What could possibly go wrong?
By John Fialka, E&E NewsJan. 23, 2020 , 10:00 AM
Originally published by E&E News
BOULDER, COLORADO—The top climate change scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said he has received $4 million from Congress and permission from his agency to study two emergency—and controversial—methods to cool the Earth if the U.S. and other nations fail to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.
David Fahey, director of the Chemical Sciences Division of NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory, told his staff yesterday that the federal government is ready to examine the science behind “geoengineering”—or what he dubbed a “Plan B” for climate change.
Fahey said he has received backing to explore two approaches.
One is to inject sulfur dioxide or a similar aerosol into the stratosphere to help shade the Earth from more intense sunlight. It is patterned after a natural solution: volcanic eruptions, which have been found to cool the Earth by emitting huge clouds of sulfur dioxide.
The second approach would use an aerosol of sea salt particles to improve the ability of low-lying clouds over the ocean to act as shade.
This technique is borrowed from “ship tracks”—or long clouds left by the passage of ocean freighters that are seen by satellites as reflective pathways. They could be widened by injections of vapor from seawater by specialized ships to create shading effects.
Research in both techniques, Fahey emphasized, are recommended in a forthcoming study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine titled “Climate Intervention Strategies that Reflect Sunlight to Cool Earth.”
But in a sign of how controversial the topic is, Fahey recommended changing the nomenclature from geoengineering to “climate intervention,” which he described as a “more neutral word.”
Fahey also emphasized this is not an approval to move forward with geoengineering. Rather, it’s to prepare the U.S. government for a political decision if the world fails to adequately limit the rise of global warming.
“Geoengineering is this tangled ball of issues and science is only one of them,” he said.
“One of the things I’m interested in doing is let’s separate the science out,” he added. The idea is to give policymakers a clear view of how a hurry-up bid to save the planet would work.
Even then, the results likely wouldn’t be immediate. Fahey showed slides and graphics that noted that a Plan B might take until the next century to complete the cooling.
Still, better science might “buy time” to improve the efforts, he said.
There would be drawbacks, he noted, after being asked by a researcher whether injections of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere might reduce seafood by acidifying the oceans.
“When you put aerosols up into the atmosphere, it does a lot of things,” Fahey, a physicist, responded. “That opens up this whole menu of things that you’d have to worry about.”
He said other aerosols such as calcite or titania “might have less impact, but nobody knows. We want to look at them in the laboratory.”
Several smaller nations have complained that the use of aircraft to inject aerosols into the atmosphere might alter the weather or destroy the ozone layer, which protects humans from some of the more harmful radiation from sunlight.
Fahey suggested that a scientific approach would require solving a list of unknowns, including tests to find out what’s in the stratosphere today and how to get aerosols to spread there homogeneously. Another likely area of research: unintended consequences.
“We have to use atmospheric observations to find out what we’re doing,” he added.
At the moment, the government has no planned experiments and NOAA’s authority does not extend into the stratosphere. But there is a bill in Congress called the “Climate Intervention Research Act” that would broaden its jurisdiction.
“There could be more than $100 million attached to this, I’m told,” he explained.
HT/Peter B
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Might as well start the NOAA knew project for the enviro law groups.
WUWT and Anthony Watts could use that $4,000,000 and put it to better use !
JPP
The second approach, using an aerosol of sea salt particles, would probably require thousands of “specialized ships”, but how would they be powered? Using fossil fuels would probably negate, or at least greatly diminish, any positive benefits. Would the ships each have a wind turbine and be covered with solar panels?
Obviously, this method is ridiculous. Note that present day ocean freighters are not powered in this fashion! How would the ships be controlled in a storm? etc. etc.
Search for Salter and Latham cloud ships. They are wind powered. IIRC Flettner rotors are one suggestion.
JF
And what happens when a large volcano erupts, pouring huge amounts into the atmosphere on top of what was put in there? Nuclear winter?
“And what happens when a large volcano erupts,”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo
“Pinatubo is most notorious for its VEI-6 eruption on June 15, 1991, the second-largest terrestrial eruption of the 20th century after the 1912 eruption of Novarupta in Alaska” . . .
“The effects of the 1991 eruption were felt worldwide. It ejected roughly 10,000,000,000 tonnes (1.1×1010 short tons) or 10 km3 (2.4 cu mi) of magma, and 20,000,000 tonnes (22,000,000 short tons) of SO2, bringing vast quantities of minerals and toxic metals to the surface environment. It injected more particulate into the stratosphere than any eruption since Krakatoa in 1883. Over the following months, the aerosols formed a global layer of sulfuric acid haze. Global temperatures dropped by about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) in the years 1991–93,[7] and ozone depletion temporarily saw a substantial increase.”
end excerpts
So, how far do these geoengineers want to reduce the temperatures? How many Pinatubo’s do they have to artificially simulate and perpetuate in order to reduce temperatures 1C from where we are right now? I kind of like the temperatures we have right now.
