Researchers ask how best to engineer the planet
CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--A group of academics on Friday considered the ultimate engineering challenge: building machines to stabilize the earth's climate.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology convened a symposium here to discuss the potential benefits and pitfalls of geoengineering, also called climate engineering. Everything from shooting light-blocking particles into the atmosphere to "artificial trees" is being seriously studied, despite trepidation among researchers and opposition from others.
During talks Friday morning, academics said climate engineering techniques are not well understood and, because of the complexity of the global climate system, individual approaches are pockmarked with uncertainties.
Still, speakers at the event said it's time to step up research in geoengineering to sort out which approaches are worth serious consideration. But they cautioned against expecting easy fixes or abandoning efforts to ratchet down the growth of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere.
"At this point the fear is that if we talk about this, people will stop cutting emissions, which is a rational fear. But the idea that we shouldn't have a research program would be a real mistake," said David Keith, the director of the ISEEE Energy and Environmental Systems Group at the University of Calgary during his talk the symposium, which was called Engineering a Cooler Planet.
Speakers said each climate engineering approach needs to be viewed with an associated cost and risk. For example, one relatively inexpensive idea is to shoot particles, called aerosols, into the air in order to block the amount of heat from the sun that reaches the earth's surface.
The cooling effect from aerosols, such as sulfur dioxide, in the atmosphere is rapid--measured in days or years. But they also impact the planet's water cycle. Early models show that large-scale efforts to inject aerosols in the atmosphere would likely make certain areas drier and affect the monsoons in India and Asia, said Joyce Penner, a professor of atmosopheric sciences at the University of Michigan.
Even with the risks and uncertainties of climate engineering, speakers said that there is risk with the so-called business-as-usual scenario where the concentration of greenhouse emissions continues to increase at its current pace.
These heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere are forecast to raise average global temperatures, speakers said. But there are a number of regional impacts from global warming, which will likely spur more research in planet-level engineering, said Thomas Karl, the director of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.
For example, higher temperatures directly affect water and agriculture. The productivity and ability to reproduce of common crops goes down after certain temperature levels, Karl noted. Pests have a longer time to populate and weeds grow better with more carbon dioxide, too, he said. The west of the U.S. is already feeling the impact of droughts, which will continue if mountain snowpack decreases.
"It's an important choice to make even if we don't do a thing--that's a choice itself," said Karl. "The consequences of not studying this are enormous--understanding the physical, ecosystem, and societal impacts."
Engineering for a cooler planet
There are two general approaches to engineering for a cooler planet: reflecting sunlight back into space or removing carbon dioxide from the air and storing it.
Injecting sulfur-based aerosols in the atmosphere have a known cooling effect observed in volcanic eruptions, including Mount Pinatubo in 1991. The approach is more practical than, say, placing mirrors in space. But there still isn't suitable understanding of how the entire climate system would react, including potential changes to ocean circulation, ocean ecosystems, and land precipitation, said Penner.
Also, blocking sunlight from space does not address the problems caused by higher concentrations of carbon dioxide on earth, notably ocean acidification which makes it more difficult for marine animals with shells or corals to grow, speakers noted.
(Credit:
Philip Boyd, University of Otago in Dunedin.)
Other approaches for reflecting heat back into space include spraying sea salt from special-purpose boats to enhance the reflectivity of clouds or installing white roofs on buildings to bounce more sunlight back into space.
Land-based approaches to reducing greenhouse gas concentrations include growing algae-based fuels at massive scale, storing carbon dioxide in underground geological formations, and making charcoal with plants to create a soil amendment called biochar.
There have also been 12 tests to stimulate plankton growth by "fertilizing" the ocean with iron. The goal is to create a rapid "plankton bloom" which will remove carbon dioxide and sequester it in the ocean. But this technique is difficult to verify and risks transforming the existing ocean ecosystems, said Tim Lenton, professor of earth system science at the University of East Anglia.
Because of the risk and uncertainly, Lenton said he is not convinced that climate engineering proposals to block solar radiation makes sense. On the other hand, land-based approaches create competition with other uses of land, notably agriculture.
