Interesting Seminar By Alan Robock “Smoke and Mirrors: Is Geoengineering A Solution To Global Warming?”

Alan Robock is giving a seminar today at NOAA in Boulder. I have posted on his other seminars recently (e.g. see). I am pleased that Alan also sees serious risk in large scale geoengineering since we do not know all of the consequences. I would also conclude, unlike Alan, that we also do not know the consequences of accumulating CO2 into the atmosphere.  It is becoming increasingly clear, of course, that the concept of “global warming” grossly oversimplfies the real behavior of the climate system, both from natural and human  influences as we discussed in

Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski, E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell,  W. Rossow,  J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian,  and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol. 90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union

The seminar announcment reads [highlight added]

Chemical Sciences Division Seminar

Alan Robock
Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University

Smoke and Mirrors: Is Geoengineering a Solution to Global Warming?

Wednesday, November 2, 3:30 PM (Refreshments at 3:15 PM)  David Skaggs Research Center, Room 2A305

In response to the global warming problem, there has been a recent  renewed interest in geoengineering “solutions” involving “solar  radiation management” by injecting particles into the stratosphere,  brightening clouds, or blocking sunlight with satellites between the Sun  and Earth. While volcanic eruptions have been suggested as innocuous  examples of stratospheric aerosols cooling the planet, the volcano  analog actually argues against geoengineering because of ozone depletion  and regional hydrologic responses. In this talk, I describe different  proposed geoengineering designs, and then show climate model  calculations that evaluate both their efficacy and their possible  adverse consequences. No such systems to conduct geoengineering now  exist, but a comparison of different proposed stratospheric injection  schemes, using airplanes, balloons, and artillery, shows that using  airplanes to put sulfur gases into the stratosphere would not be  expensive. Nevertheless, it would be very difficult to create  stratospheric sulfate particles with a desirable size distribution. We  have just started a GeoMIP project to conduct climate model experiments  with standard stratospheric aerosol injection scenarios, so as to  examine the robustness of the few experiments conducted so far.  If there were a way to continuously inject SO2 into the lower stratosphere, it would produce global cooling, stopping melting of the ice caps, and increasing the uptake of CO2  by plants. But there are at least 25 reasons why geoengineering may be a  bad idea. These include disruption of the Asian and African summer  monsoons, reducing precipitation to the food supply for billions of  people; ozone depletion; no more blue skies; reduction of solar power;  and rapid global warming if it stops. Furthermore, the prospect of  geoengineering working may reduce the current drive toward reducing  greenhouse gas emissions, there are concerns about commercial or  military control, and it may seriously degrade terrestrial astronomy and  satellite remote sensing. Global efforts to reduce anthropogenic  emissions and to adapt to climate change are a much better way to  channel our resources to address anthropogenic global warming.

source of image

Comments Off on Interesting Seminar By Alan Robock “Smoke and Mirrors: Is Geoengineering A Solution To Global Warming?”

Filed under Climate Science Presentations

Comments are closed.