Wait just a minute, Mr. David Fahey . . . your slip is showing. Why don’t either of your two proposed emergency solutions involve rapid reductions in atmospheric CO2, which is after all the “go to” explanation for global warming, per “scientific consensus,” and in fact is given as such in the above article’s first paragraph. Or is CO2 not a factor at all?
The NASA Apollo program demonstrated that lithium hydroxide was very effective at removing CO2 from the atmosphere of crewed spacecraft. Isn’t a far simpler solution—one with much lower environmental risk than the two approaches you’ve stated—to embark on emergency manufacture of mass quantities of LiOH (or less-expensive sodium hydroxide, which I understand also scrubs CO2 quite well).
Heck, quantities of CO2 scrubbing salts could even be placed downstream of large wind turbines (for enhancing reaction rates via turbulent air cross-flow) so some added value can be extracted from these monstrosities.
Tell you what, my proposed “emergency solution” is being provided to you for free (so as to save the planet, don’t you know), but if you have, say, $100,000 remaining from that $4 million grant for an honorarium, I won’t refuse it.
NaOH is about $600/ton in contrast to sulfur which is about $100/ton as sulfur and half that cost as SO2.
NaOH is commonly made by the chloralkali process involving electrolysis. It requires a lot of energy and complex equipment. Yes it’s possible to use it to absorb CO2 but efficiency is poor, and the absorbers and liquid wastes that are generated will need to be managed (hydroxide salts are hygroscopic). LiOH as you note is even more expensive.
Ammonium ion could be used to with sulfur to create AS aerosols that would not be acidic like sulfuric acid, but that would add cost and complexity. There are piles of stranded sulfur in many parts of the world just for the taking.
When it comes to saving planet Earth, cost should not be consideration . . . or should it?
You are raising a false dilemma. The planet has already existed for 4 billion years longer than mankind. The notion that we can save it is hubris at best.
My position is that there is no climate crisis. However, as a scientist, I love experiments, and I do think there are valid concerns that others have raised here and these should be addressed.
However, even though I am skeptical of the need for geoengineering, the cost of this research program is small, especially compared to taking steps like Gore or Mann, etc. propose which will cost trillions and do more harm than good to people, especially the poor.
We already engage in cloud seeding, which is a form of weather modification. What is wrong to attempt to do some research that will improve our understanding of the impact of aerosols?
Gordon Dressler: “When it comes to saving planet Earth, cost should not be consideration . . . or should it?”
Skissor: “You are raising a false dilemma. ”
I don’t think you get sarcasm either. Or a rhetorically asked, tongue in cheek question …
Jim, just so.
Climate geoengineering will eventually turn out to be Yucca Mountain site studies times 1,000 in research to nowhere. And that in itself is a small offshoot of climate research funding streams out there already.
But in a sign of how controversial the topic is, Fahey recommended changing the nomenclature from geoengineering to “climate intervention,” which he described as a “more neutral word.”
Prb’ly all 4 million will go to “revising” the word geoengineering to “climate intervention” in all the books and electronic media. And family members of the “climate change scientist” will somehow get the job…..
The very idea of addressing the problem by studying methods of climate cooling always seems to bring out the worst in people, but by being sensible about this we can delay the foolhardy and dangerous dash for renewables and the banning of the things that can lower global temperatures without killing billions of people. Maybe.
Let me explain.
The global warming problem is not with warming, not with the science, not even with the snouts in troughers who are cleaning up: it’s a political problem. As such it needs a political solution.
Until the science sorts itself out — it’s a right bugger’s muddle at present with true science bogged down in a PR battle against unscrupulous opponents who are playing a more polished and effective PR game, running rings round scientists who just have science on their side. Common-sense is losing with ever more extreme solutions being threatened, but the proposed solutions are not sensible and not practical. The political way out of this trap is to prepare emergency measures but not to deploy them on a large scale, holding them in reserve in case a real crisis emerges — my guess is it won’t but those who are panicking think otherwise.
Here’s the message: there is no crisis yet. We don’t think there will be. However, renewable energy will not avert a crisis if that were to emerge, so we need to be ready, just in case. Our insurance policies are
1) Nuclear power. We will design a new generation of nuclear reactors, SMRs that could be produced in a worldwide crash programme in just a few years. Until then we will convert heavy goods vehicles to compressed natural gas — a low carbon solution — and produce the gas by increasing the rate of fracking while we research zero carbon alternatives. We intend to be ready to convert the world to zero carbon energy rapidly, cheaply and more reliably than using renewables.
