Geoengineering

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.nz/post/24843919

The UK’s Advanced Research & Invention Agency (ARIA) announced £56.8m to fund 21 geoengineering projects around the world over the next five years.

The announcement felt less of a scientific milestone and more like a plot point for that dystopian novel, which opens with catastrophic heatwaves we hope we never live to see, but increasingly fear we might.

The reality is that we simply don’t know what type of side effects these experiments will cause

As the impacts of drought only get worse, there is a chance that these weather manipulation experiments, and potentially far worse, will become far more common around the world. Scarier still is that the world’s billionaire class, rather than governments alone, could become rogue weather makers of their own.

Archive : https://archive.ph/rEn06

• Artificial upwelling is a form of geoengineering that aims to use pipes and pumps to channel cool, nutrient-rich water from the deep ocean to the surface. In doing so, it could fertilize surface waters, prompting the growth of plankton, which can then absorb and store large amounts of atmospheric carbon.
• Long considered a potential marine carbon dioxide removal (CDR) method, artificial upwelling has more recently been coupled with seaweed farming to potentially soak up even more atmospheric CO2.
• But technological challenges have plagued open-water upwelling experiments, while environmentalists worry that large-scale use could ultimately prove ineffective and ecologically harmful.
• Experts state that though upwelling could prove a viable solution to improve fisheries and protect coral reefs from marine heat waves, more research is needed. Considering the rapid current pace of climate change, it’s debatable as to whether implementation at scale could come in time to stave off dangerous warming.

archived (Wayback Machine)

archived (Wayback Machine)

cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/11222731

For those living in Asia and other parts of the world where big cities generally = bad to dangerously bad air, the idea of putting more stuff in the atmosphere because global warming sounds like an intuitively bad idea. That is before getting to the fact that there is no meaningful regulation of geoengineering, that there are serious questions as to whether the effects of any operations can be contained, and the standards for determining effectiveness versus harm. This like GMOs is on its way to become a great experiment upon the general public without consents or controls.

On top of that, the Israeli angle gives me the willies. Since this is a commercial operation, if any of its experiments actually do prove to be harmful, the odds seem high that those approaches would be repurposed as weapons. In fact, it’s almost certain that these applications would produce faster and greater profits than the climate-change-combatting geoengineering sort.

archived (Wayback Machine)

As the atmosphere continues to fill with greenhouse gases from human activities, many proposals have surfaced to "geoengineer" climate-saving solutions, that is, alter the atmosphere at a global scale to either reduce the concentrations of carbon or mute its warming effect.

"Our work showed that the efficiency of the proposed technology was quite low, meaning widespread adoption of the technology would be required to make any meaningful impact on atmospheric CH4," said Mayhew, a postdoctoral researcher with the U's Wilkes Center for Climate Science & Policy. "Then, our results indicate that if this technology is adopted at scale, then we start to see some negative air-quality side effects, particularly for wintertime particulate matter air pollution."

The study

Many scientists have warned that solar geoengineering will give emitters an excuse not to end fossil-fuel addictions

Here are some of the key reasons to oppose geoengineering, which are discussed in more depth below:

• It doesn’t work: None of the technologies have a track record, all of them come with major risks and unknowns, and in some cases the effects would be obviously catastrophic.
• Detracts from real solutions: By promising a quick fix, geoengineering threatens to delay the implementation of a transition away from fossil fuels, and could redirect funding and investments away from real climate solutions. Some geoengineering proposals require vast amounts of energy, which means less climate-friendly energy for everyone else.
• Human rights and biodiversity: Many geoengineering proposals require the intensive exploitation of vast amounts of land (in the case of BECCS, twice the size of India!) and increasingly the oceans too . Those projects would inevitably displace millions of people and potentially wipe out entire ecosystems.
• Weaponization: Computer models show that geoengineering interventions can have regional winners and losers; should governments and corporations decide that geoengineering can successfully change climate patterns, it will inevitably be weaponized.
• The bottom line: geoengineering techniques do nothing to address the root causes of climate change, and evidence points to a high likelihood that rather than improving the climate, they would make things worse—potentially in catastrophic fashion.

• The first-ever field test of ocean alkalinity enhancement in the United States was pushed back to 2025 due to shipping issues. But the geoengineering experiment has also run into public opposition from local environmentalists, commercial fishers and others.

• The test would dump sodium hydroxide (commonly called lye) off the New England coast to study its dispersal as a potential tool for sequestering CO₂.

• Opponents allege this small-scale geoengineering test could harm local wildlife, but researchers say the material will disperse within minutes. The scientists say they will also continue to reach out to local communities to alleviate fears over the study.

Archive link

Toying with ocean chemistry also carries unknown risks. Some environmental groups worry that even early experiments with these techniques could threaten fish and other aquatic life.

Altering marine environments to cool the planet has been contentious from the moment scientists first suggested it four decades ago.

