Scientists offer better ways to engineer Earth's climate to prevent global warming

There may be better ways to engineer the planet's climate to prevent dangerous global warming than mimicking volcanoes, a University of Calgary climate scientist says in two new studies.

"Releasing engineered nano-sized disks, or sulphuric acid in a condensable vapour above the Earth, are two novel approaches. These approaches offer advantages over simply putting sulphur dioxide gas into the atmosphere," says David Keith, a director in the Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy and a Schulich School of Engineering professor.

Keith, a global leader in investigating this topic, says that geoengineering, or engineering the climate on a global scale, is an imperfect science.

"It cannot offset the risks that come from increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If we don't halt man-made CO2 emissions, no amount of climate engineering can eliminate the problems - massive emissions reductions are still necessary."

Nevertheless, Keith believes that research on geoengineering technologies,their effectiveness and environmental impacts needs to be expanded.

"I think the stakes are simply too high at this point to think that ignorance is a good policy."

Keith suggests two novel geoengineering approaches-'levitating' engineered nano-particles, and the airborne release of sulphuric acid-in two newly published studies. One study was authored by Keith alone, and the other with scientists in Canada, the U.S. and Switzerland.

Scientists investigating geoengineering have so far looked mainly at injecting sulphur dioxide into the . This approach imitates the way volcanoes create sulphuric acid aerosols, or sulphates, that will reflect solar radiation back into space - thereby cooling the planet's surface.

Keith says that sulphates are blunt instruments for climate engineering. It's very difficult to achieve the optimum distribution and size of the aerosols in the atmosphere to reflect the most solar radiation and get the maximum cooling benefit.

One advantage of using sulphates is that scientists have some understanding of their effects in the atmosphere because of emissions from volcanoes such as Mt. Pinatubo, he adds.

"A downside of both these new ideas is they would do something that nature has never seen before. It's easier to think of new ideas than to understand their effectiveness and environmental risks," says Keith.

In his study-published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a top-ranked international science journal-Keith describes a new class of engineered nano-particles that might be used to offset more efficiently, and with fewer negative side effects, than using sulphates.

According to Keith, the distribution of engineered nano-particles above the Earth could be more controlled and less likely to harm the planet's protective ozone layer.

Sulphates also have unwanted side-effects, ranging from reducing the electricity output from certain solar power systems, to speeding up the chemical process that breaks down the ozone layer.

Engineered nano-particles could be designed as thin disks and built with electric or magnetic materials that would enable them to be levitated or oriented in the atmosphere to reflect the most solar radiation.

It may also be possible to control the position of particles above the Earth. In theory, the particles might be engineered to drift toward Earth's poles, to reduce solar radiation in polar regions and counter the melting of ice that speeds up polar warming-known as the ice-albedo feedback.

"Such an ability might be relevant in the event that warming triggers rapid deglaciation," Keith's study says.

"Engineered nano-particles would first need to be tested in laboratories, with only short-lived particles initially deployed in the atmosphere so any effects could be easily reversible," says Keith.

Research would also be needed to determine whether such nano-particles could be effectively distributed, given the complex interplay of forces in the atmosphere, and how much cooling might be achieved at the planet's surface.

It is also unknown whether the amount of particles needed-about 1 trillion kilograms per year or 10 million tonnes over 10 years-could be manufactured and deployed at a reasonable cost.

However, Keith notes another study, which looked at the cost of putting natural sulphates into the stratosphere.

"You could manipulate the Earth's climate at large scale for a cost that's of the order of $1 billion a year. It sounds like a lot of money, but compared to the costs of managing other environmental problems or climate change, that is peanuts."

"This is not an argument to do it, only an indication that risk, not cost, will be the deciding issue," he adds.

In a separate new study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, Keith and international scientists describe another geoengineering approach that may also offer advantages over injecting sulphur dioxide gas.

Releasing sulphuric acid, or another condensable vapour, from an aircraft would give better control of particle size. The study says this would reflect more solar radiation back into space, while using fewer particles overall and reducing unwanted heating in the lower stratosphere.

The study included computer modeling that showed that the sulphuric acid would quickly condense in a plume, forming smaller particles that would last longer in the stratosphere and be more effective in reflecting than the large sulphates formed from gas.

Keith stresses that whether technology is ever used, it shouldn't be seen as a reason not to reduce man-made greenhouse gas emissions now accumulating in the atmosphere.

"Seat belts reduce the risk of being injured in accidents. But having a seat belt doesn't mean you should drive drunk at 100 miles an hour," he says.

Explore further

Climate change experts argue for international geoengineering effort

Citation: Scientists offer better ways to engineer Earth's climate to prevent global warming (2010, September 7) retrieved 19 July 2019 from
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 07, 2010
This is a terrible idea for right now. I know that if carbon dioxide emissions continue at the current rate we will have to take some drastic action, but putting aerosols into our atmosphere to regulate the climate should be a last-ditch effort.
Aerosols will cool the Earth, but also we have to look at the other effects. It will bring increased precipitation, causing floods, blizzards, and other disasters. The aerosols will also increase cloud cover, which in turn will mean fewer sunny days. This may not seem like that big of a deal, but it would alter farming strategies and natural ecosystems where plants depend on sunshine for photosynthesis. There are serious repercussions to essentially putting the equivalent of several large volcanic eruptions into our atmosphere, especially if we don't know what other effects to expect; plus, if we starting putting aerosols into our atmosphere, we would become dependent on continuing that action.
Let's recycle and drive our cars less.

Sep 07, 2010
I'd prefer to take my chances with the CO2 rather than allowing "geoengineering" such as is proposed in this article. Too many problems have resulted from doing things thought to be helpful, but that later turned out to be worse than the problem they were attempting to solve. Let people and companies become more responsible about the pollution they cause and perhaps things will get better without "geoengineering".

Sep 07, 2010
Like marxists everwhere, lets engineer what we dont understand, flip the values arond and distort it beyond repair... why not play with mars first? make it habitable, then you can play here.

Sep 07, 2010
By the way, Engineers dont experiment, only scientists and administrators wishing to fiddle with things they dont understand, call it engineering... that way, no one blames them for when they ruin millions of lives and call it a bureaucratic error. notice that they are willing like mengele to experiment on people, their own children, the future, without asking the peoples permission.

why not just grab people off the street and experiment on them, call it engineering? (sorry, thats called school, social services, etc)


Sep 08, 2010
I'll just say that after years of living downwind of Beijing, the one place on the planet that wouldn't be severly affected by a giant sulfurous smokestack would be,... Beijing. I vote we hoist it upwind of China. Yeah, I know where it blows next, still it would be worth it.

Sep 08, 2010
If AGW is founded on hubris, then anti-AGW "engineering" is hubris squared. Global warming, sorry, climate change is the new playground of the emerging scientist-terrorist class.

Sep 08, 2010
Stoopid monkeys, treating the symptoms instead of the cause NEVER solves a problem. It just masks it until it emerges even worse.

Sep 11, 2010
I heard someone say that the next big bubble to burst after silicon valley and real estate will be education (have you seen the national educational loan/debt figure lately?). This will occur when many student loans go into default because graduates have no sources of income. I wonder if this is true.

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