco-psycologists would think? Just kidding.
But I did have a thought about carbon capture. We burn a great deal of methane carefully and make carbon nanotubes, then weave them together into a space elevator. Reduce the carbon footprint and end up with a great way off the planet. If we didn’t capture enough carbon, we repeat. Always more methane, clathrates, cows, etc.
So 5 variants of G.I.G.O tell us what? Some people need cut loose of the publics purse.
I suspect this may be a case of scientists wanting to make use of their own special talents and entrepreneurs wishing to use their own money in the surely rewarding noble cause of saving the planet from a well publicized menace. They do this, most likely, without knowing, and, perhaps not wishing to know, that the CO2 greenhouse effect is self-limited by a logarithmic law of diminishing results and that the total CO2 ‘climate disruption’ observed since 1880 must be less than the 0.6 to 0.7 deg C recorded average global temperature increase.
I would recommend to anyone involved in any of these fanciful CO2 removal schemes that they first make sure that they are not building their castle on a huge block of winter ice.
they don’t need an aerosol injection…the idiots wanting to do this need the “green dream” we give our pets.
re the 6.7 bill of us NOT being happy..
since when? wou;ld we be given any option to stop them?
they can do it off military bases as with chemtrailling.
how the hell do you think if they decide to do so- that we could do a damn thing to prevent it?
Gates is drumming up the midless witless idiot to accept it, along with his other schemes for pop redux.
call it philanthropy and watch the fools join and follow