Geoengineering: a quick fix with big risks

June 5, 2007

Radical steps to engineer Earth’s climate by blocking sunlight could drastically cool the planet, but could just as easily worsen the situation if these projects fail or are suddenly halted, according to a new computer modeling study.

The experiments, described in the June 4 early online edition of The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, look at what might happen if we attempt to slow climate change by “geoengineering” a solar filter instead of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The researchers used a computer model to simulate a decrease in solar radiation across the entire planet, but assumed that that the current trend of increasing global carbon dioxide emissions would continue for the rest of this century.

“Given current political and economic trends, it is easy to become pessimistic about the prospect that needed cuts in carbon dioxide emissions will come soon enough or be deep enough to avoid irreversibly damaging our climate,” said co-author Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology. “If we want to consider more dramatic options, such as deliberately altering the Earth’s climate, it’s important to understand how these strategies might play out.”

Although the term “geoengineering” describes any measure intended to modify the Earth at the planetary scale, the current study focuses on changes that reduce the amount of solar radiation that reaches the planet’s surface. Several methods to accomplish this have been suggested, from filling the upper atmosphere with light-reflecting sulfate particles to installing mirrors in orbit around the planet.

According to the model, even after greenhouse gases warm the planet, geoengineering schemes could cool off the Earth within a few decades to temperatures not seen since the dawn of the industrial revolution. This is good news, according to Caldeira and lead author Damon Matthews of Concordia University in Montreal, Canada, because it suggests there is no need to rush into building a geoengineering system before it is absolutely necessary.

However, the study also offers some bad news. If any hypothetical geoengineering program were to fail or be cancelled for any reason, a catastrophic, decade-long spike in global temperatures could result, along with rates of warming 20 times greater than we are experiencing today.

“If we become addicted to a planetary sunshade, we could experience a painful withdrawal if our fix was suddenly cut off,” Caldeira explained. “This needs to be taken into consideration if we ever think seriously about implementing a geoengineering strategy.”

Caldeira and Matthews believe that lower temperatures in a geoengineered world would result in more efficient storage of carbon in plants and soils. However, if the geoengineering system failed and temperatures suddenly increased, much of that stored carbon would be released back into the atmosphere. This, in turn, could lead to accelerated greenhouse warming.

Reduced solar radiation not only affects temperatures in the simulations, but also global rainfall patterns. In a model run with no simulated geoengineering, warmer temperatures resulted in more rainfall over the oceans, while increased carbon dioxide levels caused a decrease in evaporation from plants’ leaves, and consequently a decrease in rainfall over tropical forests. In contrast, the geoengineering scenario—which had lower temperatures but the same high levels of carbon dioxide—resulted only in a decrease in tropical forest rainfall.

“Many people argue that we need to prevent climate change. Others argue that we need to keep emitting greenhouse gases,” Caldeira said. “Geoengineering schemes have been proposed as a cheap fix that could let us have our cake and eat it, too. But geoengineering schemes are not well understood. Our study shows that planet-sized geoengineering means planet-sized risks.”

Caldeira feels it is important to develop a scientific understanding of proposed geoengineering schemes. “I hope I never need a parachute, but if my plane is going down in flames, I sure hope I have a parachute handy,” Caldeira said. ”I hope we’ll never need geoengineering schemes, but if a climate catastrophe occurs, I sure hope we will have thought through our options carefully.”

Source: Carnegie Institution

Explore further: As Paris climate goals recede, geoengineering looms larger

Related Stories

'Plan B': Seven ways to engineer the climate

October 11, 2017

Dismissed a decade ago as far-fetched and dangerous, schemes to tame global warming by engineering the climate have migrated from the margins of policy debate towards centre stage.

Could 'cocktail geoengineering' save the climate?

July 24, 2017

Geoengineering is a catch-all term that refers to various theoretical ideas for altering Earth's energy balance to combat climate change. New research from an international team of atmospheric scientists published by Geophysical ...

Can geoengineering put the freeze on global warming?

March 21, 2011

Scientists call it "geoengineering," but in plain speak, it means things like this: blasting tons of sulfate particles into the sky to reflect sunlight away from Earth; filling the ocean with iron filings to grow plankton ...

Recommended for you

Carbon coating gives biochar its garden-greening power

October 20, 2017

For more than 100 years, biochar, a carbon-rich, charcoal-like substance made from oxygen-deprived plant or other organic matter, has both delighted and puzzled scientists. As a soil additive, biochar can store carbon and ...

Cool roofs have water saving benefits too

October 20, 2017

The energy and climate benefits of cool roofs have been well established: By reflecting rather than absorbing the sun's energy, light-colored roofs keep buildings, cities, and even the entire planet cooler. Now a new study ...

0 comments

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.