Jump to content

Climate engineering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.228.235.107 (talk) at 16:57, 25 January 2009 (→Greenhouse gas remediation: Biochar). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Not to be confused with geotechnical engineering.
Heavy battleship guns could be used to fire shells containing sulphurous gases into the stratosphere to create a reflective haze, screening the earth from the sun.
Very substantial decrease in Arctic Sea ice in 2007 from 2005 and also from 1979-2000 average suggest urgent action must be taken to stop climate change - some scientists believe that it is too late for carbon emmissions reduction to work

Geoengineering is an instance of planetary engineering. Geoengineering is the deliberate modification of Earth's environment on a large scale "to suit human needs and promote habitability". [1] Typically, the term is used to describe attempts to counter the effects of human-induced climate change. However, others define it more narrowly as focusing only on the mineralogy and hydrology of the Earth.[2] The term geoengineering is distinct from environmental damage and accidental anthropogenic climate change, which are side-effects of human activity, rather than an intended consequence. Definitions of the term are not universally accepted.[3]

Some large scale water management and hydraulic engineering projects unrelated to tackling climate change could be considered to be hydraulic geoengineering, in that they involve changing the hydrological processes of an entire region, or using weather modification for hydraulic engineering purposes.

Background

The modern concept of geoengineering is usually taken to mean the deliberate manipulation of the Earth's climate to counteract the effects of global warming from greenhouse gas emissions. This is principally based on the belief that climate change is so far advanced that severe and dangerous effects are now inevitable, or that positive feedback mechanisms are likely to cause accelerating climate change even if emissions are substantially reduced. There is also a body of opinion that supports geoengineering because it may avoid or delay the difficult and expensive transition to a low carbon economy. However, most scientists, environmentalists and engineers who advocate geoengineering see it as an additional measure required to stabilise the climate, not as an alternative to a low carbon economy.

Current interest in geoengineering is based on the belief, widely held by scientists and politicians, that climate change represents a major threat to civilisation[4] and to life on earth,[5][6][7] and that some proposed geoengineering techniques may offer an opportunity to reduce or stop this damage.

As human populations grow and technology spreads, measurable changes in the Earth are becoming more apparent. The current geological time period is known as the Anthropocene, as man's activities are now a major driving force on the Earth's biology and climate. Anthropogenic land use, accelerated since the industrial revolution, has led to the alteration of between one-third and one-half of the Earth's land surface. Levels of atmospheric CO2 have increased by approximately 30 percent over the last two centuries. More atmospheric nitrogen is fixed by humanity than by all natural terrestrial sources combined. And, more than half of all accessible surface fresh water is put to use by humans.[8] The consequence of this is that humans have been radically altering the Earth for thousands of years,[9] and geoengineering is usually proposed as an attempt to reverse the harmful side-effects of these changes, rather than to effect an 'improvement' upon nature. Typical projects are proposed to deal with recent climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions, rather than to attempt to alter the effects of pre-industrial human civilisations and activity.

Records indicate that surface temperatures have risen by more than half a degree Celsius (one degree Fahrenheit) within the last 50 years. Sea surface temperatures (SST) have also risen during the last 30 years by a comparable amount.[10]. While there is still political debate over the notion that these changes in Earth's climate are the accidental result of human civilization through the industrial emission of greenhouse gases, the scientific community is almost entirely in agreement about the science of global warming. According to most climate models, climate change may result in altered precipitation patterns and the increased frequency and severity of extreme weather around the world.[11]

Although many geo-engineering projects have been proposed (see below), large-scale CO2-storage through biomass creation (e.g. tree-plantations) is the only universally-accepted means to decrease greenhouse gas concentrations. However, some geoengineering techniques seek to reduce carbon in the atmosphere directly (e.g. CO2-scrubbing 'Fake Plastic Trees') or indirectly (e.g. ocean iron fertilization). Other techniques, such as Solar Radiation Management, attempt to mitigate the warming effects of global warming without influencing CO2 and other greenhouse gases directly. Techniques that do not reduce greenhouse gas concentrations can only address the warming effects of these gases. They and cannot address other problems linked to increasing levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (such as ocean acidification).

Some recent interest in geoengineering has resulted from a belief that global warming has, or is soon to, force the climate past a 'tipping point' where catastrophic changes become inevitable, regardless of how quickly greenhouse gas emissions are cut. Should such tipping points be passed, geoengineering will offer the only way to control climate change. Other advocates argue that geoengineering offers to reduce the effects of climate change more cheaply, or at a lower social cost, than the alternatives of a low carbon economy.