One area that clearly needs further research is the life-cycle analysis of different climate engineering idea, Lenton said. For example, dumping iron into the ocean to grow plankton has an associated carbon footprint.
"You'll find out when you do the full calculation, it's very difficult to make it carbon negative," he said. "Because of the emissions in simply deploying the technology, it will veto a number of options."
The computational models to simulate the regional impact of climate changes need to be improved as well, said David Battisti, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington. In research he presented on Friday, Battisti found that once models took into account ice and ocean effects from aerosol injection, there was a significant variation on the projected impact on temperatures and precipitation.
The symposium at MIT is not the first meeting of scientists to consider geoengineering--the idea has been discussed for decades. But some of the academics on Friday said the current trajectory of climate change argues in favor of at least doing research on climate engineering techniques, even if these projects are ultimately never launched.
There is also a uncertainty around climate policy and how effective policies will be at cutting emissions, noted Keith. "It doesn't mean that we have to do it. But it means that you do need to have the capability to do it," he said.
In the near term, research in the field should be focused on ranking different proposals, addressing both scientific and political issues, said Philip Boyd, a professor of ocean biochemistry from the University of Otago in New Zealand.
Boyd has created a model that ranks geoengineering schemes in terms of efficacy, affordability, safety, speed of implementation, and the ability to stop a project. Societal and political factors need to be considered because conflicts over use of land, water, and the ocean creates a "geopolitical mess."
"We pump up the potential for conflict," he said. "It's just a minefield in terms of teasing these apart."
Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin. 
I also like the part where "the complexity of the global climate system" is mentioned in the beginning. The "scientists" cannot even predicate the weather 5 days out and they are going correct the atmosphere. Maybe we should have kept the sulfur in the atmosphere, it seemed to balance the CO2 effect. That was a geo-engineering project that seemed to have backfired on us.
August 2009 SLDT Magazine - http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/sldt/0809/#/18
?Climate change is inevitable, proceeding and even accelerating.?
With those alarming opening words, British scientist James Lovelock, author of the new book, ?The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning,? is delivering a sobering message to large and influential audiences around the world. He says there?s nothing we can do now but adapt and survive. He claims it is too late for sustainable development and says civilization?s best strategy is ?sustainable retreat.? If we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow, he explains, it wouldn?t do much. We?ve already released enough carbon over the past hundred years to push us past the point of no return.
When prompted, Lovelock says, the only way we could do something meaningful to avoid catastrophe is to extract and permanently store CO2 from the atmosphere, in addition to dramatically reducing our emissions. And the approach with the most potential, says Lovelock, is to turn biomass material into charcoal, now re-branded as ?biochar,? in a process known as ?pyrolysis? and then bury it. The biochar, unlike the original biomass, can?t rot and release CO2 into the atmosphere. It doesn?t oxidize. It is chemically stable for hundreds of years, meaning the carbon is permanently sequestered. ?This makes it safe to bury in the soil or in the ocean,? writes Lovelock...
Biochar and Sustainable Land Development
Key factors in developing the social, environmental and economic potential for biochar lie not only in its carbon-sequestration abilities, but in those other valuable properties that the process brings to sustainable land development best practices...
Profitability of biochar systems will be especially sensitive to the cost and quality of the biomass feedstock that goes into the system, as well as to prices for energy and the carbon capping and trading markets. Farming and gardening systems stand to profit from the soil and water quality benefits biochar provides. Forested and agricultural land provides ready supply of the needed biomass feedstock. And as waste management systems and regulations ?catch up? to this opportunity, therein lies another virtually unending supply of needed biomass.
Sustainable Land Development International (SLDI) partners with Ocean Mountain Ranch in effort to go ?Carbon Negative?
