1 Impact of geoengineering aerosols on stratospheric temperature and ozone Tom Peter, ETH Zurich, Switzerland “Anthropogenically enhanced sulfate particle.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Volcanoes Large volcanic eruptions with high SO2 content can release SO2 into the stratosphere. This SO2 eventually combined with water vapor to make.
Advertisements

Air Pollution and Climate
In this presentation you will:
UNIT CONFERENCE1 SNC2DT-CLIMATE CHANGE NICOLE, ROBIN, AND RICHARD.
Michael B. McElroy ACS August 23rd, 2010.
Saving the planet: Emissions scenarios, stabilization issues, and uncertainties “NCAR Summer Colloquium on Climate and Health” NCAR, Boulder, CO. 19 July,
1 Climate change impacts and adaptation: An international perspective Chris Field Carnegie Institution: Department of Global Ecology
Global, Regional, and Urban Climate Effects of Air Pollutants Mark Z. Jacobson Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering Stanford University.
Teaching Climate Change Geoengineering Dr. Wil Burns Associate Director, Energy Policy & Climate Program Johns Hopkins University CAMEL Climate Change.
Factors to be considered in choosing metrics Shengmin Yu Energy Research Institute of NDRC, China Bonn, April 2012 Workshop on common metrics to calculate.
Ozone and the Ozone Hole Heather Raven & Stefanie Spayd.
Global Warming and Climate Sensitivity Professor Dennis L. Hartmann Department of Atmospheric Sciences University of Washington Seattle, Washington.
A Safe Landing for the Climate (Chapter 2). Greenhouse gases are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range.
Global Warming ‘Political hype or reality?’ The Fernhurst Society - 5 April John Clement.
Aerosols. Atmospheric Aerosols Bibliography Seinfeld & Pandis, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Chapt Finlayson-Pitts & Pitts, Chemistry of the.
Explaining the Evidence Activity 2: Clearing the Air.
MET 12 Global Climate Change – Lecture 8
The Role of Aerosols in Climate Change Eleanor J. Highwood Department of Meteorology, With thanks to all the IPCC scientists, Keith Shine (Reading) and.
Lecture 3.2: What’s this “Greenhouse Effect” Thing anyway?
IPCC Synthesis Report Part I Overview How to address the issue of “dangerous anthropogenic perturbation” to the climate system The relationship between.
Radiation’s Role in Anthropogenic Climate Change AOS 340.
LINKAGES AND SYNERGIES OF REGIONAL AND GLOBAL EMISSION CONTROL Workshop of the UN/ECE Task Force on Integrated Assessment Modelling January 27-29, 2003.
Climate Change UNIT 3 Chapter 7: Earth’s Climate System
Climate ‘fix’ could deplete ozone
Unlocking the Business Environment Chapter 14 The Macro Environment – Environmental Influences By the end of this chapter you should have a better understanding.
Miss Nelson SCIENCE ~ CHAPTER 9 CLIMATE. Climate Change SECTION 4.
SHIFTING POWERS AND INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE NORMS Dr Rowena Maguire.
Earth Science Chapter 11.2 Climate Change.
Global Warming Global warming is the increase in the average measured temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century,
Sensitivity of Methane Lifetime to Sulfate Geoengineering: Results from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) Giovanni Pitari V. Aquila,
Intro to geoengineering (What it is, what it involves, relationship with global warming, why it is considered a climate change solution)
Selected Research on Solar Radiation Management David Keith University of Calgary 13 June 2011 Climate and Energy.
Counteracting Climate Change
EPA’s Related Programs and Coordination with NASA Presentation to the NASA Environmental Compatibility IV Workshop, August 12-13, Colorado Springs, CO.
Report on March Crystal City Workshop to Identify Grand Challenges in Climate Change Science By its cochair- Robert Dickinson For the 5 Sept