Justification

The use of geoengineering to tackle climate change is advocated for several specific reasons:

Tipping Points/Positive Feedback

Climate change during the last 65 million years. The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum is labelled PETM. This shows that the Earth's climate can change drastically in a very short period of time.

It is argued that climate change has already, or is soon to, pass one or more tipping points[12][13][14][15][16] where aspects of the climate system may 'tip' from one stable state to another stable state, much like a chair tipping over. When the new stable state is reached, it may trigger or accelerate warming positive feedback effects,[17] such the collapse or Arctic sea ice triggering the release of methane from permafrost in Siberia.[18][19] The 'nightmare scenario' is that a domino effect will occur, with successive parts of the climate system tipping one after the other, with each change being caused by the previous one and causing the next one. Such a situation will lead to spiralling and potentially sudden climate change.

The precise identity of such 'tipping points' is not clear, with scientists taking differing views on whether specific systems are capable of 'tipping' and the point at which this 'tipping' will occur.[20] An example of a previous tipping point is the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Once the tipping point is reached, cuts in greenhouse gas emissions will not be able to reverse the change. Depending on the precise nature of the individual system that 'tips', positive feedbacks may occur, with warming causing more warming, which causes yet more warming - a runaway global warming event.[21] Therefore, some commentators suggest that more conservative use of resources is not enough to mitigate global warming. Even if all greenhouse emissions suddenly came to a complete halt, the world would continue to be affected for centuries,[22] and further warming may occur due to positive feedback. Conservation of resources and reduction of greenhouse emissions, used in conjunction with geoengineering, are therefore considered a viable option.[23][24][25] Geoengineering offers the hope of temporarily reversing some aspects of climate change and allowing the natural climate to be substantially preserved whilst greenhouse gas emissions are brought under control and removed from the atmosphere by natural or artificial processes.

Precautionary principle

Bearing in mind the threats from climate change, it can be argued that attempting geoengineering represents a lesser risk than not pursuing such strategies. Whilst understanding of geoengineering techniques is limited, the risks of climate change are at least partially understood, and are severe.[26]

Costs

Some geoengineering techniques, such as the use of pale-coloured materials for roofing and paving, can be achieved at little or no cost, and may even offer a financial payback.[27] It is therefore possible to argue that certain implementations of such techniques are preferable to cutting carbon emissions on cost grounds alone.

Social impact

The developing world uses significantly less fossil fuel per head of population[28] than in the developed world. However, the consumption of oil, natural gas and coal is rising rapidly as developing countries undergo industrialisation.[29] Economic development has historically been strongly correlated with carbon emissions.[30][31] It is therefore argued that restricting or delaying this development by an insistence on renewable energy sources may result in continuing poverty for many people. Geoengineering is seen as a way of allowing the continued and rapid development of the economies of developing nations, whilst limiting the resulting climate change. Such a stance may result from a belief that geoengineering can allow carbon emissions can continue to rise without endangering the planet, which is a scenario not commonly advocated by climate scientists.

Political viability

It has been argued that regardless of the economic, scientific and technical aspects, the difficulty of achieving concerted political action on climate change requires other approaches.[32] The political expediency argument recognises the difficulty of achieving meaningful emissions cuts.[33] The effective failure of the Kyoto Protocol demonstrates the practical difficulties of achieving carbon dioxide emissions reduction by the agreement of the international community.[34]

Development of geoengineering

The field is currently experiencing a surge of interest as it has now become a broadly accepted fact that climate change is both real[35] and dangerous. A degree of urgency in efforts to research and implement potential solutions is based on the belief that tipping points in the Earth's climate system are close at hand, and we could soon reach a point of no return beyond which it would be impossible to recover the Earth's climate system. In particular the Arctic shrinkage is causing accelerated regional warming due to positive feedback of the albedo effect, as reflective Arctic sea ice gives way to open water, absorbing heat from the summer sun. Such positive feedback is characteristic of a tipping point, and can accelerate global warming and even cause abrupt climate change. Rapid action with geoengineering may be necessary to halt the Arctic shrinkage. Other tipping points might be avoided by reducing the impact of global warming in order to stifle positive feedback and prevent the resulting accelerated climate change.

The study of geoengineering is a notably complex discipline, as it requires the collation of knowledge in:

Several notable organisations have recently, or are soon to, investigate geoengineering with a view to evaluating its potential. Notably, NASA[36][37], The Royal Society[38], The Institute of Mechanical Engineers[39][40], and the British Parliament[41] have all held inquiries or contests aimed at discovering and evaluating current knowledge of the subject.

