CAJ - My opinion about geoengineering

When I first started to deal with geoengineering, I had a negative attitude towards it. I thought it was a crazy idea to control climate and pollute our planet by spraying chemicals in the air. In truth, I was not properly informed about the dangerous global warming effects. Therefore, I couldn’t evaluate the necessity of geoengineering. The more I read about it, the more I realised its importance. Firstly, I only looked at newspaper articles. It really made me frustrated that many arguments against geoengineering I found in these articles were not supported by any proper facts. So I started to read more academic texts. By doing so, I began to look at it from new perspectives. I thought about it many times and I finally can say that I have developed my own opinion about geoengineering.

I strongly believe that some revolutionary measures to prevent global warming have to be taken as soon as possible. There are several geoengineering techniques that aim to combat different aspects of global warming. Some of these are expensive and at the moment infeasible, others are quite cheap considering the significant cooling effect they could cause in a short period of time. If we weigh out the negative impact of global warming and of some geoengineering methods, we can conclude, obviously, that global warming is far more destructive to the planet. Therefore I think geoengineering should be implemented. However, most of the leading scientists in this field keep on saying that further research and some kind of a plan to realise it is needed. In order to prevent governments to misuse geoengineering as a weapon, for example, it is essential to regulate it properly. Geoengineering should only be used to combat global warming and ocean acidification. Since no other measure that have been taken to counter an aggravation of global warming were really effective, geoengineering seems to be the only way to make it stop.

CAJ - A Ted Talk with David Keith

A Ted Talk with David Keith 

David Keith giving a speech at TED

In September 2007, David Keith payed a visit to TED and gave a brilliant insight into geoengineering. Mr. Keith is a Canadian environmental scientist and has been actively involved in searching for ways to cool our planet. He is the president of Carbon Engineering and he serves as the Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics in the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) and Professor of Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. He was listed as one of TIME magazine's Heroes of the Environment 2009.

In his speech, he firstly presented some shocking facts about the current global warming stage. Throughout his speech he kept on saying that we hadn’t done anything to counter global warming. He continued by explaining that we could easily solve the problem. Wind power, nuclear power and CO2 capture are ways to counter global warming. These are techniques which are ready for large scale deployment. He also suggested the spraying of stratospheric sulphur aerosols. He then explained how photophoresis works and gave an idea of the cost. Using this method, we could make an ice planet with the cost of only 001% of GDP. What I like about his speech is that he looks at the technique of aerosols spraying in a critical way. He mentioned the side-effects such as the slight destruction of the ozone. He also raised the concern that if we know for sure that Geoengineering works, we will not be encouraged to cut emissions. In the end, he stated that there is still a lack of research and depth of knowledge in this study field. Scientists have to come up with more scenarios. Based on these scenarios, we could properly talk about the possible side effects of each geoengineering technique.

CAJ - A conversation with my sister about geoengineering

 

I had a nice, heated debate about geoengineering with my sister. I had already told her once before that I have to get absorbed into this topic for my CAJ and therefore, she knew roughly what it is about. I started the conversation by asking her what her opinion about geoengineering was. She was absolutely against it. She argued that it is a thread against nature and that people should not claim the right to intervene in the Earth’s climate system. She also mentioned God by saying that we should not change the way God created the Earth and all other creations. If we consider that geoengineering techniques involve placing mirrors to block sunlight, it is quite understandable that she was totally against it. I just leaned back to listen to her getting so furious about it. I realised that I had exactly the same opinion about geoengineering before I went more into depth with all the global warming issues. All my acquired knowledge helped me counter her arguments. I stated some actual facts concerning global warming, like the minimum sea-ice volume is falling continuously in the Arctic. I kept on telling that it is essential to come up with ways to protect our planet and that by this stage we should consider anything that could prevent global warming, even severe geoengineering.  She knew that already but she was sceptical about the Geoengineering techniques. I told her that these techniques, of course, could be risky. She then began to ask for more details about all the different geoengineering methods. I realised that I still lack information about them.

This debate opened my eyes in many ways. I learned that I can state proper facts when it comes to debates around geoengineering and global warming. The CAJ made me more aware of what is happening to our planet. But, on the other hand, I still need more detailed information about the different geoengineering techniques. I will work on it!

Note: I wrote this text before I dealt with the geoengineering techniques more in depth. By now I have, of course, expanded my knowledge about them.

CAJ - Abstract

Abstract of my CAJ

This CAJ is a collection of information about techniques to prevent aggravation of climate change, namely geoengineering. The aim is to make people aware that geoengineering will affect our lives, sooner or later. As the topic is all about science and, therefore, quite complicated, this CAJ concentrates on giving the readers a general understanding of all the aspects of geoengineering. The CAJ mainly focuses on academic texts and newspaper articles. To make it more clear to people, the CAJ provides an introduction to all the geoengineering methods which are designed to cool the earth. On this basis, the CAJ continues by looking at geoengineering from various angles. Therefore, some information about the side effects/consequences as well as about the usefulness of geoengineering can be found in the CAJ. Since the issue around Geoengineering became quite known through the movie “Why in the world are they spraying?”, the CAJ provides a review of it. By doing so, all the conspiracies associated with geoengineering are presented. In the end, the CAJ provides a summary of this topic and my own opinion on geoengineering.