Fossil fuels are carbon-positive ? burning them adds more carbon to the atmosphere. Ordinary biomass fuels are carbon neutral ? the carbon captured in the biomass by photosynthesis would have eventually returned to the atmosphere through natural processes ? burning plants for energy just speeds it up. Biochar systems can be carbon negative because they retain a substantial portion of the carbon that would otherwise be emitted by the plants or waste matter when it rots. The result is a net reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Located in the headwaters of the Port Orford Community Stewardship Area in Southern Oregon, Ocean Mountain Ranch (OMR) is a mixed-use development project that will incorporate residential, agricultural, educational, recreational, and industrial uses. It overlooks the newly-designated Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and the largest remaining old growth forest on the southern coast in Humbug Mountain State Park. OMR is planned to be developed pursuant to a forest stewardship management plan which has been approved by the Oregon Department of Forestry and Northwest Certified Forestry under the high standards of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).
OMR will provide for long-term yield of high quality hardwood, softwood, and wildlife habitat. OMR is also serving as a pilot program and is expected to achieve carbon negative status through the utilization of low impact development practices, energy efficient buildings, renewable/clean energy systems, distributed waste management systems, biochar production, and other practices - with certification as a SLDI-Certified Sustainable Project.
The land development industry is uniquely positioned to utilize SLDI best management practices to take advantage of emerging ancient and new biochar technologies to help address a multitude of pressing environmental, social and economic concerns by balancing the needs of people, planet and profit ? for today and future generations.
www.SLDI.org
While I don't agree with Lovelock in general, I think he does make a good point that we should be thinking about adapting, rather than all the potentially dangerous ideas (in this article). The best estimates I've seen are that only about 50% of what we call global warming can be attributed to human factors. That means, we're heading into a warmer time either way (maybe we're just accelerating it a bit). After that, there will probably be a cooling cycle. If we look at history, we know these cycles have been FAR more extreme than anything we're talking about. If the sea is going to rise or lower, people are going to have to move or adapt. I think we're much better off putting our technology into finding ways to adapt, rather than trying to control the climate (with possible other devastating side effects we can't even begin to calculate). Along with this, we should also be trying to reduce our pollution and non-renewable resource usage as just being good stewards of the planet... no matter what we think of particular things like global warming.
WHO caused the "LITTLE ICE AGE" and "MEDIEVAL WARM PERIOD" a few hundred years ago?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
Truth: This is about control and money. In the West there is no population crisis or energy crisis except the one being *manufactured* by those have much to gain. Since the scientific data is untenable, those who want to re-engineer society have turned environmentalism into religion:
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html
In those two cases, the question isn't who, but what. The difference is that this time, 'who' is a valid question. Your logic simply does not follow. The REAL question is not IF humans are causing some of the current warming, but HOW MUCH effect we are having.
Yes, there is a lot of 'scare tactics' floating around for purposes of control. But, there is also a lot of denial floating around on the other side for control as well. Facts.... 1) there IS a global warming trend happening (in fact, the raw numbers were given to various statisticians in a recent study, without them knowing what the numbers represented, and they ALL concluded similar trends in the data)... 2) humans are at least partly responsible for the warming.
What we don't want to do is freak out and make stupid decisions. What we have a responsibility to do is to do something. At the vary least, we should be using our technology to slow or stop polluting. That is simply responsible creation care.
You're right about environmentalism often being a religion of sorts. The question is really which one. I suppose there are some religions that do not care about the earth, but many of the major ones do. Christianity, for example (appropriate being in N.A., but also mentioned in the article you linked), doesn't leave not properly caring for the earth as an option. It is part of God's mandate to humanity at creation. I agree with Crichton (however poorly his understanding of religion seems to be) that the environmental movement has become somewhat of a religion of it's own, as you say, but again, I'm not sure how what you seem to be suggesting follows. One could be an environmentalist for a number of different reasons. Personally, I'm a Christian environmentalist (and as noted above, a Christian can't NOT be an environmentalist).
Again, we experienced both global cooling and global warming in medieval times---both apparently due to all-natural phenomena. Nature is very powerful and complex.
That said, even if human activity *may* be having some slight and lasting effect on climate, those seeking political and monetary gain are making this out to be an emergency of epic proportions. There is no need to panic or spread global warming psuedo-science. Plus, even if everyone in the U.S. started living "in the stone age" as climate change fanatics would like, remember that China, India and other emerging economic powers have no intention of slowing down.