The major environmental organisations such as Friends of the Earth[42] and Greenpeace[43] have typically been reluctant to endorse geoengineering, perhaps due to the commonly-held belief that any public support for geoengineering may weaken the fragile political consensus to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.[44]

Proposed projects

Several geo-engineering projects have been proposed. The documentaries Five ways to save the world and La temperature grimpe[45] describe many of the most notable projects. IPCC documents also detail several proposed projects [46]

Evaluation of the relative merits of each technology is difficult, especially bearing in mind the difficulties of modelling and the lack of engineering development of many ideas[47]. For example, deposition of sulfur aerosols into the stratosphere could be done using fighter aircraft or similar planes[48], a process which could result in damage to the ozone layer,[49] whereas artillery would not have the same effect.

Solar Radiation Management

Main article: Solar Radiation Management
See also: Stratospheric sulfur aerosols and Albedo
Rotor ship Buckau - modern versions of such ships could spray seawater into the air to create clouds, shielding the earth from the sun.

Solar Radiation Management[50] (SRM) projects seek to reduce the amount of sunlight hitting the Earth and thus counteract global warming. They do not reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, and thus do not address problems such as ocean acidification caused by these gases. The phenomenon of global dimming is widely-known, and is not necessarily a geoengineering technique, occurring naturally as a result of volcanoes and major forest fires. However, its deliberate manipulation is a tool of the geoengineer.

Solar radiation management projects often have the advantage of speed. Whilst Greenhouse gas remediation offers a comprehensive possible solution to climate change, it does not give instant results - for that, solar radiation management is required.

Techniques that fall into this category include:

Greenhouse gas remediation

Main article: Greenhouse gas remediation
An oceanic phytoplankton bloom in the South Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Argentina. Encouraging such blooms with iron fertilization could lock up carbon on the seabed.

Greenhouse gas remediation projects seek to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, and thus tackle the root cause of global warming. They either directly remove greenhouse gases, or alternatively seek to influence natural processes to remove greenhouse gases indirectly. These projects offer a comprehensive solution to the problem of excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but they will take many years to work fully. Many projects overlap with carbon capture and storage and carbon sequestration projects, and may not be considered to be geoengineering by all commentators. Techniques in this category include:

Arctic geoengineering

Main article: Arctic geoengineering

Various hydrological geoengineering projects aim to change the climate without directly or indirectly removing greenhouse gases, or directly influencing solar radiation. These principally act by limiting Arctic sea ice loss. Keeping the Arctic ice is seen by many commentators as vital,[51] due to its role in the planet's albedo and in keeping methane, which is a powerful greenhouse gas, locked up in permafrost[52]. Techniques in this category include:

  • Diverting Arctic rivers to prevent warm water reaching the Arctic Ocean or to influence salinity
  • Tethering Icebergs to keep them in cold waters

Experimentation

The applicability of many techniques listed here has not been comprehensively tested.[citation needed] Even if the effects of small-scale interventions are known, there may be cumulative problems which only become apparent from large scale experiments[citation needed] such as ozone depletion from stratospheric sulfur aerosols, or problems storing scrubbed carbon dioxide from certain greenhouse gas remediation projects.

Various experiments have been carried out on techniques such as cloud seeding, increasing the volume of stratospheric sulfur aerosols and implementing cool roof technology.

Risks and criticisms

Many criticisms have been made of geoengineering. However, the existence of criticism should not be taken to mean that those raising it are opposed to a particular technique, but rather that they are pointing out a potential disadvantage or downside which may need to be monitored or controlled, or may alternatively weigh against a particular technique. Some commentators appear fundamentally opposed, however. Individuals such as Raymond Pierrehumbert have called for a moratorium on geoengineering techniques.[53][54]

Ineffectiveness

The effectiveness of the schemes proposed may fall short of predictions. In the example of ocean iron fertilization, for example, the amount of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere may be much lower than predicted, as carbon taken up by plankton may be released back into the atmosphere from dead plankton, rather than being carried to the bottom of the sea and sequestered.[55]

Change in sea surface pH caused by anthropogenic CO2 between the 1700s and the 1990s - This ocean acidification will still be a major problem unless atmospheric CO2 is reduced.

Incomplete solution to CO2 emissions

Techniques that do not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere may control global warming, but do not reduce other effects from these gases, such as ocean acidification.[56] Whilst not an argument against geoengineering per se, this is an argument against reliance on geoengineering to the exclusion of greenhouse gas reduction.