Natural and Anthropogenic Drivers of Arctic Climate Change Gavin Schmidt NASA GISS and Columbia University Jim Hansen, Drew Shindell, David Rind, Ron Miller.
24 Global Ecology. Figure 24.2 A Record of Coral Reef Decline.
24 Global Ecology. Global Biogeochemical Cycles Atmospheric CO 2 affects pH of the oceans by diffusing in and forming carbonic acid.
Metrics for quantification of influence on climate Ayite-Lo Ajovan, Paul Newman, John Pyle, A.R. Ravishankara Co-Chairs, Science Assessment Panel July.
Federal Aviation Administration Aviation and the Environment – Navigating the Future Presented to:Climate Working Group Meeting By: Mr. Carl Burleson,
Global Climate Alteration: A Survey of the Science and Policy Implications D. Warner North (presenter), replacing Stephen H. Schneider, Stanford University,
Geoengineering A viable techno-fix to climate change or another man-made disaster in waiting?
SECTION IV: GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF STEPS TAKEN OR ENVISAGED BY NON-ANNEX I PARTY TO IMPLEMENT THE CONVENTION Workshop on the Use of the Guidelines for.
1 MET 112 Global Climate Change MET 112 Global Climate Change - Lecture 11 Radiative Forcing Eugene Cordero San Jose State University Outline  GHG/Aerosols.
Fanglin Yang Work Done at Climate Research Group
ANNUAL CYCLE OF AIR TEMPERATURE Factors: Insolation, Latitude, Surface type, Coast/Interior, Elevation SS EE.
Past and Future Climate Simulation Lecture 5 Geoengineering our Climate  What is geoengineering?  Focus on sunshade geoengineering  Should we geoengineer.
4/20/2006Ga Tech - EAS Air Chemistry Group Presentation 1 A Hydrogen Economy’s Potential Environmental Impacts Chun Zhao Evan Cobb.
UNECE-CLRTAP and EMEP Task Force on Integrated Assessment Modelling 26th session, Brussels, May 2001 Integrating the environmental effects of Particulate.
UNIT 3 Climate Change 1.
17.1 Atmosphere Characteristics
Aerosols and climate - a crash course Marianne T. Lund CICERO Nove Mesto 17/9-15.
Integrated Assessment and IPCC: Links between climate change and sub-global environmental issues presentation at Task Force Integrated Assessment Modelling,
COP21 Presentation 4 Prediction for the Future Ford & Eric.
04/12/011 The contribution of Earth degassing to the atmospheric sulfur budget By Hans-F. Graf, Baerbel Langmann, Johann Feichter From Chemical Geology.
GREENHOUSE EFFECT. What Is Greenhouse Effect??? an atmospheric heating phenomenon, caused by short-wave solar radiation being readily transmitted inward.
The Greenhouse effect Is a natural process necessary for sustaining life on earth Is a natural process necessary for sustaining life on earth Is produced.
To what extent is geo-engineering the solution to the climate change problem? Brian Hoskins Director, Grantham Institute for Climate Change Imperial College.
Climate-Air Quality: Linkages and OAQPS Strategy National Tribal Forum April 2007.
17 Chapter 17 The Atmosphere: Structure and Temperature.
Presentation to CCS 203 Wylie Carr October 17, 2011
Climate Change Stratosphere made up of gases that trap radiation (heat) from earth’s surface, causing it to be warmer than otherwise Acts like greenhouse,
IPCC / Special Report on Aviation & Global Atmosphere 10 Apr 01 Joyce Penner Professor of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences University.
Chapter 19 Global Change.
Geoengineering: Direct Environmental Consequences
IPCC / Special Report on Aviation & Global Atmosphere 10 Apr 01 Joyce Penner Professor of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences University.
Intro to Climate Change
Basics of Climate Change Decision Making
GLOBAL EFFECTS.
Ozone in the 21st Century: It’s not your Grandmother’s Ozone Anymore!
Presentation transcript:

1 Impact of geoengineering aerosols on stratospheric temperature and ozone Tom Peter, ETH Zurich, Switzerland “Anthropogenically enhanced sulfate particle concentrations … cool the planet, offsetting a … fraction of the anthropogenic increase in green- house gas warming. … This creates a dilemma for environmental policy makers, because the required emission reductions of SO 2 …, as dictated by health and ecological considerations, add to global warming. By far the preferred way to resolve the policy makers’ dilemma is to lower the emissions of the greenhouse gases. However, so far, attempts in that direction have been grossly unsuccessful …” Paul J. Crutzen: ‘Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma?’, Climatic Change, 2006

2 Morton, Nature Tg S stratospheric burden:  average optical depth  ~1 ppbV sulfur (6  natural)  W/m 2 downscaling effect by Mt. Pinatubo: 10 TgS injected into stratosphere [Bluth et al. 1992], after 6 month the remaining 6 TgS caused 4.5 W/m 2 radiative cooling [Hansen et al. 1992] 1-2 Tg S stratospheric burden needed to compensate 1.4 W/m 2 RF expected from cleaning the air (global brightening) [Crutzen and Ramanathan, 2003] 5.3 Tg S stratospheric burden needed to compensate 4 W/m 2 RF expected from CO 2 doubling [Crutzen, 2006] Geoengineering THE GEOENGINEERING DILEMMA: TO SPEAK OR NOT TO SPEAK?

3 Assumptions made previously on particle sizes of geoengineering aerosols Crutzen, Climatic Change, 2006: … the particle sizes of the artificial aerosols are smaller than those of the volcanic aerosol, because of greater continuity of injections in the former … Rasch et al., GRL, 2008 … we have explored scenarios spanning much of the size range that the aerosols might attain, assuming the distribution will either be ‘‘small’’, like that seen during background situations with volcanically quiescent conditions, or ‘‘large’’ like 6–12 months after an eruption … Robock et al., JGR, 2008 …we define the dry aerosol effective radius as 0.25  m, compared to 0.35  m for our Pinatubo simulations… Heckendorn et al., ERL,2009 (under review) … in contrast to all previous work the particles are predicted to grow to larger sizes than observed after volcanic eruptions…

4 Compare volcanic eruption and geoengineering Use AER 2D aerosol model input to CCM SOCOL Volcanic eruption: 1 single SO 2 injection Geoengineering: continuous SO 2 emissions Formation of larger aerosol particles Pina10: 10 Mt S in June Mt S in January 1992 Geo0, Geo1, Geo2, Geo5, Geo10 1 Mt 2Mt 5Mt 10Mt S/a Geo0 Geo1 Geo2 Geo5 Geo10 Pina10

5 Nonlinear injection-burden relationship Total amount of S in the condensed phase: coag/10 2x/yr no sedimentation Rasch et al., GRL 2008 Nonlinear dependence on annual sulfur injections Larger injections lead to more efficient coagulation Partial compensation by less frequent injections Sedimentation lowers loading by ~3/4 Potential repercussions: Warmer tropopause Moister stratosphere Changed dynamics More ozone loss Close investigation required.

6 Nonlinear injection-burden-radiation relationship Total amount of S in the condensed phase: Nonlinear dependence on annual sulfur injections Larger injections lead to more efficient coagulation Partial compensation by less frequent injections Sedimentation lowers loading by ~3/4 Potential repercussions: Warmer tropopause Moister stratosphere Changed dynamics More ozone loss Close investigation required.

7 Impact on ozone layer  1/3 of the ozone loss caused by radiative effects (temperature increase and HO x increase)  2/3 of the ozone loss caused by enhanced heterogeneous reactions on the aerosols  Ozone loss due to geoengineering could be of the same magnitude as due to ODS (ozone depleting substances)  Especially near the main aerosol cloud and in the polar region massive ozone loss must be anticipated Geo5 Geo5 no radiation Geo5 no chemistry Change in total ozone column Scenario nameOzone change Geo % -6.9 DU Geo % -9.4 DU Geo % DU Geo % DU Geo5 no radiation -3.2 % -9.7 DU Geo5 no chemistry -1 % -2.9 DU