This is Part Two of a two-part story. Find Part One here.

Key Ideas

• As climate change accelerates, some scientists are calling for more field research into solar geoengineering concepts. However, these ideas are running into opposition from other researchers, some governments and the public.

• A series of recent setbacks has put solar geoengineering research on the back foot, attempting to figure out a way to navigate the opposition.

• Proponents of field research say it would help humanity better understand the potential and problems with solar geoengineering, while opponents argue that there are too many risks and it could take our eye off the ball: cutting carbon emissions.

• The debate has spilled into the international arena, pitting nations that support greater research against those that would like to see a solar geoengineering non-use agreement.

A combined team of Earth scientists and climate specialists at the University of California San Diego and the National Center for Atmospheric Research has found via modeling that geoengineering projects such as marine cloud brightening can have unexpected and sometimes harmful consequences.

In their study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, the group designed models to predict what might happen if large-scale marine cloud brightening projects were undertaken in two major regions in the western United States.

The researchers found that the artificial clouds would reduce temperatures in the western U.S., primarily California—reducing risk of dangerously high temperatures by as much as 55%. But they also found the same clouds would reduce rainfall amounts, both in the U.S. and other parts of the world.

The research team also found that if the MCB project continued to the year 2050, its benefits would taper off and heat waves in Europe would become much more common, showing that engineering projects can lead to unforeseen consequences in other parts of the world.

Current mainstream mitigation measures may be insufficient to halt sea-level rise, implying that radical measures may be required. Geoengineering—which can be described as a mechanism to mitigate unprecedented sea-level rise—has garnered scientific interest in line with the present state of climate change. This study investigates traditional and modern geoengineering techniques through a systematic literature review. The results suggest that conventional and pioneering techniques can decrease sea-level rise, and those optimal results would be achieved through the cooperation of methods. Ultimately, findings from this review informed five strategies: tactical application of conventional geoengineering; optimisation through technique alignment; adaptation to receding coastlines; a global platform for project collaboration; and progression of research capabilities. These strategies, in turn, informed a procedural guideline for policymakers who seek to mitigate sea-level rise.

Precipitation enhancement, commonly called “cloud seeding” or “weather modification” is a scientific method to artificially stimulate clouds to produce more rainfall and snowfall than would be produced naturally. The primary mechanism is to inject substances, such as silver iodide or ice crystals (cloud seeding agents), into the clouds, enabling snowflakes and raindrops to form more easily. Various cloud seeding programs have been operational since the late 1950s. The majority of programs continue for a number of years during winter months and as conditions warrant. The following is a summary on previous cloud seeding programs in California.

Currently, a U.S. company or citizen with plans to inject aerosols into the atmosphere is required to fill out a one-page form with the Commerce Department 10 days before they do so, thanks to a law from the 1970s that requires reporting of efforts to modify the weather.

That’s not enough, say academics and researchers who are urging the government to expand their rules governing private firms’ solar radiation modification efforts. It’s part of a broader push to regulate small-scale geoengineering experiments that are already happening.

Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) describes an array of geoengineering techniques designed to partially block sunlight to mask the heating effect of greenhouse gasses. It does nothing to tackle the root causes of climate change, is inherently unpredictable and risks further destabilizing an already destabilized climate system with more and new extremes. It is neither insurance to ‘buy time’ nor any form of supplement to mitigation. Solar geoengineering is a recipe for disaster that delays climate action and real solutions, and puts our communities and ecosystems at unacceptable risk.

Widely discussed SRM techniques such as stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) and marine cloud brightening (MCB) carry the further risk of ‘termination shock’ – the sudden spiraling of global temperatures if such injections were, for whatever reason, ever stopped. For SAI this means injections of chemicals into the stratosphere would need to be continued for several decades if not centuries, in effect requiring policy continuity spanning numerous generations – something that is virtually impossible to assure. In addition to severe environmental, social and political risks – which include serious threats to biodiversity and food security – SRM itself poses a clear ‘moral hazard’, risking delays to meaningful climate action that must occur in the near term.

The UN Human Rights Council’s Advisory Committee has warned that geoengineering technologies “could seriously interfere with the enjoyment of human rights for millions and perhaps billions of people”. It has also pointed out the disproportionate impact on Indigenous Peoples, peasants, fisherfolk and others living in rural areas. These same groups have been vocal in rejecting geoengineering as a dangerous distraction that would violate their rights.

What do you think?

On his latest video for the Vlog Brothers, Hank Green spoke about the accidental experiment that cleaning up ship fuel has carried out on the climate, in a video titled "The Biggest Science Story of the Week". Among other things, Hank argues that this could be a crucial opportunity to learn about geoengineering. Geoengineering - according to this Vlog Brother - could be a "giant step forward". So what could geoengineering actually achieve to combat climate change? And why are many climate scientists far more skeptical than Hank lets on?