Control and predictability problems

Many members of the scientific and technical communities fear that the full effects of various geoengineering schemes are not fully understood.[57] The failure of the ambitious Biosphere 2 facility is one example of a complex project that was unsuccessful because scientists still have a limited understanding of how earth systems work together.

Performance of the systems may become ineffective, unpredictable or unstable as a result of external events, such as volcanic eruptions, phytoplankton blooms, El Nino, solar flares, etc., potentially leading to profound and unpredictable disruption to the climate system.

It may be difficult to predict the effectiveness of projects,[58] with models of techniques giving widely varying results.[59] In the instances of systems which involve tipping points, this may result in irreversible effects. Climate modelling is far from an exact science even when applied to comparatively well-understood natural climate systems, and it is made more complex by the need to understand novel and unnatural processes which by definition lack relevant observation data.[60]

Side effects

The techniques themselves may cause significant foreseen or unforeseen harm. For example, the use of reflective balloons may result in significant litter,[61] which may be harmful to wildlife.

Ozone depletion is a risk of some geoengineering techniques, notably those involving sulfur delivery into the stratosphere.[62]

The active nature of geoengineering may in some cases create a clear division between winners and losers. Most of the proposed interventions are regional, such as albedo modification in the Arctic. Necessarily, such interventions compel those in the affected regions to tolerate the effects of geoengineering for the supposed benefit of the global climate.[63]

There may be unintended climatic consequences, such as droughts[64] or floods, caused by the geoengineering techniques - but possibly not predicted by the models used to plan them.[65] Such effects may be cumulative or chaotic in nature, making prediction and control very difficult.

Unreliable systems

The performance of the interventions may be inconsistent due to mechanical failure, non-availability of consumables or funding problems.

The geoengineering techniques would, in many instances, be vulnerable to being switched off or deliberately destroyed. As examples, cloud making ships could be switched off or sunk and space mirrors could be tilted to make them useless. Anyone capable of exerting such power may seek to abuse it for commercial gain, military advantage or simple terrorism.

Weaponisation

Geoengineering techniques may themselves be used as a weapon of mass destruction, creating droughts or famines designed to destroy or disable an enemy.[66] They could also be used simply to make battlefield conditions more favourable to one side or the other in a war[67] (such as in Operation Popeye). For example, laser-guided weapons are confounded by clouds, and thus switching off cloud machines would favour forces using such weapons, and switching them on would favour ground forces defending against them.[68]

Whilst laws or treaties may prevent the manipulation of the climate as a weapon of war,[69] it could be argued that geoengineering is itself a manipulation, and thus destroying or disabling the geoengineering structures is not prohibited. A new legal framework may be necessary in the event that large-scale geoengineering becomes established.

Effect on sunlight, sky and clouds

The dramatic red sky in The Scream was caused by stratospheric sulfur aerosols caused by a volcanic eruption shortly before the work was painted.

Managing solar radiation using aerosols or cloud cover will change the ratio between direct and indirect solar radiation. This may affect plant life[70] and solar energy.[71] There will be a significant effect on the appearance of the sky from aerosol projects, notably a hazing of blue skies and a change in the appearance of sunsets.[72] Aerosols may affect the formation of clouds, especially cirrus clouds.[73]

Moral hazard

The existence of such techniques may reduce the political and social impetus to reduce carbon emissions.[74]

Other criticism comes from those who see geoengineering projects as reacting to the symptoms of global warming rather than addressing the real causes of climate change. Because geoengineering is a form of controlling the risks associated with global warming, it leads to a moral hazard problem. The problem is that knowledge that geoengineering is possible could lead to climate impacts seeming less fearsome, which could in turn lead to a weaker commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.[75] It could be argued that pursing geoengineering solutions sends the message that humans can continue to live out of harmony with the Earth as long as we have enough clever technological solutions to preserve human life. This disregard for the overall health of Earth's ecosystems and natural environments is an affront to proponents of sustainable development.

Lack of global control

Geoengineering opens up various political and economic issues. David Keith argues that the cost of geoengineering the Earth is within the realm of small countries, large corporations, or even very wealthy individuals (known as Greenfingers, after the fictional Goldfinger[76][77]). This effectively eliminates any control over who gets to decide when to cool the Earth and how often this should be done.[78] The resulting power would be enormous, and could not necessarily be readily controlled by legal, political or regulatory systems.[79] These legal and regulatory systems may themselves be far less powerful than the geoengineers controlling the climate become.

'Pirate' geoengineering

It is quite feasible for unregulated carbon offsetting firms to set up unregulated, unsupervised and dangerous 'pirate geoengineering' projects in order to sell carbon credits to individuals and firms.

