TOWARD CLIMATE GEOENGINEERING?
Saturday 18 April 2009
by: Andrew Glikson, t r u t h o u t Perspective
President Obama's science adviser, John Holdren, said in his first interview this week that, "global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air." (Photo: AP)
Preamble: That global climate change has reached an impasse whereby the "powers-to-be" are entertaining climate geoengineering mitigation, instead of the urgent deep reduction of carbon emissions required by science, represents the ultimate moral bankruptcy of institutions and a failure of democracy.
With global atmospheric CO2 levels rising at about 2 ppm/year toward 388 ppm, or near-440 ppm CO2-e (including methane effects), John Holdren, in his first interview since being appointed as President Obama's new science adviser, revealed in an interview with The Associated Press (April 8, 2009) "global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air," which "as an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort - It's got to be looked at - We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table - One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren compared the way humanity is facing dangerous climate change to passengers in a car with bad brakes heading toward a cliff in a fog, saying, "The sensible passengers will certainly say: 'Let's put on the brakes, even if we don't know it will save us. It may be too late. We don't know exactly where the cliff is.... Let's get on with it.'"
Holdren is not alone in considering geoengineering. The National Academy of Science is also looking at the subject in its new multidiscipline climate challenges program. The American Meteorological Society is preparing a statement on geoengineering, stating "it is prudent to consider geoengineering's potential, to understand its limits and to avoid rash deployment." The British parliament has discussed the idea.
Climate geoengineering ideas fall into at least four principal categories:
1) increased reflectivity (albedo) of the atmosphere, injecting sulphur dioxide (suggested by Paul Crutzen, the Nobel Prize winner atmospheric chemist), or alumina particles, or even installing reflectors in space. The effects of sulphur injections would simulate volcanic events, such as of Pinatubo (1991) or Tambora (1816), which resulted in cooling of the Earth's surface by about 0.5 degrees. At best, albedo enhancement represents a short-term Band Aid solution to the fundamental greenhouse problem, and will not be able to prevent ocean acidification.
(2) Increased sequestration of CO2 in the oceans, enhancing algal blooms and phytoplankton photosynthesis through fertilization with iron filings, or constructing vertical pipe systems designed to enhance oceanic circulation and CO2 intake from the atmosphere.
(3) Biochar burial and soil enrichment. Combustion of plant waste under low oxygen conditions and burial as charcoal, removing carbon from atmospheric circulation and enhancing plant growth and photosynthesis, as well as soil enrichment. A major controversy erupted with objections to Biochar by George Monbiot, involving James Lovelock and James Hansen
(4) Chemical sequestration involving combination of CO2 with sodium hydroxide (NaOH) installed in pipe systems ("Sodium trees"), followed by separation and burial of CO2, costing at about $300 a ton in US dollars. A back-of-an-envelope calculation suggests the reduction of atmospheric CO2 by 50 ppm would cost about $10 trillion to $15 trillion in US dollars, (although mass production may lessen the cost, as well as contribute to employment). That's less than 10 times the global military expenditure in 2007.
Increasingly, a "technological fix" may look attractive to Obama and possibly the EU (and Rudd?), in view of at least three major obstacles to CPRS and ETS schemes:
First, due to the cumulative nature of atmospheric CO2, neither 5/15 percent nor 25/40 percent emission reduction by 2020 relative to 2000 would be able to prevent runaway climate change. This is because CO2 levels, now at 387 ppm and rising by 2 ppm/year, will exceed 400 ppm by 2020, well into the high danger zone. Assuming CO2 emissions are reduced by even 40 percent relative to 2000, it would keep rising by a minimum of 1.2 ppm/year, reaching levels near or above 450 ppm by 2050, and this is without even accounting for the effects of methane, likely reduced CO2 intake by the oceans and increase in positive feedbacks from the biosphere. At 450 ppm, with lag effects, polar ice sheets undergo advanced melting, with consequent major sea level rise. It is not clear how many of the submissions made to the Australian Senate Inquiry into the CPRS take account of this factor.
Second, it is a good question whether even such feeble CPRS attempts would not be squashed by the all-powerful fossil fuel lobby, currently supporting a massive, well-funded disinformation campaign, including claims as if the Earth is "cooling", accusing scientists and environmentalists of "environmental thuggery", including threats such as by Republican Rep. Michelle Bachmann ("I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, 'Having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,' and the people - we the people - are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States." She added, "The science is on our side on this one".
Third, The preoccupation of suburbia international with economic issues. Until people fully understand the implications of runaway climate change, government actions are likely to be restricted within the context of the virtual reality of economic boom-bust bubbles, where greed and fear obscure the physical realities of the environment and of agricultural food production, a consequence of over 60 years of commercial propaganda rendering populations victims of ruthless vested interests at the expense of future generations.
