From the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory:
Earth sunblock only needed if planet warms easily
Planet’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases will determine how much shading could be needed to slow temperature rise

RICHLAND, Wash. – An increasing number of scientists are studying ways to temporarily reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the earth to potentially stave off some of the worst effects of climate change. Because these sunlight reduction methods would only temporarily reduce temperatures, do nothing for the health of the oceans and affect different regions unevenly, researchers do not see it as a permanent fix. Most theoretical studies have examined this strategy by itself, in the absence of looking at simultaneous attempts to reduce emissions.
Now, a new computer analysis of future climate change that considers emissions reductions together with sunlight reduction shows that such drastic steps to cool the earth would only be necessary if the planet heats up easily with added greenhouse gases. The analysis, reported in the journal Climatic Change, might help future policymakers plan for a changing climate.
The study by researchers at the Department of Energy‘s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory explored sunlight reduction methods, or solar radiation management, in a computer model that followed emissions’ effect on climate. The analysis shows there is a fundamental connection between the need for emissions reductions and the potential need for some sort of solar dimming.
“It’s a what-if scenario analysis,” said Steven Smith with the Joint Global Change Research Institute in College Park, Md,, a joint venture between PNNL and the University of Maryland. “The conditions under which policymakers might want to manage the amount of sun reaching earth depends on how sensitive the climate is to atmospheric greenhouse gases, and we just don’t know that yet.”
The analysis started with computer-based virtual worlds, or scenarios, that describe different potential pathways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which limits the amount of heat in the earth system due to greenhouse gas accumulation. The researchers combined these scenarios with solar radiation management, a type of geoengineering method that might include shading the earth from the sun’s heat by either brightening clouds, mimicking the atmospheric cooling from volcanic eruptions or putting mirrors in space.
“Solar radiation management doesn’t eliminate the need to reduce emissions. We do not want to dim sunlight over the long term — that doesn’t address the root cause of the problem and might also have negative regional effects. This study shows that the same conditions that would call for solar radiation management also require substantial emission reductions in order to meet the climate goals set by the world community,” said Smith.
How much sun blocking might be needed depends on an uncertain factor called climate sensitivity. Much like beachgoers in the summer, the earth might be very sensitive to carbon dioxide, like someone who burns easily and constantly slathers on the sunscreen, or not, like someone who can get away with SPF 5 or 10.
Scientists measure climate sensitivity by how many degrees the atmosphere warms up if the concentration of carbon dioxide doubles. Smith said if the climate has a medium sensitivity of about 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) per doubling of carbon dioxide, “it’s less likely we’d need solar radiation management at all. We’d have time to stabilize the climate if we get going on reducing emissions. But if it’s highly sensitive, say 4.5 degrees Celsius (8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) per doubling, we’re going to need to use solar radiation management if we want to limit temperature changes.”
According to NOAA’s August report, the earth’s temperature has already risen about 0.62 degrees Celsius (1.12 degrees Fahrenheit) since the beginning of the 20th century as the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has grown from 290 parts per million to 379 parts per million.
But the atmosphere hasn’t reached equilibrium yet — even if humans stopped putting more carbon dioxide into the air, the climate would still continue to change for a while longer. Scientists do not know what temperature the earth will reach at equilibrium, because they don’t know how sensitive the planet is to greenhouse gases.
Further, the study showed that, when coupled with emission reductions, the amount of solar radiation management needed could be far less than the amount generally considered by researchers so far.
“Much of the current research has examined solar radiation management that is used as the sole means of offsetting a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations. What we showed is that when coupled with emissions reductions, only a fraction of that amount of ‘solar dimming’ will be needed. This means that potential adverse impacts would be that much lower,” said Smith. “This is all still in the research phase. We do not know enough about the impacts of potential solar radiation management technologies to use them at this time.”
The study will also help decision-makers evaluate solar reduction technologies side-by-side, if it comes to that. Smith and his coauthor, PNNL atmospheric scientist and Laboratory Fellow Phil Rasch, devised a metric to quantify how much solar radiation management will be needed to keep warming under a particular temperature change threshold. Called degree-years, this metric can be used to evaluate the need for potential sunlight dimming technologies.
Whether such technologies will be needed at all, time will tell.
This work was supported by the non-profit Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research.
Reference: Steven J. Smith and Philip J. Rasch, 2012. The Long-Term Policy 1 Context for Solar Radiation Management, Climatic Change, doi: 10.1007/s10584-012-0577-3. (http://www.springerlink.com/content/31674q46k61p86h7/)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
More from the loony left? More models.
What could possibly go wrong?
Not much to say, other than I’m just totally lost of words….
It just feels as though the Warmists are putting science back to the pre-enlightenment era. Are western economies so wealthy that they can afford to waste huge sums of money on this junk ? I wonder how the earth could possibly have existed for 4.5 billion years without these wondrous new technologies they’re attempting to develop.
Clearly the world’s gone mad !
I think that should be “supported by the Fund for Useless Climate and Energy Research”. And that makes a nice, appropriate acronym, too.