8 Modeled ozone after Pinatubo eruption Geo1 Geo2 Geo5 Geo10 Unperturbed SAGE1.8_1 Pina7 Pina13

9 Risks of Climate Engineering Gabriele C. Hegerl and Susan Solomon (Science, Perspective, 2009) “Blackstock et al. call for a study phase, during which the possible impacts of geoengineering options could be investigated. This is clearly necessary, and optimism about a geoengineered »easy way out« should be tempered by examination of currently observed climate changes. …” Climate Engineering Responses to Climate Emergencies Jason Blackstock and collegues (Novim, Santa Barbara, CA, 2009) “… climate engineering concepts … could serve as a rapid palliative response to near-term climate emergencies ….”

10 The ROYAL SOCIETY Strictly Embargoed Until 1 st September BST Stop emitting CO 2 or geoengineering could be our only hope The future of the Earth could rest on potentially dangerous and unproven geoengineering technologies unless emissions of carbon dioxide can be greatly reduced, the latest Royal Society report has found. Geoengineering technologies were found to be very likely technically possible and some were considered to be potentially useful to augment the continuing efforts to mitigate climate change by reducing emissions. However, the report identified major uncertainties regarding their effectiveness, costs and environmental impacts. Geoengineering THE GEOENGINEERING DILEMMA: TO SPEAK OR NOT TO SPEAK?

11 Key recommendations on geoengineering: (1)Mitigation/adaptation: Parties to the UNFCCC should: (a)increase efforts towards mitigatinon/adaption (b)agree to global emissions reductions of at least 50% by 2050 (2)Governance: To ensure that geoengineering methods can be adequately evaluated, and applied responsibly and effectively should the need arise, introduce three priority programs: (a)internationally coordinated research and development on the more promising methods (b)international collaborative activities to explore the feasibility, benefits, environmental impacts, risks and opportunities (c)development and implementation of governance frameworks to guide research and development in the short term, and possible deployment in the longer term, including a public dialogue process (3)High Commission: The governance challenges should be explored in more detail by an international body such as the UN Commission for Sustainable Development

12

13 Ethical caveats remain! They call for not applying geoengineering, maybe even for not doing exploratory research on geoengineering. How serious are they? (1) The scientific thought process cannot not be reversed, not even be stopped! (2) Global warming was unintentional. But is today’s continuation of it still “unintentional”? Or just “unavoidable”? Or not even this, rather just common practice? (3) Could a united opinion of scientists worldwide keep us all from abusing geoengineering – or is this just a naïve conception? Geoengineering THE GEOENGINEERING DILEMMA: TO SPEAK OR NOT TO SPEAK?

14 Geoengineering THE GEOENGINEERING DILEMMA: TO SPEAK OR NOT TO SPEAK? Should SPARC proceed as we would on any other scientific problem, at least for theoretical and modeling studies? Cons: It is scientifically not feasible, it distracts from the actual problem (reducing GHGs), it channels the resources into the wrong direction, it gives the wrong sign to politicians, it has unbearable political/social/ legal consequences (winners/losers), it can’t be done “right” anyway. Pros: The scientific thought process cannot not be stopped, we need to acquire the knowledge, we should influence the outcome, we should help doing it “right” – also if this results in doing it not at all.

15 Discussed in Bremen, but not approved: SPARC SSG Position Statement on Geoengineering Injection of sulfur into the lower stratosphere has been suggested as a strategy to reduce global warming caused by greenhouse gases. However, current knowledge on the efficiency of such an action and on its potentially significant unintended side-effects is lacking. Such side-effects include … [list]. Therefore comprehensive modeling investigations into geo-engineering options must be undertaken before any sort of geoengineering options could be considered for application. At the same time we would be mislead if such work was leading to a weakening of scientific efforts to investigate the primary driver of climate change, let alone if it slowed the international climate negotiations.

