Could ‘cocktail geoengineering’ save the climate?
Geoengineering is a catch-all term that refers to various theoretical ideas for altering Earth’s energy balance to combat climate change. New research from an international team of atmospheric scientists published by Geophysical Research Lettersinvestigates for the first time the possibility of using a “cocktail” of geoengineering tools to reduce changes in both temperature and precipitation caused by atmospheric greenhouse gases.
Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and gas not only cause the Earth to get hotter, they also affect weather patterns around the world. Management approaches need to address both warming and changes in the amount of rainfall and other forms of precipitation.
So-called solar geoengineering aims to cool the planet by deflecting some of the Sun’s incoming rays. Ideas for accomplishing this include the dispersion of light-scattering particles in the upper atmosphere, which would mimic the cooling effect of major volcanic eruptions.
However, climate-modeling studies have shown that while this scattering of sunlight should reduce the warming caused by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it would tend to reduce rainfall and other types of precipitation less than would be optimal.
Another approach involves thinning of high cirrus clouds, which are involved in regulating the amount of heat that escapes from the planet to outer space. This would also reduce warming, but would not correct the increase in precipitation caused by global warming.
One method reduces rain too much. Another method reduces rain too little.
This is where the theoretical cocktail shaker gets deployed.
The team–which includes Carnegie’s Ken Caldeira, Long Cao and Lei Duan of Zhejiang University, and Govindasamy Bala of the Indian Institute of Science–used models to simulate what would happen if sunlight were scattered by particles at the same time as the cirrus clouds were thinned. They wanted to understand how effective this combined set of tools would be at reversing climate change, both globally and regionally.
“As far as I know, this is the first study to try to model using two different geoengineering approaches simultaneously to try to improve the overall fit of the technology,” Caldeira explained.
The good news is that their simulations showed that if both methods are deployed in concert, it would decrease warming to pre-industrial levels, as desired, and on a global level rainfall would also stay at pre-industrial levels. But the bad news is that while global average climate was largely restored, substantial differences remained locally, with some areas getting much wetter and other areas getting much drier.
“The same amount of rain fell around the globe in our models, but it fell in different places, which could create a big mismatch between what our economic infrastructure expects and what it will get,” Caldeira added. “More complicated geoengineering solutions would likely do a bit better, but the best solution is simply to stop adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.”
Caldeira said that the international collaboration of scientists (including scientists from China and India) undertook this research as part of a broader effort aimed at understanding the effectiveness and unintended consequences of proposed strategies for reducing climate change and its impacts.
###
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.
I think I’ve got this right.
They’ve solved the problem on a GLOBAL AVERAGE level. The only minor problem is that LOCAL weather will be either too wet or too dry. (Sorta like if I have one foot in a fire pit and the other on a block of ice; on average, I’m comfortable.)
Now where did I just read about the problem one gets into when depending on averages….?
Better yet, they cannot tell you anything about local weather, cannot predict what changes occur, nothing that is even remotely useful to planning for the future.
So, I’m making sprinkler system repairs in the sunny backyard. Air temp is 91 F, 305 K. Various tools scattered around. Fired up the system to check for leaks and started rounding up tools.
Ever picked up a hunk of steel that’s been sitting in the sun? EEEYOOWW! Hot and then some. If you can’t hang on to it, it’s over 140 F, 333 K. That is how OSHA determined the limit for installing insulation or guards.
That utility knife didn’t get 140 F + from the ground, it didn’t get that hot from the air, it was heated by the S-B IR from the sun.
140 F, 333 K, is S-B BB 697.2 W/m^2. That’s a lot more than the 342 W/m^2 ToA seen in the K-T diagram and a whole lot more than the 160 W/m^2 that makes it to the “surface.” It’s over twice the bogus 333 W/m^2 GHG perpetual loop. Actually at 40 N and 30% albedo the maximum theoretical S-B BB power flux on a horizontal surface would be 733.6 W/m^2, 333.7 K, 147.7 F.
1,368 W/m^2 * Cos 40 * .70 = 733.6 W/m^2
This is known as engineering science. Our stuff has to actually work.
Must mean my metal hose ends exceeded 140° F because I yelped when I tried to hang on to them and let go very quickly! (97°F here, but it’s a dry heat….)
Whatever IR comes in from the sun is small compared to the rest of the spectrum. Itis not IR that is heating your tools.
Honestly, THIS kind of bulls**t scares me more than ANYTHING to do with Climate Change.
It would be immensely helpful for their endeavor if higher levels of CO2 actually produced more precipitation. Solving non-existent problems is really easy – they are “solved” almost no matter what you do.
What could possibly go wrong? After all, look how well solar and wind power are doing making us self reliant with electricity. And it’s free!
Yet another demonstration of the stunning idiocy of which once-serious institutions are capable when they seek advantage by placing themselves at the service of a political fad.
And when their meddling leads to a new ice age will these same scientists beg us to burn more fossil fuel to “cure ” their mistakes
Coal, oil CO2 blah blah blah. Nobody ever mentions adding a teaspoon of salt to a bottle of Pepsi.
Okay, where’s the science fiction movie about how the geoengineering goes wrong, we return to snowball earth and have to dig out enough technology to go live on the moon?
Work up your treatment and take it to Hollywood.
Oh, wait, you might have been scooped!
The real problem is too many graduate students at public universities who spend all their time writing grant proposals, not because they care about their chosen field, but because they can’t get real jobs; they’re not qualified to do anything.
