scholarly journals Stratospheric controlled perturbation experiment: a small-scale experiment to improve understanding of the risks of solar geoengineering

2014 ◽  
Vol 372 (2031) ◽  
pp. 20140059 ◽  
Author(s):  
John A. Dykema ◽  
David W. Keith ◽  
James G. Anderson ◽  
Debra Weisenstein
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Stratospheric Ozone ◽  
Full Range ◽  
Stratospheric Aerosol ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Perturbation Experiment ◽  
Radiation Management

Although solar radiation management (SRM) through stratospheric aerosol methods has the potential to mitigate impacts of climate change, our current knowledge of stratospheric processes suggests that these methods may entail significant risks. In addition to the risks associated with current knowledge, the possibility of ‘unknown unknowns’ exists that could significantly alter the risk assessment relative to our current understanding. While laboratory experimentation can improve the current state of knowledge and atmospheric models can assess large-scale climate response, they cannot capture possible unknown chemistry or represent the full range of interactive atmospheric chemical physics. Small-scale, in situ experimentation under well-regulated circumstances can begin to remove some of these uncertainties. This experiment—provisionally titled the stratospheric controlled perturbation experiment—is under development and will only proceed with transparent and predominantly governmental funding and independent risk assessment. We describe the scientific and technical foundation for performing, under external oversight, small-scale experiments to quantify the risks posed by SRM to activation of halogen species and subsequent erosion of stratospheric ozone. The paper's scope includes selection of the measurement platform, relevant aspects of stratospheric meteorology, operational considerations and instrument design and engineering.

State Responsibility for Environmental Harm from Climate Engineering

Climate Law ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (2-4) ◽  
pp. 142-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Reichwein ◽  
Anna-Maria Hubert ◽  
Peter J. Irvine ◽  
Francois Benduhn ◽  
Mark G. Lawrence
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Stratospheric Aerosol ◽  
Legal Responsibility ◽  
Environmental Harm ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Climate Engineering ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Radiation Management

Some have proposed that climate-engineering methods could be developed to offset climate change. However, whilst some of these methods, in particular a form of solar-radiation management referred to as stratospheric aerosol injection (sai), could potentially reduce the overall degree of global warming as well as some associated risks, they are also likely to redistribute some environmental risks globally. Moreover, they could give rise to new risks, raising the issue of legal responsibility for transboundary harm caused. This article examines the question of international accountability of states for an increased risk of environmental harm arising from a large-scale climate intervention using sai, and the legal consequences that would follow. Examination of the applicability of customary rules on state responsibility to sai are useful for understanding the limitations of the existing accountability framework for climate engineering, particularly in the context of global environmental problems involving risk-risk trade-offs and large uncertainties.

Situating and Abandoning Geoengineering: A Typology of Five Responses to Dangerous Climate Change

2013 ◽  
Vol 46 (01) ◽  
pp. 23-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clare Heyward
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Political Issues ◽  
Government Organizations ◽  
Mitigation And Adaptation ◽  
Potential Strategy ◽  
Dangerous Climate Change ◽  
Radiation Management

Geoengineering, the “deliberate, large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment in order to counteract anthropogenic climate change” (Shepherd et al. 2009, 1), is attracting increasing interest. As well as the Royal Society, various scientific and government organizations have produced reports on the potential and challenge of geoengineering as a potential strategy, alongside mitigation and adaptation, to avoid the vast human and environmental costs that climate change is thought to bring (Blackstock et al. 2009; GAO 2010; Long et al. 2011; Rickels et al. 2011). “Geoengineering” covers a diverse range of proposals conventionally divided into carbon dioxide removal (CDR) proposals and solar radiation management (SRM) proposals. This article argues that “geoengineering” should not be regarded as a third category of response to climate change, but should be disaggregated. Technically, CDR and SRM are quite different and discussing them together under the rubric of geoengineering can give the impression that all the technologies in the two categories of response always raise similar challenges and political issues when this is not necessarily the case. However, CDR and SRM should not be completely subsumed into the preexisting categories of mitigation and adaptation. Instead, they can be regarded as two parts of a five-part continuum of responses to climate change. To make this case, the first section of this article discusses whether geoengineering is distinctive, and the second situates CDR and SRM in relation to other responses to climate change.