16 SPARC – Where do we go from here?

17 You asked about Geoengineering: My thoughts on this issues have evolved a little but it is pretty similar to what I said (after correcting my statements for misunderstandings due to my poor expressions!!) in Bremen. I still do not think that SPARC should have an official position on doing Geoengineering. However, it is vital for organizations such as SPARC to facilitate research that clarifies the benefits, dis-benefits, unintended consequences, feasibility, and other issues. Now that I have attended some workshops on this issue and taken part in many discussions as a part of writing the US National Academy Sciences' "America's Climate Choices," I believe that science is only one component of this issue- other considerations such as ethics, international responsibilities, legalities, etc are very important for even trying out these solutions on a small scale, if it involves offsetting the effects of increasing greenhouse gases. I will be happy to talk more about it, if it helps....

18 CO 2 abatement Albedo engineering CO 2 engineering Comparison of geoengineering options (adapted from D.W. Keith, Annu. Rev. Energy Environ., 2000) Geoengineering Cost TechnicalRisk of side Nontechnical method $/tCuncertaintieseffects issues Injection of CO Less uncertainty Low risk Geoengineering or abate- underground than oceanic storage ment? Possibility of leakage? Injection of CO Some uncertaintyLow risk. Damage to Legal and political concerns: into the ocean about fate of CO 2 benthic ecosystem? London Dumping Convention Intensive forestry, Uncertain rateLow risk. Impact on Political questions: how to harvested trees of C capturesoil and biodiversity? divide costs? Whose land? Ocean fertilization 3-10 Can ecosystem alter Moderate risk. O 2 Legal concerns: Law of the with phosphate or P:N utilization ratio?depletion? Biota Sea, Antarctic Treaty. ironLong-term capture?change? CH 4 release? Effects on fishery? Space-borne Uncertain costs and Low risk. Security, equity and liability solar shieldstechnical feasibility Albedo   CO 2  if used for weather control Stratospheric SO 2 : << 1 Uncertain lifetime High risk. Effect on O 3. Liability: ozone destruction direct light scatteringof aerosolsAlbedo   CO 2  Tropospheric aerosol: < 1Problem of aerosolModerate risk. Unin- Liability and sovereignty direct light scattering transport and tentional in progress. because aerosol distribution and cloud reflectivitychanged cloudinessAlbedo   CO 2  affects regional climate Emission abatement > 50 % abatementNo climate risk Who starts? Kyoto problem Business as usual Costs uncertain,Treat risk explicitly, In many sectors social costs Stern Rev. 300 $/tClow-prob/hi-impact? higher than marginal costs

19 CO 2 abatement Albedo engineering CO 2 engineering Comparison of geoengineering options (adapted from D.W. Keith, Annu. Rev. Energy Environ., 2000) Geoengineering Cost TechnicalRisk of side Nontechnical method $/tCuncertaintieseffects issues Injection of CO Less uncertainty Low risk Geoengineering or abate- underground than oceanic storage ment? Possibility of leakage? Injection of CO Some uncertaintyLow risk. Damage to Legal and political concerns: into the ocean about fate of CO 2 benthic ecosystem? London Dumping Convention Intensive forestry, Uncertain rateLow risk. Impact on Political questions: how to harvested trees of C capturesoil and biodiversity? divide costs? Whose land? Ocean fertilization 3-10 Can ecosystem alter Moderate risk. O 2 Legal concerns: Law of the with phosphate or P:N utilization ratio?depletion? Biota Sea, Antarctic Treaty. ironLong-term capture?change? CH 4 release? Effects on fishery? Space-borne Uncertain costs and Low risk. Security, equity and liability solar shieldstechnical feasibility Albedo   CO 2  if used for weather control Stratospheric SO 2 : << 1 Uncertain lifetime High risk. Effect on O 3. Liability: ozone destruction direct light scatteringof aerosolsAlbedo   CO 2  Tropospheric aerosol: < 1Problem of aerosolModerate risk. Unin- Liability and sovereignty direct light scattering transport and tentional in progress. because aerosol distribution and cloud reflectivitychanged cloudinessAlbedo   CO 2  affects regional climate Emission abatement > 50 % abatementNo climate risk Who starts? Kyoto problem Business as usual Costs uncertain,Treat risk explicitly, In many sectors social costs Stern Rev. 300 $/tClow-prob/hi-impact? higher than marginal costs

