AFP: Geo-engineering 'useful' against climate change: study

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5itCVurEC5IieqRzD3ccoqlsn9Gpw

Geo-engineering 'useful' against climate change: study

PARIS (AFP) — Massive, futuristic schemes to spur land and sea into sucking up greenhouse gases may help the fight against global warming but are no substitute for reducing the pollution itself, scientists said Wednesday.

Once dismissed as daft or dangerous, some of these "geo-engineering" projects can be of use in fending off the juggernaut of climate change, but only if they go hand-in-hand with cuts in carbon emissions, they warned.

"Geo-engineering" describes large-scale schemes such as erecting sunshades or mirrors in space, sowing the stratosphere with white particles or whitewashing building roofs to reflect sunlight, or scattering iron filings in the ocean to promote carbon-gobbling algae.

None of these projects has been launched on any significant scale.

…

Abstract of Paper: http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/2559/2009/acpd-9-2559-2009.html
PDF of Paper: http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/2559/2009/acpd-9-2559-2009.pdf

Press Release: http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/jan/homepagenews/geoengineering

Geoengineering could complement mitigation to cool the climate

The first comprehensive assessment of the climate cooling potential of different geoengineering schemes has been carried out by researchers at the University of East Anglia.

Funded by the Natural Environment Research Council and published today in the journal ‘Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions’, the key findings include:

• Enhancing carbon sinks could bring CO2 back to its pre-industrial level, but not before 2100 – and only when combined with strong mitigation of CO2 emissions
• Stratospheric aerosol injections and sunshades in space have by far the greatest potential to cool the climate by 2050 - but also carry the greatest risk
• Surprisingly, existing activities that add phosphorous to the ocean may have greater long-term carbon sequestration potential than deliberately adding iron or nitrogen
• On land, sequestering carbon in new forests and as ‘bio-char’ (charcoal added back to the soil) have greater short-term cooling potential than ocean fertilisation
• Increasing the reflectivity of urban areas could reduce urban heat islands but will have minimal global effect
• Other globally ineffective schemes include ocean pipes and stimulating biologically-driven increases in cloud reflectivity
• The beneficial effects of some geo-engineering schemes have been exaggerated in the past and significant errors made in previous calculations

“The realisation that existing efforts to mitigate the effects of human-induced climate change are proving wholly ineffectual has fuelled a resurgence of interest in geo-engineering,” said lead author Prof Tim Lenton of UEA’s School of Environmental Sciences

“This paper provides the first extensive evaluation of their relative merits in terms of their climate cooling potential and should help inform the prioritisation of future research.”

Geo-engineering is the large-scale engineering of the environment to combat the effects of climate change – in particular to counteract the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

A number of schemes have been suggested including nutrient fertilisation of the oceans, cloud seeding, sunshades in space, stratospheric aerosol injections, and ocean pipes.

“We found that some geoengineering options could usefully complement mitigation, and together they could cool the climate, but geoengineering alone cannot solve the climate problem,” said Prof Lenton.

Injections into the stratosphere of sulphate or other manufactured particles have the greatest potential to cool the climate back to pre-industrial temperatures by 2050.

However, they also carry the most risk because they would have to be continually replenished and if deployment was suddenly stopped, extremely rapid warming could ensue.

Using biomass waste and new forestry plantations for energy, and combusting them in a way that captures carbon as charcoal, which is added back to the soil as ‘bio-char’, could have win-win benefits for soil fertility as well as the climate.

A new combined heat and power plant at UEA is pioneering this type of technology.

UEA’s School leads the world in climate change research and is creating a new GeoEngineering Assessment & Research initiative (GEAR) to take this groundbreaking work forward. of Environmental Sciences

It will be funded partly by a donation from the Norfolk Charitable Trust.

‘The radiative forcing potential of different climate geo-engineering options’ by Tim Lenton and Nem Vaughan is published on January 28 by Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/papers_in_open_discussion.html

PODCAST: Listen to Prof Tim Lenton talking about his research here.

[GoesTo11]

1. How about building a giant freezer to restore the ice caps?

It would have to run all the time, like snow making machines at ski resorts.

[Barrett808]

2. Heh. You'd have to put the radiator fins in space, though.

Otherwise, you're just moving the heat around in the atmosphere.

[GoesTo11]

3. There's another idea. A heat pump using a carbon nanotube exhaust tube.

[Barrett808]

6. There actually is a plausible design for exporting heat to space:

http://vortexengine.ca/index.shtml

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. This is a way to combat "global warming"

However, CO₂ is dangerous for other reasons (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification">Ocean Acidification.)

[Barrett808]

14. Indeed.

This approach would have to be part of a larger package of solutions.