CAJ - Is a spraying program currently underway to destroy the Earth?

Chemtrail conspiracy theory 

The reason why I chose geoengineering to be the topic for my CAJ is the documentary “Why in the world are they spraying”. The information I came across with in this documentary really left me speechless. It is about the effects chemtrails, which are long-lasting chemical trails left in the sky by aircrafts, have on the environment, especially on plants and trees. The documentary aims to reveal that the government is deliberately spraying chemicals in the air without the general public knowing about it. The people in this documentary, some actually have academic titles, keep on saying that the trails we see in the sky are not trails caused by the turbines of aircrafts, but chemical trails, also called chemtrails, that cause changes in weather patterns. As a result of these chemtrails and the altered weather patterns, plants and crops rot and dry out. They warn people from geoengineering, presenting the scientists in this field of study as some kind of illuminati figures. As for my part, I started to believe in this conspiracy since a lot of pathos was used. I have to admit that the information is very well presented and leaves the viewer with a feeling of fear and shock, especially those who have not dealt with this topic before.  

Thanks to the fear this documentary caused in me and the CAJ, I started to get absorbed in geoengineering. I began to collect some useful information and realised, not long after, that the documentary is really...bad and lousy! The documentary not only displays geoengineering as a illuminati conspiracy and a depopulation plan, but also spreads wrong scientific facts. For example, to illustrate how badly aluminum, which is contained in these “chemtrails”, has affected water, they have taken a sample from pond sediment, not from the water of it. What they have tested is basically the aluminum level of the soil and not the water. They have then compared this sample with clean normal water. Of course, the aluminum level of the “pond” was considerably higher, since the aluminum of rocks is already eight percent high. All of the analysis in this documentary are simply flawed or based on misconception.

The people in the documentary have mistakenly or purposely, we don’t know, misconceived what chemtrails are. What they have seen are contrails and not chemtrails. There is a major difference between those. While contrails are simply the white lines you see in the sky that “form upon condensation of water vapor produced by the combustion of fuel in the airplane engines” (a definition by Encyclopedia Britannica), chemtrails are trails consisting of chemical substances that aim to cool the Earth. However, the geoengineering technique of spraying sulphate aerosols into the atmosphere has not yet been implemented. We can still gaze in awe at the white lines that form beautiful patterns in the sky without any fear. Some people who believe in this chemtrail conspiracy argue that these two trail-types can be differentiated from one another by looking how long they can be seen in the sky. They claim that contrails fade away in a couple of minutes and that chemtrails remain in the sky for a long period of time. This, however, is wrong. It has been proved that contrails can persist for hours. Otherwise, the plan to destroy this planet must have been going on since the invention of jets!? 

I doubt that.

It is also claimed that chemtrails make people sick. This is a headline from an article: "Did Olympic Athletes get Chemtrailed?- Many sick with 'flu-like symptoms?". Maybe they just have caught the flu? Hilarious!

One precious thing I have learned from my CAJ is to stay away from conspiracy sources such as the documentary “Why in the world are they spraying” or David Icke. We should all acquire the ability to evaluate what sources are reliable and give proper facts. People tend to get trapped in conspiracies since they are, let's face it, interesting. Everyone tends to believe that some kind of governmental program to destroy the Earth is currently underway. But it isn’t. These conspiracies only prevent us from getting properly engaged with the boring truth.

CAJ - The negative side-effects of spraying stratospheric sulphate aerosols

The negative side-effects of spraying stratospheric sulphate aerosols

In order for you to get to know all aspects of this geoengineering technique and understand why it is such a heated topic, I like to present even the possible side-effects that may occur with the realization of it. Some scientists say that this strategy to counter global warming could reduce the amount of electricity which is produced through solar power. However, David Keith, one of the leading scientists around geoengineering, does not find this argument convincing and he believes that the creation of electricity through solar energy can only be  negatively affected when solar geoengineering is being used very heavily. Most of the arguments are based on an analysis of the volcanic eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. Injecting sulphate aerosols, as what happened after the eruption, may reduce the total amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Another fact attributed to the eruption and therefore can be seen as a side-effect of this geoengineering technique is the possibility of rough, widespread droughts. David Keith said that he has not seen a serious, direct analysis that supports this argument. Furthermore, this technique could alter weather patterns such as precipitation and increase acid rain. 