Since I retired a while back I have managed to build a weather control machine in my garage. I’m pleased to report that initial tests have been quite successful. I can now generate thunderstorms, snow and control daily high and low temperatures and cloud cover. Unfortunately, I have had trouble with wind velocity control. I think the answer is to first tackle barometric pressure, but I don’t have enough space in the garage for the hardware. As I only have 100a, 208vac electrical service, the range is limited to about a 150 mile radius.
I do have to apologize to Southern Wisconsin and Northern Illinois for the recent flash flooding. I inadvertently neglected to turn down the thunderstorm frequency function after a test run a few weeks ago. I’m still working on an add-on module to eliminate hail, but it has turned out to be a bit tricky. I’ve turned down the rain function for now and will not turn it up again unless my tomato plants start to droop.
I won’t be able to go public with the details until I get the patent situation sorted out. Needless to say, this invention will generate a fortune in fees. Ski resorts, golf courses, farmers, brides planning outdoor weddings and major league baseball alone should bring in millions. The market is endless. Once word gets out, I’m sure DARPA will be calling.
Once I have the patents, I’m planning on franchising so if anyone is interested, post a response and I’ll put you on the list. ;>)
That was funny, Rick!
Excellent
You should be immune from prosecution since, after all, it’s all in the name of Geo-Engineering!
Do you happen to own a Model T?
https://youtu.be/tIxqEDLqRIs
If the aim of geoengineering is to control the average surface temperature of Earth, the first item on the engineering checklist is to determine the set point temperature. In other words, what temperature do we dial into the thermostat?
Can anyone explain how these “scientists” have determined the optimum global temperature? It appears that the IPCC has declared that another 1 degree C of warming would be catastrophic, and that pre-industrial temperatures were “just right”.
Go to
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/2017/07/23/democrats-despite-trump-victory-americans-still-want-action-on-climate-change/
and add appropriate comments.
What about the fact that we are in a mere break in a full on ice age do these nuts that want to cool the earth not understand!!!
Just suppose for a moment that CO2 is not a major climate driver, and even suppose that solar activity is the main cause of today’s warming. Yeah, I know that’s ridiculous. What If? The Sun is now entering a solar minimum, or grand minimum. If my ludicrous supposition turned out to be right, cooling could set in quite suddenly and unexpectedly. If we simultaneously started a geoengineering project to cool the Earth, it could precipitate a headlong dive into an ice age lasting 100,000 years, and wipe out the whole human race. Just saying.
Mass migration, the other way, Europe into Africa…….oh the irony
N Geoengineering ingredients in the cocktail, N! unexpected consequences.
“Carbon dioxide emissions… cause the earth to get hotter…” and they start off with a thus-far unproven statement. Someone please show me the proof, and ‘what else could it be?’ doesn’t count.
I got no problem with this! [snip]
Reply: try and write without swearing. Euphemistic spelling doesn’t change that~ctm
They should try out their ideas at the original source of all warming, let them fly into the sun.
These researchers should not be let out of their playpen.
Pssst they’ve realised global warming was made up, quick let’s create an ice age and get paid to “cure” that!
OT but just to prove to all that solar works 24/7 check out this claim .
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-24/sunshine-coast-council-solar-farm-opens-in-local-govt-first/8738320
“Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg spent his Sunday afternoon smoking meats and doing a Facebook Live from his backyard in Palo Alto, California. While waiting for his brisket to slow cook, he delivered an admonition to Elon Musk, his fellow Silicon Valley billionaire, and others who sound alarm bells over artificial intelligence posing a threat to our safety and well-being.”
Enjoying one last brisket before he gives up beef for the climate cause?
Oops. Apologies. Meant to reply to @goldminor re: Mark Zuckerberg.
Geo-Engineering the planet to mitigate ‘climate change’ is the worst possible idea. It presupposes that you understand what’s causing the climate to change in the first place, and its absolutely clear that consensus climate science doesn’t have a clue.
Possibly the stupidest idea ever. Did these geniuses actually receive monetary compensation for this?
I know! Why don’t we just shred a billion dollars, throw it up in the air to block the sunlight , and cool the earth??!!
How about dropping a nuke into a volcano.
Interestingly there appears to be reasonably good science that geoengineering to control global warming may in fact be possible. The source behind this claim was the documentary “The Contrail Affect” or something like that which came out some years back on PBS.
It related how in the aftermath of 911 when the air traffic system was shut down for almost a week across the entire nation there was a signigicant increase in measured evaporation which they attributed to reduced cloudiness because there were no contrails from commercial air traffic. As it happens it has been a long standing interest in the agricultural community to track this metric and there are literally thousands of stations with very long records in place so there was actually pretty great data behind the evaporation change. I found the data on reduced cloudiness and linking it to the change in evaporation a bit more sketchy but it seemed quite plausible.
Of course it being PBS they needed to pervert the storyline toward the anti-global warming agenda and did so by claiming that this contrail affect was in fact masking warming that we should be seeing (i.e. This too could be a solution to the pause). Of course the thought that crossed my mind was that here was definitive proof that we might be able to reasonably control weather through the simple engineering and management of aircraft fuel additives and route management to specifically exploit this phenomenon. Of course that was apparently too creative a thought to occur to the producers and it was never mentioned. But still an idea with great merit if you ask me.
One man’s opinion.
Maybe we could just whack climastrologists with real cocktails.
I suggest a real Margarita: three parts 80 proof white 100% blue agave Tequila, two parts 80 proof Cointreau and one part Key Lime juice.
One of those and I’m guessin Mikey Mann would be on his fat trasero begging for someone to show him the way to ECS of 1.0 degree C.
Extra salt on the rim of the glass.