scholarly journals Climate engineering and the ocean: effects on biogeochemistry and primary production

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siv K. Lauvset ◽  
Jerry Tjiputra ◽  
Helene Muri
Keyword(s):  
Primary Production ◽  
Radiative Forcing ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Stratospheric Aerosol ◽  
Climate Impacts ◽  
Environmental Drivers ◽  
Earth System ◽  
Climate Engineering ◽  
Mean Sea Surface ◽  
Radiation Management

Abstract. Here we use an Earth System Model with interactive biogeochemistry to project future ocean biogeochemistry impacts from large-scale deployment of three different radiation management (RM) climate engineering (also known as geoengineering) methods: stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), marine sky brightening (MSB), and cirrus cloud thinning (CCT). We apply RM such that the change in radiative forcing in the RCP8.5 emission scenario is reduced to the change in radiative forcing in the RCP4.5 scenario. The resulting global mean sea surface temperatures in the RM experiments are comparable to those in RCP4.5, but there are regional differences. The forcing from MSB, for example, is applied over the oceans, so the cooling of the ocean is in some regions stronger for this method of RM than for the others. Changes in ocean primary production are much more variable, but SAI and MSB give a global decrease comparable to RCP4.5 (~ 6 % in 2100 relative to 1971–2000), while CCT give a much smaller global decrease of ~ 3 %. The spatially inhomogeneous changes in ocean primary production are partly linked to how the different RM methods affect the drivers of primary production (incoming radiation, temperature, availability of nutrients, and phytoplankton) in the model. The results of this work underscores the complexity of climate impacts on primary production, and highlights that changes are driven by an integrated effect of multiple environmental drivers, which all change in different ways. These results stress the uncertain changes to ocean productivity in the future and advocates caution at any deliberate attempt for large-scale perturbation of the Earth system.

scholarly journals Challenges in uncovering non-invasive biomarkers of endometriosis

2020 ◽  
Vol 245 (5) ◽  
pp. 437-447
Author(s):  
Quanah J Hudson ◽  
Alexandra Perricos ◽  
Rene Wenzl ◽  
Iveta Yotova
Keyword(s):  
High Throughput Screening ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Biomarker Discovery ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Reproductive Age ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Common Disease ◽  
Sample Collection ◽  
Childbearing Age ◽  
Cohort Selection

Endometriosis affects up to 10% of women of childbearing age, causing symptoms that can include chronic pelvic pain and reduced fertility. The symptoms are not specific to the disease and can be confused with other gynecological conditions or normal menstruation. Currently, the disease can be only definitively diagnosed by laparoscopy, as no clinically accepted biomarker exists. Biomarker discovery can either follow a hypothesis-driven approach selecting targets to be tested based on current knowledge of the disease, or take an unbiased high-throughput screening “omics” approach, such as transcriptomics or proteomics, to identify markers that are unique or elevated in accessible bodily fluids of patients with the disease. Numerous studies have been conducted using these approaches to try and identify endometriosis biomarkers, but variabilities in study design, cohort selection, and analysis, together with the fact that most studies were small-scale, have made independent validation of biomarker candidates difficult. Therefore, efforts are underway to standardize cohort selection, patient data, and sample collection to allow better cross-study comparisons. Large scale multi-center studies using this standardized approach are necessary to validate existing endometriosis biomarker candidates and uncover potential new markers. Given the complexity and heterogeneity of the disease, it is likely that a panel of biomarkers will be necessary to diagnose and categorize endometriosis. Impact statement Endometriosis is a common disease affecting reproductive age women, which is associated with chronic pain and reduced fertility reducing the quality of life of many women. Definitive diagnosis requires invasive laparoscopic surgery creating a high barrier to diagnosis that can delay the onset of treatment significantly. Clinically approved biomarkers of endometriosis are currently lacking, making the discovery and validation of biomarkers that would lead to earlier diagnosis a priority for improving treatment of the disease.

scholarly journals Africa's Climate Response to Solar Radiation Management With Stratospheric Aerosol

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Izidine Pinto ◽  
Christopher Jack ◽  
Christopher Lennard ◽  
Simone Tilmes ◽  
Romaric C. Odoulami
Keyword(s):  
Solar Radiation ◽  
Stratospheric Aerosol ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Climate Response ◽  
Radiation Management

scholarly journals Reconstruction and Simulation of Stratospheric Ozone Distributions during the 2002 Austral Winter