 

Another potential consequence of this technique is the increase in ozone depletion. The ozone hole over Antarctica is caused by a chemical reaction and introducing sulphate aerosols could increase the surface area on which these chemical reactions occur. As a consequence, the ozone hole would become larger and more ultraviolet radiation could reach the Earth.
One critical issue remains: Solar geoengineering does not reduce the danger of CO2 emissions. People/Countries/Cities/Companies would continue to live their lifestyles the way they have, creating too much CO2 emissions and thereby worsening global warming. Moreover, the spraying of sulphate particles does not solve the problem of ocean acidification which harms coral reefs and many other marine lives. 

However, studies that have been carried out have proved that crop yields could potentially increase in some regions, because plants grow more efficiently in diffuse light. Another interesting fact is that CO2 from the atmosphere could actually have a fertilising effect on crops. Isn't that fascinating?

CAJ - Stratospheric Sulphate aerosols

Stratospheric sulphate aerosols

The last Geoengineering technique in the group of solar radiation management is the spraying of sulphate aerosols into the upper atmosphere, also called the stratosphere.

So far, the strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions have not shown any effective results. The rate of emissions is actually even beyond the level which we thought is too dangerous a couple of years ago. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change foresees a rise of 2.0 to 5.2 or 11.5 degrees in 2100. Scientists expect this rate to become even higher since developing nations such as India or China will burn more coal and use more vehicles. Even if we all stop creating carbon emissions immediately, which will obviously not happen, the problem of global warming would still persist. A great deal of the heat-trapping gas is expected to remain for decades, even for centuries, in the atmosphere. Doomsayers among scientists say that whatever we do with the existing carbon emissions, we will still face the threat of a worsening of global warming. To avoid the planetary warming getting even worse than it is now, scientist keep on saying how important it is to finally take effective revolutionary measures, a plan B so to speak. This is where the geoengineering technique of spraying sulphate aerosols becomes attractive. By implementing this technique, we could easily solve the problem in a short period of time. The best thing about this technique is that the costs would be minimal. To be precise, it would not cost more than military spendings which means a few billion dollars annually. With this in mind, would it not be more useful to invest this money in something important such as in measures to prevent global warming? Shouldn’t humanity have already reached the point where we can evaluate what really is crucial for the future of the planet? Why throw money out of the window? Shouldn’t we do anything to prevent long-term consequences of global warming such as rising sea levels, increasingly severe storms and droughts, melting glaciers as well as permafrost? In fact, the idea of countering global warming with airplanes in the stratosphere, burning sulphur to make aerosols, goes back to the mid-1970s. How and why did a shift in our thinking about global warming occurred?

Let’s get back to the technique itself:

Sulphate aerosols are considered an important part of the Earth system in the stratosphere as well as in the underlying troposphere. These particles have been studied for a long time since they play an essential role in the chemistry of the the lower stratosphere and, when it occurs, after a volcanic eruption. Sinks of aerosols are so much stronger in the troposphere and they only remain in the troposphere for a few days. However, stratospheric aerosol stay in their layer for approximately a year. The fact that their lifetime is longer means that only a few aerosols need to be introduced per unit of time to create an aerosol burden and to have them dispersed over a large area. This dispersion has a global, not a local, effect which is a very important aspect of geoengineering techniques. Sulfate aerosols occur naturally in the stratosphere because of the transport of natural sulphur compounds from the troposphere. Much higher concentrations are introduced when a volcanic eruption occurs, such as what happened with the Mt. Pinatubo. This eruption results in a temporary cooling of the Earth’s system. The eruption causes sulfur dioxide (SO2) to convert to sulfuric acid (H2SO4) that condenses rapidly in the stratosphere to form fine sulfate aerosols. Winds in the stratosphere spread the aerosols until they cover the globe. Once these aerosols are formed, they remain in the stratosphere for approximately two years. They reflect sunlight and thus reduce the amount of energy that reaches the lower atmosphere, the troposphere, and the Earth's surface. On the other hand, they also absorb heat which is radiated up from the Earth. 

The relative coolness of 1993 is thought to have been a response to the stratospheric aerosol layer that was produced by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1991. The volcanic introduction of sulphate aerosols, therefore, serves as a natural simulation to the geoengineering technique. The only difference is that the volcanic aerosols remain in the stratosphere for a few years, whereas the injected particles will have to be introduced regularly to balance the global warming temperatures. 

Just to give you an idea of how many aircrafts you will see flying  in the future if it really comes to the implementation of this geoengineering technique: For a total aerosol mass injection of particles per year, one million flights  and several thousand aircrafts need to be active continuously in the future. 

How can these aerosols be delivered into the stratosphere?

The methods and ways for how to actually introduce sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere have been neglected in the current geoengineering proposals. There are many challenges when it comes to creating a delivery system that can inject the right amount of aerosols. Earlier papers have suggested some delivery system that inject sulphur using artillery shells, high flying jets or balloons. However, among the dangers that exist with these delivery systems is an unequal and inadequate distribution of the aerosols .This could result in the formation of larger particles which are known to rain out quickly and have shorter stratospheric lifetimes. However, factors like particle size, location as well as lifetime of aerosols need to be taken into account when inventing delivery systems.