David Keith New Mexico experiment, press reaction
Andrew Lockley
US geoengineers to spray sun-reflecting chemicals from balloon
Experiment in New Mexico will try to establish the possibility of cooling the planet by dispersing sulphate aerosols
Martin Lukacs
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 17 July 2012
The field experiment in solar geoengineering aims to ultimately create a technology to replicate the observed effects of volcanoes that spew sulphates into the stratosphere.
Two Harvard engineers are to spray sun-reflecting chemical particles into the atmosphere to artificially cool the planet, using a balloon flying 80,000 feet over Fort Sumner, New Mexico.
The field experiment in solar geoengineering aims to ultimately create a technology to replicate the observed effects of volcanoes that spew sulphates into the stratosphere, using sulphate aerosols to bounce sunlight back to space and decrease the temperature of the Earth.
David Keith, one of the investigators, has argued that solar geoengineering could be an inexpensive method to slow down global warming, but other scientists warn that it could have unpredictable, disastrous consequences for the Earth's weather systems and food supplies. Environmental groups fear that the push to make geoengineering a "plan B" for climate change will undermine efforts to reduce carbon emissions.
Keith, who manages a multimillion dollar geoengineering research fund provided by Microsoft founder Bill Gates, previously commissioned a study by a US aerospace company that made the case for the feasibility of large-scale deployment of solar geoengineering technologies.
His US experiment, conducted with American James Anderson, will take place within a year and involve the release of tens or hundreds of kilograms of particles to measure the impacts on ozone chemistry, and to test ways to make sulphate aerosols the appropriate size. Since it is impossible to simulate the complexity of the stratosphere in a laboratory, Keith says the experiment will provide an opportunity to improve models of how the ozone layer could be altered by much larger-scale sulphate spraying.
"The objective is not to alter the climate, but simply to probe the processes at a micro scale," said Keith. "The direct risk is very small."
While the experiment may not harm the climate, environmental groups say that the global environmental risks of solar geoengineering have been amply identified through modelling and the study of the impacts of sulphuric dust emitted by volcanoes.
"Impacts include the potential for further damage to the ozone layer, and disruption of rainfall, particularly in tropical and subtropical regions – potentially threatening the food supplies of billions of people," said Pat Mooney, executive director of the Canadian-based technology watchdog ETC Group. "It will do nothing to decrease levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or halt ocean acidification. And solar geoengineering is likely to increase the risk of climate-related international conflict – given that the modelling to date shows it poses greater risks to the global south."
A scientific study published last month concluded that solar radiation management could decrease rainfall by 15% in areas of North America and northern Eurasia and by more than 20% in central South America.
Last autumn, a British field test of a balloon-and-hosepipe device that would have pumped water into the sky generated controversy. The government-funded project – Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (Spice) – was cancelled after a row over patents and a public outcry by global NGOs, some of whom argued the project was a "Trojan horse" that would open the door to full-scale deployment of the technology.
Keith said he opposed Spice from the outset because it would not have improved knowledge of the risks or effectiveness of solar geoengineering, unlike his own experiment.
"I salute the British government for getting out and trying something," he said. "But I wish they'd had a better process, because those opposed to any such experiments will see it as a victory and try to stop other experiments as well."
The Guardian understands that Keith is planning to use the Gates-backed fund to organise a meeting to study the lessons of Spice.
David Keith
Despite the quotes Martin Lukacs the reporter for the Guardian did not talk to either Jim Anderson or me in reporting this story.
The story is incorrect in several crucial ways. First and most important no experiment is definitely planed or funded.
It’s true that we are in the early stages of planning and experiment to look at aerosol and ozone science questions, and that one of the topics we will address is risks of aerosol SRM. A balloon based platform is one of the possible methods. But, there is no possibility that it will go forward within a year as claimed in the article. Moreover, I would only support and participate in such an experiment if (a) it’s funding was substantially public and (b) it was supported and approved by relevant public science research agencies, and (c) it provided a real opportunity to advance our understanding of the risk or efficacy of SRM.
While this story appears in a reputable paper has the appearance of primary reporting, it seems to have been assembled from fragments found on the web without even the most basic fact-checking.
David
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
David Keith
Folks
My error. Looking through my records I find that I did talk with Martin Lukacs when he called reporting a story for the Toronto Star.
The story is erroneous in the ways I described below, but I was in error in saying that I never talked to Lukacs.
David
Mick West
Two Harvard professors said Tuesday they were developing a proposal for what would be a first-of-its-kind field experiment to test the risks and effectiveness of a geoengineering technology for intervening in the earth’s climate.
The experiment, which would be conducted from a balloon launched from a NASA facility in New Mexico, would involve putting “micro” amounts of sulfate particles into the air with the goal of learning how they combine with water vapor and affect atmospheric ozone.
The researchers, James G. Anderson, a professor of atmospheric chemistry, and David W. Keith, whose field is applied physics, said the amounts involved would be so small that they would have no effect on climate — locally, regionally or globally. “This is an experiment that is completely nonintrusive,” Dr. Anderson said.
(His remarks contradicted a report in The Guardian that the experiment would involve spraying tens or hundreds of pounds of “sun-reflecting chemical particles into the atmosphere to artificially cool the planet.”)
The Harvard researchers’ proposal would focus on an often-suggested means of reducing sunlight: injecting sulfate particles into the atmosphere, where they would combine with water vapor to form aerosols that would reflect some of the sun’s rays. The process would mimic what happens naturally from the eruption of large volcanoes likeMount Pinatubo in the Philippines, which in 1991 spewed millions of tons of sulfur, cooling surface temperatures by about 1 degree Fahrenheit for several years.
But sulfate particles also affect chlorine in the atmosphere, converting it to a form that destroys ozone, a gas that shields the earth from some harmful solar radiation. So before anyone can seriously suggest injecting sulfates into the atmosphere, the effect on ozone must be studied, the researchers said.
Dr. Anderson bristled at the suggestion in The Guardian report that the experiment would use large amounts of the particles. “The whole point of this is to avoid using any quantities of anything that could possibly damage the ozone layer,” he said.
He and Dr. Keith said they expected to have a full proposal written by the end of the year and then would seek public money to pay for it. If they receive funding, the experiment could take place next year, Dr. Anderson said.
Dr. Keith, who is studying other geoengineering technologies including those that would remove carbon dioxide directly from the air, is among several scientists who have received more than $4 million for such research from Bill Gates, a co-founder of Microsoft. But Dr. Keith said he felt strongly that any experiment outside a laboratory that involved injecting even tiny amounts of particles into the atmosphere should involve “public funding and public governance.”
“We will not do an outdoor experiment with that funding,” he said, referring to the money from Mr. Gates.
Geoengineering as an approach to fighting climate change has its share of critics, who argue that the technologies would be costly to develop on a global scale, are generally unproven, and could have disastrous unintended consequences. Even entertaining the idea of geoengineering, some critics say, only serves to distract society from what should be its primary goal: reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
But even some who doubt that geoengineering is a good idea have said that some research in the field should proceed. There has been almost no field research on technologies to reflect sunlight; a British experiment testing the feasibility of pumping liquids to great heights was canceled this year after a dispute over patents.