[The2ndWheel]

4. Again, changing the climate in order to stop climate change

To keep the climate in the narrow range where we want it will take a large amount of energy, which will again increase our impact, which will then require even more energy, which will increase our impact, require more energy, etc, etc, and on and on it goes.

We're not adapting to the environment. We're forcing the climate to adapt to us, and then when it does, we increase our control and force it to our narrow specifics again, and again, and again. We no longer want evolution to take place. We want to stop it, so that we can get to where we're going.

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. I don't see where this follows

Consider: (For purposes of illustration only) let's say we build a giant solar-powered CO₂ sucking machine. (How does it work? It doesn't, it's just for illustration.)

Our problem right now is one of insulation. Increased levels of CO₂ (and other GHG's) are keeping increasing amounts of heat in (preventing it from escaping into space.) {There are other reasons why increasing levels of CO₂ are bad, but right now, you're talking about "Global Warming."}

The giant solar sucker (or "GSS") will use energy and therefore release heat into the atmosphere. However, the GSS will lower CO₂ levels, allowing more heat to escape from the atmosphere.

Our problem right now is not energy usage, it's the source of the energy (fossil fuels.)


Why is Venus so damned hot? It's not because the Venusians are using lots of energy, and it's not because Venus is so much closer to the Sun. It's because Venus' atmosphere traps heat.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Venus_Express/SEMFPY808BE_0.html

[The2ndWheel]

10. "Our problem right now is not energy usage"

"it's the source of the energy"

Sounds like when we came to the same fork in the road, we didn't go in the same direction.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. "Sounds like when we came to the same fork in the road, we didn't go in the same direction."

Sorry, I'm not following you.

Energy use per se is not the source of our (current) problems. The problem is that (currently) much of the energy we use is derived from burning carbon. That increases the insulating qualities of our atmosphere, causing the planet to warm.

We need to decrease the amount of carbon we burn. There are two basic ways to go about this:

1. Use less energy.
2. Change the source of that energy.

We will not be able to change from carbon-based energy to alternatives "overnight." So, energy conservation is important, but I still maintain, "energy use" is not the problem, it's where we get the energy from.

[The2ndWheel]

15. Carbon is just one of the issues that we have going currently

You're right, energy use isn't the problem, since every living thing has to use energy in order to exist. The scale at which we use the energy is the problem, to me. That's the road I went down. Not that small scale energy use doesn't cause problems, just go through history to see that. We'll end up increasing that scale yet again with the next alternative energy source, the same way the scale increased with oil and coal as alternative energy sources.

So it's really scale vs. source, more than use vs. source.

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. Is it really scale vs. source?

Consider the early days of the "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution">industrial revolution." Then, large amounts of energy were (wastefully) derived from coal. The pollution was so bad, England's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth#Evolution">peppered moths evolved to be almost black from the soot. More recently, they have evolved again, becoming lighter in color.

More energy is being used today than then (and unfortunately, more greenhouse gases are being released.) However, England successfully cleaned up her act in one way. Now, she is attempting to do so in another (i.e. switching to "clean" alternative sources of energy.)

[Nihil]

7. I agree with quite a lot of that post!

> ... some of these "geo-engineering" projects can be of use in fending off
> the juggernaut of climate change, but only if they go hand-in-hand with
> cuts in carbon emissions, they warned.

100% agree.

(Note: This means REAL cuts, not the "paper cuts" (ha!) of the so-called
"carbon credit" cons.)

> On land, sequestering carbon in new forests and as ‘bio-char’ (charcoal
> added back to the soil) have greater short-term cooling potential than
> ocean fertilisation

Totally agree that replanting (i.e., new forests that stay as trees or at
least that are not used for the first ten years of their life) is a far
better (more efficient, less cost, less risk) solution than most of the
funding requests proposals.


> Increasing the reflectivity of urban areas could reduce urban heat islands
> but will have minimal global effect

Except that it will reduce the a/c demand *in* those heat islands which
will reduce power demand, most of which is currently supplied by burning
fossil fuels. In addition, it is one of the easiest (and cheapest)
solutions to adopt with zero negatives or risks AFAIK.


> The beneficial effects of some geo-engineering schemes have been
> exaggerated in the past and significant errors made in previous
> calculations

Yet there is never a shortage of people who promote the Nike approach
to environmental destruction for the sake of commercial funding
(i.e., the "just do it" school of "scienti$ts").
:shrug:


> "Geo-engineering" describes large-scale schemes such as erecting sunshades
> or mirrors in space, sowing the stratosphere with white particles or
> whitewashing building roofs to reflect sunlight, or scattering iron
> filings in the ocean to promote carbon-gobbling algae.
>
> None of these projects has been launched on any significant scale.