2) We will build a few cloud ships which will produce non-polluting salt aerosols — the same aerosols that every breaking wave produces by the trillion – to counter the effects of pollution on aerosol production. Google Salter and Latham.
3) We will research the effects of ocean oil pollution on wave breaking, and chemical and land run-off pollution which may be reducing di-methyl sulphide aerosol production by poisoning phytoplankton.
These measures mean that if a crisis shows signs of developing then we will be prepared. Until then there is no need to close down civilisation. Our solutions will be researched, prepared but not deployed. Compared to the cost of closing down conventional power stations, a few hundred million dollars is chicken-feed.
JF
I have a post at Independence Daily entitled DO NOT BE AFRAID: NO CRISIS, NO CATASTROPHE which expands on this. And BTW, the idea of injecting sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere is completely barking mad.
Julian Flood:
“the idea of injecting sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere is completely barking mad”
But we have already been doing that, since the start of the Industrial Revolution when we began burning fossil fuels.
The idea is to inject it into the stratosphere to make aerosols that reflect sunlight. Our terrestrial emissions that make aerosols get mostly washed out before they reach such heights.
There is an error in the headline. It should read:
Politically-favored Researcher Gets $4 Million Virtue-signaling Grant from Congress.
Beware unintended consequences!
F. Ross
Beware Greeks bearing unintended consequences!
We have entered the post-reasoning/reasonableness stage of the Climate Crusades. Therefore many have gone to the get rich while the getting is good mode and the rational adaptation.
First of all the only evidence that SO2 provides any cooling is via massive injection into the stratosphere by VE6 or greater tropical volcanoes. Given this evidence it is unlikely the low altitude injection from burning of coal had any effect on the climate whatsoever.
We might be able to have some effect if we could provide an additive to jet fuel that reflected sunlight. That would also be financially reasonable as the jets are all flying anyway. And, it could be stopped at any time it was determined to be a problem.
“First of all the only evidence that SO2 provides any cooling is via massive injection into the stratosphere by VE6 or greater tropical volcanoes. Given this evidence it is unlikely the low altitude injection from burning of coal had any effect on the climate whatsoever.”
That was my position back when we were having the “Human-Caused Global Cooling” discussion in the 1970’s. That’s still my position..
Tom Abbott;
A massive volcanic eruption is not required to see a change in average global temperatures.
If a plot of ENSO temperatures is carefully examined, you will see a temp. change for essentially all VEI4-VEI7 eruptions (and occasionally for a VEI3 eruption), regardless of location.
The amount of change is, of course, primarily affected by the magnitude of the eruption.
You also say that it is unlikely that the low altitude injection of SO2 from the burning of coal had any effect on the climate whatsoever.
It has had a tremendous effect upon the climate, and along with other anthropogenic SO2 emitters, has probably exceeded that of the Pinatubo eruption.
Unlike anything else
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jan/29/solar-telescope-captures-most-detailed-pictures-yet-the-sun#img-1
“Scientists have released the highest resolution image of the sun’s surface ever taken. In this picture, taken at 789 nanometres, we can see features as small as 18 miles (30km) in size for the first time. The image shows a pattern of turbulent gas that covers the entire sun. Photograph: NSO/Aura/NSF”
It looks like bubbling oatmeal. The description said each “bubble” was about the size of France.
The most affordable and productive geoengineering is adding a little iron sulfate to key ocean ecosystems. It’s already been demonstrated.
Testing, bugger’s muddle
JF
The very idea of addressing the problem by studying methods of climate cooling always seems to bring out the worst in people, but by being sensible about this we can delay the foolhardy and dangerous dash for renewables and the banning of the two things that can lower global temperatures without killing billions of people. Maybe.
Let me explain.
The global warming problem is not with warming, not with the science, not even with the snouts in troughers who are cleaning up: it’s a political problem. As such it needs a political solution.
Until the science sorts itself out — it’s a right hamburger’s muddle at present with true science bogged down in a PR battle against unscrupulous opponents who are playing a more polished and effective PR game, running rings round scientists who just have science on their side. Common-sense is losing with ever more extreme solutions being threatened, but the proposed solutions are not sensible and not practical. The political way out of this trap is to prepare emergency measures but not to deploy them on a large scale, holding them in reserve in case a real crisis emerges — my guess is it won’t but those who are panicking think otherwise.