Agreed that we have a responsibility to care for the environment by gradually developing new technologies to preserve and protect life and end other horrid abuses like factory farming. IF we have any influence over ice ages and warming periods this is the best we can do. But too many politicians and scientists are trying to play God.
I'm not sure why the hesitancy in your post to admit humans are contributing to global warming. Again, the question is really how much. While I agree with you that there is a lot of hysteria, I think that both camps are distorting the reality of it. The environmentalist camp is painting a dooms-day picture, and one would get the impression it is nearly all human caused, while the anti-global-warming camp seems to be in complete denial of some fairly basic science.
Global warming certainly is an emergency to some, whether it is human caused or not. The sea-levels will rise, and that will endanger a LOT of people around the world. It will likely effect food production and things like that as well.
Also, the solution isn't really a matter of people in the US living 'in the stone age', but changing life-style to some extent (like recycling, eating differently, shopping differently, etc.) and putting our efforts into alternative energy sources. I've got no beef with someone who wants an olympic sized heated outdoor pool in Alaska, if the energy being used is coming from solar or wind. I'm certainly not in the camp who believe the Earth would be better off if humans weren't here. However, we're a LONG way from living responsibly.
It is rather irrelevant what India and China do, we need to do the right thing either way (not to mention that I think China is actually pulling ahead of us on alternate energy, etc.). I believe God designed the earth in such a way that there are proper solutions to these problems which are both the right thing to do, economically feasible, and will be the best thing for us in the long run. Sitting in our Hummer in order to oppose the wacky environmentalist might be 'distorted Republican or Conservative' these days... but not Christian!
re: "gradually developing new technologies" - There doesn't need to be much gradual about it. Many of the solutions don't need to be developed, simply implemented. Look into utility scale solar-concentrating plants some time. As you mentioned, factory faming is horrible, both to the environment, but to us as well. We know the solution there, we just need to do it. You'd be amazed at some of the 'solutions' the FDA has put in place to solve problems, which are absolutely horrible for our health.
Finally, I do agree, as this article points out, that some are trying to make some moves that are not well thought out. I'm opposed to that, but very much for making the tough moves that need to be made to move forward. Some of the moves might not allow companies to keep doubling profits every year, or let people just live oblivious lives with no concern for the environment. To that I say, too bad. Reality has to hit at some point. And THAT is why I believe there is such a knee-jerk reaction to global-warming from the 'Conservative' camp.
Stop trying to act smart.
Obvious solutions:
->Carbon capture : atmosphere and geochemical, artificial and natural (eg algae, trees)
->Ocean Fertilization
->Cut Burning and Emission at all cost and means
I agree with the direction you're headed.....
But, not with Ocean Fertilization. We don't understand all the other side effects. I also don't agree with making changes 'at all costs'... we need to consider the costs and not act in irresponsible ways. That said, our 'costs' do need to include destruction, etc. things like global warming might have... so I'm not just talking 'economic' or 'monetary' costs here.... but total costs as best we can calculate.
And cut world population.
Again... not at all costs... we need to be thinking clearly. I agree, though, it just makes sense to go sustainable. We've got the technology, we just need the will to do it now. There is no good reason we couldn't transition to nearly 100% sustainable in energy at least, and STILL maintain the lifestyle (energy at least) so many are afraid to give up.
I don't agree on cutting world population. The problem is distribution. The Earth could support a lot more people. Also, how do you propose this be done? Are you volunteering? When I hear people start to talk this way, some pretty unethical things usually begin to surface (ie: eugenics type stuff).
You are totally correct here-- and this is where the evil of global warming fanaticism is exposed for what it truly is. It is an anti-life movement at it's core. Over and over here people are citing overpopulation as a major cause of our problems with no justification whatsoever, and the implication of this is horrifying as it devalues human life. They have obviously learned this from the same people pushing the "go green" agenda. Not everything is as it appears.