2005 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 748-764 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. E. Randall ◽  
G. L. Manney ◽  
D. R. Allen ◽  
R. M. Bevilacqua ◽  
J. Hornstein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Stratospheric Ozone ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Stratospheric Aerosol ◽  
Equation Model ◽  
Transport Processes ◽  
Reconstruction Method ◽  
Austral Winter ◽  
Solar Occultation ◽  
Occultation Data

Abstract Satellite-based solar occultation measurements during the 2002 austral winter have been used to reconstruct global, three-dimensional ozone distributions. The reconstruction method uses correlations between potential vorticity and ozone to derive “proxy” distributions from the geographically limited occultation observations. Ozone profiles from the Halogen Occultation Experiment (HALOE), the Polar Ozone and Aerosol Measurement III (POAM III), and the Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment II and III (SAGE II and III) are incorporated into the analysis. Because this is one of the first uses of SAGE III data in a scientific analysis, preliminary validation results are shown. The reconstruction method is described, with particular emphasis on uncertainties caused by noisy and/or multivalued correlations. The evolution of the solar occultation data and proxy ozone fields throughout the winter is described, and differences with respect to previous winters are characterized. The results support the idea that dynamical forcing early in the 2002 winter influenced the morphology of the stratosphere in a significant and unusual manner, possibly setting the stage for the unprecedented major stratospheric warming in late September. The proxy is compared with ozone from mechanistic, primitive equation model simulations of passive ozone tracer fields during the time of the warming. In regions where chemistry is negligible compared to transport, the model and proxy ozone fields agree well. The agreement between, and changes in, the large-scale ozone fields in the model and proxy indicate that transport processes, particularly enhanced poleward transport and mixing, are the primary cause of ozone changes through most of the stratosphere during this unprecedented event. The analysis culminates with the calculation of globally distributed column ozone during the major warming, showing quantitatively how transport of low-latitude air to the polar region in the middle stratosphere led to the diminished ozone hole in 2002.

scholarly journals Radiative and climate impacts of a large volcanic eruption during stratospheric sulfur geoengineering

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (15) ◽  
pp. 21837-21881 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Laakso ◽  
H. Kokkola ◽  
A.-I. Partanen ◽  
U. Niemeier ◽  
C. Timmreck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Volcanic Eruption ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Volcanic Eruptions ◽  
Stratospheric Aerosol ◽  
Climate Impacts ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Atmospheric Conditions ◽  
Concurrent Case ◽  
Radiation Management

Abstract. Both explosive volcanic eruptions, which emit sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, and stratospheric geoengineering via sulfur injections can potentially cool the climate by increasing the amount of scattering particles in the atmosphere. Here we employ a global aerosol-climate model and an earth system model to study the radiative and climate impacts of an erupting volcano during solar radiation management (SRM). According to our simulations, the radiative impacts of an eruption and SRM are not additive: in the simulated case of concurrent eruption and SRM, the peak increase in global forcing is about 40 % lower compared to a corresponding eruption into a clean background atmosphere. In addition, the recovery of the stratospheric sulfate burden and forcing was significantly faster in the concurrent case since the sulfate particles grew larger and thus sedimented faster from the stratosphere. In our simulation where we assumed that SRM would be stopped immediately after a volcano eruption, stopping SRM decreased the overall stratospheric aerosol load. For the same reasons, a volcanic eruption during SRM lead to only about 1/3 of the peak global ensemble-mean cooling compared to an eruption under unperturbed atmospheric conditions. Furthermore, the global cooling signal was seen only for 12 months after the eruption in the former scenario compared to over 40 months in the latter. In terms of the global precipitation rate, we obtain a 36 % smaller decrease in the first year after the eruption and again a clearly faster recovery in the concurrent eruption and SRM scenario. We also found that an explosive eruption could lead to significantly different regional climate responses depending on whether it takes place during geoengineering or into an unperturbed background atmosphere. Our results imply that observations from previous large eruptions, such as Mt Pinatubo in 1991, are not directly applicable when estimating the potential consequences of a volcanic eruption during stratospheric geoengineering.