Here’s the message: there is no crisis yet. We don’t think there will be. renewable energy will not avert a crisis if that were to emerge so we need to be ready, just in case. Our insurance policies are 1) Nuclear power. We will design a new generation of nuclear reactors, SMRs that could be produced in a worldwide crash programme in just a few years. Until then we will convert heavy goods vehicles to compressed natural gas — a low carbon solution — and produce the gas by increasing the rate of fracking. We will be able to convert the world to zero carbon energy rapidly, cheaply and more reliably than using renewables.
2) We will build a few cloud ships which will produce non-polluting salt aerosols — the same aerosols that every breaking wave produces by the trillion – to counter the effects of pollution on aerosol production.
3) We will research the effects of ocean oil pollution on wave breaking, and chemical and land run-off pollution which may be reducing di-methyl sulphide aerosol production by poisoning phytoplankton.
These measures mean that if a crisis shows signs of developing then we will be prepared. Until then there is no need to close down civilisation. Our solutions will be researched, prepared but not deployed. Compared to the cost of closing down conventional power stations, a few hundred million dollars is chicken-feed.
JF
I have a post at Independence Daily entitled DO NOT BE AFRAID: NO CRISIS, NO CATASTROPHE which expands on this.
Oops!
JF
re:
“Straight-line projection” again; Haven’t you ppl learned your lesson yet? Take a look around you, look deeper at what’s around the corner, within the realm of possibilities, get out of your ‘old paradigms’ …
The longer version of the article says that an experiment will be made to release about 1 kg of calcium carbonate into the air over New Mexico and see what effect it has on the climate underneath the release (before it is dispersed by the wind).
Of course, New Mexico has a rather dry climate, so that the CaCO3 released will tend to remain in the atmosphere for a long time and may block sunlight. How that can be extrapolated to a more humid climate, where the CaCO3 particles will tend to nucleate water vapor into clouds and rain, is anybody’s guess.
One further problem with trying to use solid particles in the air to block sunlight is how to lift them into the atmosphere. Solid particles are heavier than air and tend to precipitate to the ground (either washed down by rain or simply gravity settling in a dry climate), so if scientists want to replenish them, some energy must be used in lifting them into the atmosphere, either by plane (which consumes fossil fuels) or hot-air balloon (which uses some fuel to warm the air in the balloon), and this energy consumption also generates CO2 emissions.
Has anyone calculated whether the warming effect of the CO2 will wipe out the cooling effect of the suspended solids?
Sub 100 year old’s working to determine how to save 4,500,000,000 year old Earth. How precious!
Who would have thought it? /sarc
All we have to do to save the planet is to add varying amounts of sulfur as an input to every coal-burning power station and we have the ultimate “climate control knob.”
Now let’s agree what the optimum CO2 concentration is, and then the “climate crisis” is over.
Cancel COP26, cancel XR protests, cancel all subsidies for “renewables”, and stop funding all the university “climate research” departments.
$100 million available to study geoengineering solutions you say? In that case I need grant money to study the feasibility of using explosives on highly active volcanoes to encourage them to blow, that should give us an all natural (nothing better than a natural solution) aerosol output to fight CAGW. Of course those small eruptions might not be big enough to offset CAGW so we better be prepared to use nukes on Yellowstone if this whole global warming thing gets really bad.
Once I’ve spent the entire $100 million on feasibility studies I can move into Phase 2, experimental stage. I’m afraid that will take billions but I promise to start in on small volcanoes at first just in case things don’t work out like I had planned. /sarc
It is amazing to see a group of people all convince each other that it would be a good idea to go out and interfere with and probably wreck a system that has been functioning perfectly for billions of years. It is similar to setting your house on fire to improve comfort in winter.
Who needs to make the risky trip to Mars when we can make it here?
[to George] “The Forbidden Zone was once a paradise. Your breed made a desert of it, ages ago.”
……Planet of the Apes (1968)
https://www.washington.edu/news/2017/07/25/could-spraying-particles-into-marine-clouds-help-cool-the-planet/
We should conduct tests on marile cloud brightening. It would be benign on a small scale. Think of all the positive things we could do.
We’ve been geo-engineering for a long time. Plowing up prairies and planting crops.
Nothing could wrong with small scale tests. Controlling solar radiation in specific spots would be valuable.
Oops!
JF
T^4 (Literally: “T” to the fourth)
Thermal radiation from a ‘source’ is proportional to Temperature to the 4th power.
Remember that.
_Jim, is your name pronounced like Terry Pratchett’s “_ing” in “The Truth”?
Is the significance of T^4 (literally: T to the fourth power) lost on you, Russ Wood?
Let’s have a dialogue to see where the ‘root’ of your problem lay …