The only 'gotcha' there to the topical 'Conservative' or 'Republican' responses I often hear who oppose global warming or doing anything about it, is that population isn't the issue AND we don't have to change our life-style any. The current life-style for the whole planet's population, let alone any more population IS a problem. If we're going to want to keep raising the population, we'll need to live differently (and already need to be so we aren't unfairly damaging the lives of others around the world by our life-style).
But, because we don't understand, we can't very well experiment with the climate. We only have one. If the experiment fails, well, we all pay the price for the mistake.
However, if we address the root causes---resource usage and overpopulation---the rest will follow.
Overpopulation isn't a root cause. Distribution (of said population), non-sustainable resource usage, and our lack of being proper caretakers of creation, are the root causes.
I agree that the resource usage (exacerbated dramatically by the overpopulation) is critical. However, how could we realistically distribute 6 billion people to use less resources?
I also agree humans' lack of being proper caretakers of creation is a key.
Even Genesis says specifically we humans are stewards of the Earth---a steward is a CARETAKER, not an OWNER, any more than a caretaker of the Smithsonian owns everything in the museum. However, we are responsible for the condition of the Earth.
By that standard, we are horrible caretakers and should be fired.
'Realistically' is probably the key term, but certainly not impossible. It would take breaking down the concept of countries... and people living where they were born, etc. It would take some proper design and limiting of urban area sprawl. It would take a lot of technological changes to our infrastructure.
I just don't see either space or resources to be big problems. Pollution is probably the biggest problem, but I think we could drastically reduce our pollution to a point the earth could handle it. I suppose there is some theoretical upper limit, but I don't think we're anywhere near close to it.
All of our energy needs could easily be met by solar and wind with the technology we already have today. Food production might get challenged with current methods, but I really believe we'd solve that problem without too much trouble. And, if we changed our infrastructure and life-styles some, pollution could be drastically reduced. For example, if we lived in the right areas and were responsible, water supply and pollution would be close to a non-issue (which is currently one of the biggest issues in the world). Even with current technology, we can produce enough food to feed the world... the problems are distribution and political.
Can we have 6 ~ 7 billion people living like the typical person in N.A. does? No... but that doesn't have to be the case. AND, I believe if we did it right, all those people, and more, could live BETTER than the average person in N.A. does..... as long as we properly define better.
Further, if these people are allowed to develop and institute these measures, what catastrophic results to the planet will they bring? DON'T MESS WITH MOTHER NATURE. She KNOWS what she is doing. We are just along for the ride. Respect her, and leave her alone !
---------
Fortunately Rev 11:18 states that "God will bring to ruin those ruining the earth."
--------
And then Psalms 37:29 states that " The righteous themselves will posses the earth, and they will reside forever upon it."
--------
No need to (Re) Engineer the planet... just evict those who are runing it.. case closed.
How about Genesis 1:28 God blessed them; and God said to them, ?Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.?
In a way, I think we ARE supposed to be 'engineering' the earth, but unlike the direction of this article, in a responsible way. Also note that English translation of 'subdue' and 'rule' don't quite capture an idea which would be more like gardening in how we're supposed to be treating the earth. It isn't 'hands off' nor is it 'pillage'. The idea is more like proper management, cultivation, and creativity. I think in the best light, that is what the scientists the article speaks of think they are doing, but are moving out of frantic fear, rather than proper thought.
Perhaps the octopi will dominate some day. Let's hope they're smarter than we were.
Romantically of course.
We should study the form of how nature does it and work with that.
We should not try and descretize the how plot of how to do this.
We should take our time past the more imminent problems and real make this home planet of our's a glowing beauty that can eventually travel more than just the stars around us.
- by galadan111 November 1, 2009 7:08 AM PST
- hi, i'm a scientist. i have a plan to re-engineer the earth's atmosphere to curb the ever growing threat of global warming. but in order to save you all and the planet, i need lots of MONEY in grants to do research. i know, i've been getting grant MONEY to do research for the past 20 or 30 years and haven't come up with a solution yet, but TRUST ME, if you give me MORE MONEY, i will surely come up with an answer. just give me MORE MONEY and you will see. TRUST ME, i'm a scientist, i know what's best for you. did i mention i need MORE MONEY for my research?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (41 Comments)