Boy am I glad of that! :-)

With the exception of the previously mentioned ideas, I am against the
"geo-engineering" proposals that I have heard so far, mainly because ...

> ... they also carry the most risk because they would have to be continually
> replenished and if deployment was suddenly stopped, extremely rapid warming
> could ensue.

i.e., just more high-tech botches of a "solution" to make people spend
money - thinking they are doing good - whilst dumping an ever-bigger problem
on our children & grandchildren.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. "I see a city and I want it painted white" (apologies to the Rolling Stones)

> Increasing the reflectivity of urban areas could reduce urban heat islands
> but will have minimal global effect

Except that it will reduce the a/c demand *in* those heat islands which
will reduce power demand, most of which is currently supplied by burning
fossil fuels. In addition, it is one of the easiest (and cheapest)
solutions to adopt with zero negatives or risks AFAIK.

It's an interesting theory.

Question: Have you ever owned, or known anyone who owns a white car? The great drawback of a white car is that it quickly appears to be dirty. The same goes for a white house. They must be frequently washed in order to look "white." (That is to say, to maintain their high albedo.)

The same would be true in your white urban landscape. Not only would it first be necessary to use large amounts of white paint (something with its own ecological drawbacks, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volatile_organic_compound">VOC) but in order to maintain its effectiveness, the residents of the city would need to frequently use large volumes of water to wash their buildings, pavement etc.

[Nihil]

9. "No more will my green sea go turn a deeper blue" hmmm.

Having been the owner of a white car in the past, I know what you mean
about it not keeping its original albedo but, on the other hand, even
though I am far too lazy to wash my car (that's what rain is for), it
never went anything below "grubby white" and even that is an advantage
over red, grey, brown or darker if you want to reflect the heat rather
than retain it.

There is no need to wash a house (never mind "frequently wash" it)
as rain will do that job more efficiently than the owner (I suppose that
in the UK this translates to "frequently washing" anyway!) but I take
your point w.r.t. the impact of the "paint" (or whatever whitening agent)
itself - thanks.

:hi:

[kristopher]

13. Depends on the pollutants

Any material in an environment heavy in soot type pollutants is going to require cleaning to maintain even a reasonable level of reflectiveness (think ecologically developing industrial such as China, Mexico, even Japan). However, in an area where the pollutants have decreased due to pollution controls, the problem is handled by weather, as you said.

I guess I'm saying that rain doesn't remove diesel exhaust soot, which is a pervasive pollutant in most of the world's largest cities.

[Posteritatis]

16. Lots of white cars in the neighborhood, plenty of white/pale buildings

The cars are kinda nasty right now, but that's because it's winter and the salt and the slush and the general blargh, but everything on more than two wheels in this province is going to look like that by this time of year anyway. Nobody cares until the weather nicens up enough that there isn't salt on the roads everywhere anymoer.

The houses, either the actually white ones or the ones which are merely light-colored (which is still better than, say, black or dark shades!) generally look fine. The city's skyline has a lot of white or light-colored buildings, especially the newer construction. They usually look fine as well. I don't notice massive amounts of water usage on the buildings (or the houses; I've never seen someone around here wash their house's exterior), and yet they're strangely unblackened by this dirt you talk about.

You don't need a building or car to have an albedo of 1.0 before it counts as affecting the heat island effect. That's ideal, but it ain't ever going to happen, and it's silly to say that because it can't be perfectly white all the time it's not going to have that high albedo.

(ed. - removed borked link. Googleimage "Halifax skyline" for some examples, in any case.)

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. For what its worth

I live in a northern, rural clime. Around here, a white house will require more heating during the Winter. We use more energy heating our homes than cooling them.

On the other hand, if I lived in New Mexico, painting the house white sounds like a decent idea.

What I'm saying is that even if painting buildings white is a good idea some locales, it won't be in all.

[Posteritatis]

19. Er, *I* live in a northern clime

Canada isn't exactly the tropics. ;)

And I'm out on the edge of the city, too. I walk thataway for ten minutes and I'm in the woods or along the highway. I really don't see people around here complaining that the colors of their houses are too expensive, not least due to the "err on the side of excess" rule folks have when building them in terms of insulation. It really is a non-issue here.

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. I thought Halifax was in England! ;-)

Indeed, insulation is a wonderful thing!

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. Ancient Agriculture Trick (biochar) Not Hi-Tech Engineering, Is Best Climate Defense

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/01/29/ancient-agriculture-trick-not-hi-tech-engineering-is-best-climate-defense/

Ancient Agriculture Trick, Not Hi-Tech Engineering, Is Best Climate Defense

…