The Wilkins ice shelf collapse is but the latest symptom of fast-melting polar ice. Last year was the first during which the huge (13,680 square kilometers) shelf, which bridges the West Antarctic peninsula with the Charcot and Latady islands, developed fractures during mid-winter. Now advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar (ASAR) images acquired on April 2, 2009, by the European Earth Observation (ESA's) Envisat satellite confirm the ice shelf is collapsing into thousands of ice bergs, removing the barrier for the flow of continental glaciers into the ocean.
Climate geoengineering is fiercely feared and resisted by many scientists and environmentalists, due to the collateral damage and side effects, and because it would take pressure off the carbon polluters. Moreover, that the powers-to-be reached an impasse with CPRS schemes suggests to many a moral bankruptcy of institutions and a failure of democracy. It is likely that only a combination of deep urgent cuts in carbon emissions, coupled with major investments in fast-tracked development of a wide range of effective carbon dioxide draw-down methods, may be capable of making the difference.
--------
Dr. Andrew Glikson is an Earth and paleoclimate scientist at the Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Now, I don't know about you, but we at A.P.R. find this highly disturbing, for a number of reasons. First, our most qualified scientists are essentially saying that there is no hope of reducing CO2 and methane emissions, so more drastic options must be considered. Second, large-scale efforts like these to produce artificial cooling, will still not solve the other problems that increasing CO2 concentrations produce, like oceanic acidification (which could decimate many life-forms in the oceans) and changes in plant growth/response. In addition, even if some of these cooling efforts could work, what unforeseen consequences would they have?
Why do you think the scientific community has basically given up hope that the countries of the World can restrict CO2 and methane emissions enough to prevent an additional 2C or more of global temperature increase? Well, they probably recognize, as we here at A.P.R. do, that the fossil fuel and transportation industries, as well as other related ones, are so powerful, and entrenched in the political systems of most countries, that they will never easily give up their source of profit. Not without immense political and social pressure anyway, very little of which has been seen, in any of the major industrialized nations, and especially the U.S.
Your lead editor was 14 in 1978. I remember very specifically seeing a program on XETV-6 (tv stations in San Diego, if their transmitters were in Mexico, had call-signs beginning with X) then about hydrogen transportation. I have always been interested in alternative energy and technological developments. So, on this program, 31 YEARS AGO, some researchers at a major university had taken a big fat 1977 Chrysler Cordoba, and easily converted it to run on hydrogen gas. A regular gasoline-fueled car, straight from a dealership. All that was done was to put a different storage tank and fuel line in, to the carburetor. The new fuel tank was interesting, it contained a honeycomb of what were called "lithium metal hydrides", which soaked up the gas, and when heated, released it. So, to fill the tank, hydrogen gas was pumped in, and after filling, to run the car, part of the tank was heated, the gas was released, and traveled to the engine. Hydrogen, isn't that explosive? Well, part of the demonstration of this car involved shooting a white-hot tracer bullet into the hydrogen tank. What happened? A little flame, the size of a cigarette lighter's, came out. Most of the gas remained tied up in the metal-hydride honeycomb.
Then, the researchers described in glowing detail, how hydrogen could be produced by splitting water electrically, with electricity generated from renewable resources, like solar plants, or wind farms. Then, a national distribution hydrogen pipeline network could be developed, so that it would be available everywhere, for transportation fueling. Hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engines would emit just water vapor as exhaust, which would eventually "rain-out" in the hydrologic cycle. And since the hydrogen came from water originally, is a renewable resource. Of course, if all engines in a large city ran on it, alot of water vapor would be emitted, and higher humidities, and maybe even more clouds and precipitation could result. What would that do to the climate of Los Angeles? Interesting to speculate.
So, what happened? Why don't we have this? Well, I think it would be safe to say that the oil companies were not going to let something like that occur in the 1970s or 1980s, much less today! How much do you think it would cost to develop a national hydrogen fueling system network, and renewable-energy powered hydrogen generation plants? Hint, it would be a tiny fraction of the several trillion dollars being handed over by our government to the criminally greedy financial industry, to prevent them from having to face the consequences of their actions over the past 15-20 years.
Something interesting has been happening here in Alaska for the past several days.
Something interesting has been happening here in Alaska for the past several days.
PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENTNATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE FAIRBANKS AK143 AM AKDT SAT MAY 2 2009...ANOTHER RECORD WARM DAY AT FAIRBANKS...YESTERDAY WAS THE 3RD DAY IN A ROW WITH RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURES AT THE FAIRBANKS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. THE HIGH TEMPERATURE OF 76 DEGREES BROKE THE PREVIOUS RECORD OF 75 DEGREES WHICH WAS SET IN 1960. IT WAS ALSO THE 3RD DAY IN A ROW WITH A HIGH TEMPERATURE ABOVE 70 DEGREES. IT IS THE FIRST TIME SINCE 1905 WITH 3 CONS
ECUTIVE DAYS WITH A HIGH TEMPERATURE ABOVE 70 DEGREES SO EARLY IN THE SEASON.ON AVERAGE...THE FIRST 70 DEGREE DAY IN FAIRBANKS IS NOT OBSERVED UNTIL MAY 22ND. TODAY WILL BE ANOTHER VERY WARM DAY...BUT RECORD HIGHS ARE NOT EXPECTED. THE RECORD HIGH FOR TODAY OF 78 DEGREES WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1995. TEMPERATURES BY EARLY NEXT WEEK ARE EXPECTED TO RETURN TO MORE SEASONABLE LEVELS. AVERAGE HIGH TEMPERATURES DURING THE FIRST WEEK OR MAY ARE IN THE LOW-MID 50S WITH LOWS NEAR FREEZING. $$ CB
A huge upper-level ridge in the jet stream built in over Northwest Canada and Alaska.
You can see it in the above graphic, the 500 millibar analysis. This is a standard parameter meteorologists assess, the height at which the pressure equals 500 millibars, a pressure unit. This is a function of temperature, the colder the airmass, the lower this height is. The height of the 500 mb pressure level is usually around 18,000 feet, so the jet stream is depicted with these charts. The value of 5760 meters, in the center of the ridge, is exceedingly high, the average value over Alaska in late April is usually around 5460 meters, so this is a very warm airmass. And, some years, we may only see this once in the summer, for just a few days, not in April! The above infrared satellite image shows the widespread clearing and dry weather over Alaska and NW Canada with this ridge. The darker black areas are the warmer low-elevation areas with temperatures in the 60s and 70s, 20F or more above average for this time of year.
So what are some of the effects we've been seeing with this amazingly fast warm-up around our area? If you look closely at this birch tree, to the right, near our Chena Ridge Research Centre, it is just beginning to leaf out, or "green-up". I first noticed the buds swelling yesterday, so in only two days, these trees are greening up, which usually doesn't happen until the middle of May.
The view from atop Chena Ridge, near our headquarters, looking down on the large Tanana River, shows an interesting development. First, the
river is already flowing, just a week ago, the ice cover was fairly solid. And, you can see an ice jam there, backing up the water behind, and flooding the banks. This has been happening over the past several days. The rapid warmup has sent snowmelt runoff rapidly into the streams and rivers, lifting and breaking up the ice, which then in certain areas, forms jams, followed by flooding. Another reason we are so glad to have our research centre 500 feet above the valley!
Although, it's not directly related to the warm-up (unless they were trying to escape the valley heat), just before Mattie and I were going to go for our standard 10 mile neighbourhood run today, we had to wait a few minutes. A cow moose and her two yearlings were on the slope above our driveway. I like seeing and interacting with them, and so didn't want to have to chase them away. Mattie of course, at first, wanted to charge out and drive them away, but I held her back. We went out the front door and just watched for about ten minutes. 
These cow moose are huge, Mama must have been 8 feet tall, while the calves were easily 6-7 feet tall, but much thinner/lighter.
They just shuffled around, eating grass, and the tender buds on the birch and balsam-poplar trees.
I said hello to them, and with Mattie at my side, kept watching them. I've never had any problems with any of my moose encounters over the years, while running, skiing, or hiking. I always speak soothingly to them, and ask permission to pass.
However, there was one time an adverse incident occurred. One of my friends, who shall remain confidential, was skiing with me on the UAF trails in Dec. 2007. I really like this individual, he's alot of fun, but not at this time. Because when a large cow moose was blocking the top of a hill on the ski trail, he yelled at her! She charged us! We both had to dive off the side of the trail with our skis on, and could have been seriously injured. You never yell at a moose!
Anyway, after about ten minutes, mother and kids ambled across the driveway, and down into the trees, and then Mattie and I began our run in the warm summery 75F sun. She had to thrash around in three puddles on our 90 minute run to stay cool, since she still has her winter coat.
Another thing striking about this warm-up, is how quickly things dried out. This is a trail at the base of Chena Ridge today that we run on in summer. Just one week ago it was covered in 15-20 inches of snow, and was still skiable. The leaf litter and grass in the sunny, south and west-facing slopes, were already dry enough to burn! This does not bode well for the 2009 fire season! However, our weather in Alaska varies so much from month to month
, and season to season, that there really is no way of predicting how severe a fire season will be in advance here. If we get well-spaced rains in June and July, which we have the last few years, then large fire growth is hindered.
So, this begs the question, is this strong high pressure ridge and warm-up with record-breaking warmth due to global warming? Well, you can't really say that one specific incident is, since climate is the average of long-term weather, but these kind of events certainly are increasing in frequency, and strength, and will continue to. Here, and in many other areas. Something the poor people in Victoria, Australia, found out on Black Saturday, this past February, the subject of our "Warning Lights are Flashing" post. Cheers.