20 CO 2 abatement Albedo engineering CO 2 engineering Comparison of geoengineering options (adapted from D.W. Keith, Annu. Rev. Energy Environ., 2000) Geoengineering Cost TechnicalRisk of side Nontechnical method $/tCuncertaintieseffects issues Injection of CO Less uncertainty Low risk Geoengineering or abate- underground than oceanic storage ment? Possibility of leakage? Injection of CO Some uncertaintyLow risk. Damage to Legal and political concerns: into the ocean about fate of CO 2 benthic ecosystem? London Dumping Convention Intensive forestry, Uncertain rateLow risk. Impact on Political questions: how to harvested trees of C capturesoil and biodiversity? divide costs? Whose land? Ocean fertilization 3-10 Can ecosystem alter Moderate risk. O 2 Legal concerns: Law of the with phosphate or P:N utilization ratio?depletion? Biota Sea, Antarctic Treaty. ironLong-term capture?change? CH 4 release? Effects on fishery? Space-borne Uncertain costs and Low risk. Security, equity and liability solar shieldstechnical feasibility Albedo   CO 2  if used for weather control Stratospheric SO 2 : << 1 Uncertain lifetime High risk. Effect on O 3. Liability: ozone destruction direct light scatteringof aerosolsAlbedo   CO 2  Tropospheric aerosol: < 1Problem of aerosolModerate risk. Unin- Liability and sovereignty direct light scattering transport and tentional in progress. because aerosol distribution and cloud reflectivitychanged cloudinessAlbedo   CO 2  affects regional climate Emission abatement > 50 % abatementNo climate risk Who starts? Kyoto problem Business as usual Costs uncertain,Treat risk explicitly, In many sectors social costs Stern Rev. 300 $/tClow-prob/hi-impact? higher than marginal costs

21 CO 2 abatement Albedo engineering CO 2 engineering Comparison of geoengineering options (adapted from D.W. Keith, Annu. Rev. Energy Environ., 2000) Geoengineering Cost TechnicalRisk of side Nontechnical method $/tCuncertaintieseffects issues Injection of CO Less uncertainty Low risk Geoengineering or abate- underground than oceanic storage ment? Possibility of leakage? Injection of CO Some uncertaintyLow risk. Damage to Legal and political concerns: into the ocean about fate of CO 2 benthic ecosystem? London Dumping Convention Intensive forestry, Uncertain rateLow risk. Impact on Political questions: how to harvested trees of C capturesoil and biodiversity? divide costs? Whose land? Ocean fertilization 3-10 Can ecosystem alter Moderate risk. O 2 Legal concerns: Law of the with phosphate or P:N utilization ratio?depletion? Biota Sea, Antarctic Treaty. ironLong-term capture?change? CH 4 release? Effects on fishery? Space-borne Uncertain costs and Low risk. Security, equity and liability solar shieldstechnical feasibility Albedo   CO 2  if used for weather control Stratospheric SO 2 : << 1 Uncertain lifetime High risk. Effect on O 3. Liability: ozone destruction direct light scatteringof aerosolsAlbedo   CO 2  Tropospheric aerosol: < 1Problem of aerosolModerate risk. Unin- Liability and sovereignty direct light scattering transport and tentional in progress. because aerosol distribution and cloud reflectivitychanged cloudinessAlbedo   CO 2  affects regional climate Emission abatement > 50 % abatementNo climate risk Who starts? Kyoto problem Business as usual Costs uncertain,Treat risk explicitly, In many sectors social costs Stern Rev. 300 $/tClow-prob/hi-impact? higher than marginal costs