Truly, they are scraping the bottom of the barrel
Weather watch: Southen and Eastern Australia experiencing extremely cold spring weather, with snow in areas that are almost unprecedented for October. No mention of global warming in the news, which is probably the biggest news of all.
” to potentially stave off some of the worst effects of climate change…”
Which “worst effects” are we talking about? Haven’t seen them yet…..
Bloody lunatics, god help us if this is ever allowed!
I hope some really clever lawyer is sharpening his pencil to sue on behalf of those of us who need as much sunshine as we can get for our businesses and life style.
There are millions who rely on sunshine to ripen crops and provide food. We have in front of us this year, in the UK, proof that too much rain destroys crops and pushes up prices, so too does too little sunshine. Who’s to say exactly how much shade will produce just the right amount of cooling without some unintended, and unforeseen until after the event,consequence running out of control. Leave well alone.
As usual they only consider half the story. When I was involved in anti-submarine work in the North Atlantic we had to keep track of all surface vessels, especially what were called ELINT trawlers. It’s an abbreviation of Electronic Intelligence Trawlers, which were Soviet “fishing vessels” festooned with antenna and electronic monitoring devices that sat of the coast all the time in international waters. They were also temporary supply vessels in the event of conflict as we witnessed during the Cuban crisis. Massive factory ships that processed the catch at sea served the same purpose.
In order to track these and other vessels we would frequently patrol in passive mode. This meant flying without any detecting equipment like radar operating at all. The east coast of Canada is the foggiest area in the world so lack of radar was a problem. We soon realized that the heat from the trawler or other vessel burned off the fog for a considerable distance behind the vessel, certainly as far as the condensation trails in the photo shown above. It taught me much about the delicate balance between temperature, condensation and evaporation that I applied when I went back to university to study climate change.
In addition, there are the lower levels of fog created by the urban heat island effect. But that is not the end of the list.
Ha ha. That’s funny because they say the sun is bad for us and it causes skin cancer so we need sunblock lotion to prevent skin cancer…
Only to find out that we have a widespread vitamin D deficiency and we need the sun for vitamin D. NO FOOD can match the amount of vitamin D we get from the sun. Not only that, vitamin D at the right dosage or optimal level can significantly cut down risk of getting all kinds of cancers.
Here is the link to show that we need vitamin D for so many things – http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/
So… maybe the earth needs sun for something we don’t know about yet? Will trying to reduce solar radiation cause more problems like it did for us with sunblock lotion?
“The analysis, reported in the journal Climatic Change, might help future policymakers plan for a changing climate.”
========
I wasn’t really worried until the term “policymakers” reared its ugly head.
The electorate ultimately makes policy, with its votes.
Never forget that.
Dr Strangelove?
‘drastic steps to cool the earth would only be necessary if the planet heats up easily with added greenhouse gases‘
Sort of sounds like an attempt to back out of ‘man-made’ global warming. Anyone else get that sense?
Do you suppose, that by playing, with this stuff, the AGW guys will figure out that it might be a good idea to include clouds or water vapor in their Modeling?
All of their research begins with the assumption that CO2 causes catastrophic GW.
If we get a new president ….we should cut off the money for all such research!
I discussed this with a Harvard professor years ago when he thought we needed to mitigate AGW with stratospheric sulfate particles. What struck me then as now is this is most likely one experiment that cannot be taken back if it goes wrong. And Murphy says it will go wrong. Mostly because you are trying to do something for all the wrong reasons and don’t really understand the potential outcomes.
One hopes this is just a total waste of money and idle speculation. As the alternative is truly scary.
I’m not at all concerned at the prospect of CO2 increases. I’m very apprehensive at the thought of geo-engineering. Given humankind’s track record of cock-ups when trying to improve on nature, I can’t see any good outcomes from this kind of exercise.
If I read this correctly, climate scientists finally admitted 1) that they don’t know what the right value for climate sensitivity is, and 2) that increased cloud cover is a negative feedback.
When “researchers” start messing with the atmosphere, billions will die.
Mankind screwing with nature… what could possibly go wrong /sarc
Sweet Jesus, that’s about 10 inches away from C***t***l material.
‘Computer-based virtual worlds’ tell us how much sunblock Earth needs? Sorry, Pacific Northwest, but ‘computer-based virtual worlds’ can only ever tell us how much sunblock ‘computer-based virtual worlds’ “need”. And as our home planet appears to be sliding into another Little Ice Age, it should dawn soon enough, even on you, that the amount of sunblock we “need” is a negative amount.
There’s gonna be one heck of a lawsuit because of all this. I’m reminded of that movie where the Army accidentally stopped the rotation of the earth’s core causing birds to fly upside down.
yet again, I am aghast at the stupidity!
and BTW, just for completeness – they do KNOW, do they not, that sunlight is used by PLANTS to take CO2 out of the atmosphere? Did they add that into their silly models?
“The conditions under which policymakers might want to manage the amount of sun reaching earth depends on how sensitive the climate is to atmospheric greenhouse gases, and we just don’t know that yet.”
At least they got one thing right.
What is it with some of these groups and their unhealthy fascination with blocking out the sun?
Don’t they know that the opposite of sun light and warmth is darkness and cold?