scholarly journals The Economics of 1.5°C Climate Change

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 455-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Dietz ◽  
Alex Bowen ◽  
Baran Doda ◽  
Ajay Gambhir ◽  
Rachel Warren
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Carbon Price ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Energy Models ◽  
Regulatory Instruments ◽  
Mitigation Costs ◽  
Near Term ◽  
Radiation Management ◽  
Global Carbon

The economic case for limiting warming to 1.5°C is unclear, due to manifold uncertainties. However, it cannot be ruled out that the 1.5°C target passes a cost-benefit test. Costs are almost certainly high: The median global carbon price in 1.5°C scenarios implemented by various energy models is more than US$100 per metric ton of CO2in 2020, for example. Benefits estimates range from much lower than this to much higher. Some of these uncertainties may reduce in the future, raising the question of how to hedge in the near term. Maintaining an option on limiting warming to 1.5°C means targeting it now. Setting off with higher emissions will make 1.5°C unattainable quickly without recourse to expensive large-scale carbon dioxide removal (CDR), or solar radiation management (SRM), which can be cheap but poses ambiguous risks society seems unwilling to take. Carbon pricing could reduce mitigation costs substantially compared with ramping up the current patchwork of regulatory instruments. Nonetheless, a mix of policies is justified and technology-specific approaches may be required. It is particularly important to step up mitigation finance to developing countries, where emissions abatement is relatively cheap.

A Brief Survey of the Meteorological Aspects of Atmospheric Pollution

1959 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 165-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. E. Cramer
Keyword(s):  
Air Pollution ◽  
Atmospheric Pollution ◽  
Empirical Data ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Diffusion Theory ◽  
Radioactive Fallout ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Comparable Data ◽  
Intermediate Scale

This article is intended to provide a brief survey of current knowledge of the meteorological aspects of air pollution for meteorologists and others who are not specialists in diffusion. Improved understanding of atmospheric dispersal processes has largely occurred in proportion to the amount of satisfactory empirical data available. The most comprehensive observations refer to small-scale processes, but considerable information on large-scale processes has been obtained in studies of radioactive fallout; comparable data for intermediate-scale processes of the type involved in community air pollution appear to be lacking. Although a satisfactory diffusion theory has not yet emerged, the outlook is encouraging.

scholarly journals Lifting options for stratospheric aerosol geoengineering: advantages of tethered balloon systems

2012 ◽  
Vol 370 (1974) ◽  
pp. 4263-4300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Davidson ◽  
Chris Burgoyne ◽  
Hugh Hunt ◽  
Matt Causier
Keyword(s):  
Atmospheric Chemistry ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
High Refractive Index ◽  
Stratospheric Aerosol ◽  
Climatic Conditions ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Tethered Balloon ◽  
Capital Costs ◽  
Delivery Options ◽  
Radiation Management

The Royal Society report ‘Geoengineering the Climate’ identified solar radiation management using albedo-enhancing aerosols injected into the stratosphere as the most affordable and effective option for geoengineering, but did not consider in any detail the options for delivery. This paper provides outline engineering analyses of the options, both for batch-delivery processes, following up on previous work for artillery shells, missiles, aircraft and free-flying balloons, as well as a more lengthy analysis of continuous-delivery systems that require a pipe connected to the ground and supported at a height of 20 km, either by a tower or by a tethered balloon. Towers are shown not to be practical, but a tethered balloon delivery system, with high-pressure pumping, appears to have much lower operating and capital costs than all other delivery options. Instead of transporting sulphuric acid mist precursors, such a system could also be used to transport slurries of high refractive index particles such as coated titanium dioxide. The use of such particles would allow useful experiments on opacity, coagulation and atmospheric chemistry at modest rates so as not to perturb regional or global climatic conditions, thus reducing scale-up risks. Criteria for particle choice are discussed, including the need to minimize or prevent ozone destruction. The paper estimates the time scales and relatively modest costs required if a tethered balloon system were to be introduced in a measured way with testing and development work proceeding over three decades, rather than in an emergency. The manufacture of a tether capable of sustaining the high tensions and internal pressures needed, as well as strong winds, is a significant challenge, as is the development of the necessary pumping and dispersion technologies. The greatest challenge may be the manufacture and launch of very large balloons, but means have been identified to significantly reduce the size of such balloons or aerostats.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document