Geoengineering schemes have the potential to cause significant environmental damage, and may even end up releasing further greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.[80] Opposition to some early schemes has been intense, with respected environmental groups campaigning against them.[81] If and when geoengineering projects become widespread, there is a significant risk that a proportion of such schemes will come to be regarded as 'pirate' by various commentators.

Implementation issues

There is no general consensus that geoengineering is safe, appropriate or effective - for the reasons listed above. The issue of moral hazard means that many environmental groups and campaigners are reluctant to advocate geoengineering for fear of reducing the imperative to cut greenhouse gas emissions.[82] All proposed geoengineering techniques require implementation on a relatively large scale, in order to make a significant difference to the Earth's climate. The least costly schemes are budgeted at a cost of millions,[83] with many more complex schemes such as space sunshade costing far more.

Many techniques, again such as space sunshade, require a complex technical development process before they are ready to be implemented. There is no clear institutional mechanism for handling this research and development process. As a result, many promising techniques do not have the engineering development or experimental evidence to determine their feasibility or efficacy at present.

Once a technique has been developed and tested, its implementation is still likely to be difficult. Climate change is by nature a global problem, and therefore no one institution, company or government is responsible for it. The substantial costs of most geoengineering techniques therefore cannot currently be apportioned. Roll-out of such technologies is therefore likely to be delayed until these issues can be resolved. A notable exception is the use of small albedo manipulation projects, known as Cool roof, in which the colour of roofing or paving surfaces can be manipulated to bounce solar radiation back into space. These can be, and are, implemented by individuals, companies and governments without controversy. [84]

Due to the radical changes caused by geoengineering interventions, legal issues are also an impediment to implementation. The changes resulting from geoengineering necessarily benefit some people and disadvantage others. There may therefore be legal challenges to the implementation of geoengineering techniques by those adversely affected by them.[85]

See also

Template:EnergyPortal

References

  1. ^ "a controversial field known as geoengineering, which means rearranging the Earth's environment on a large scale to suit human needs and promote habitability" How to Cool a Planet (Maybe) New York Times - June 27, 2006}}
  2. ^ "UC Berkeley Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering". Retrieved 2007-05-05.
  3. ^ http://www.springerlink.com/content/m6nnw1k37075qh51/
  4. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3381425.stm
  5. ^ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-is-linked-to-mass-extinctions-of-past-397707.html
  6. ^ http://www.leeds.ac.uk/media/current/extinction.htm
  7. ^ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7168/full/450349a.html
  8. ^ Vitousek, P.M. (1997). "Human Domination of Earth's Ecosystems". Science. 277: 5325. doi:10.1126/science.277.5325.494. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  9. ^ http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7065/full/438165a.html
  10. ^ Sheppard, C. R. (2002). "Erosion vs. recovery of coral reefs after 1998 El Niño: Chagos reefs, Indian Ocean". Ambio. 31 (1): 40–8. doi:10.1639/0044-7447(2002)031[0040:EVROCR]2.0.CO;2. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  11. ^ "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". Retrieved 2006-05-26.
  12. ^ http://contreinfo.info/article.php3?id_article=1940
  13. ^ http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2007/2007-06-01-01.asp
  14. ^ http://researchpages.net/ESMG/people/tim-lenton/tipping-points/
  15. ^ http://www.cleanenergy-project.de/2008/04/29/tipping-point-•-perspective-of-a-climatologist-james-hansen/
  16. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4660938.stm
  17. ^ http://www.energybulletin.net/node/10322
  18. ^ http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-the-methane-time-bomb-938932.html
  19. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/3352065/Arctic-ice-hits-'tipping-point'.html
  20. ^ http://researchpages.net/ESMG/people/tim-lenton/tipping-points/
  21. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/04/greenpolitics.science
  22. ^ http://cbs2.com/national/Global.Warming.Paris.2.279083.html
  23. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/oct/18/bookextracts.books
  24. ^ http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42662
  25. ^ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/global-warming-now-unstoppable-scientists-warn-702979.html
  26. ^ http://unfccc.int/resource/conv/conv_005.html
  27. ^ http://www.ornl.gov/sci/roofs+walls/facts/CoolCalcEnergy.htm
  28. ^ http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/carbonemiss/introduction.html
  29. ^ http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbontrends/index.htm
  30. ^ http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=3AAB445CB961383A81F56FCC52F5E5C5.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=63929
  31. ^ http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/co2_emissions_energy_use_and_economic_development_latin_america_and_the_caribbean
  32. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/dec/12/environment-climate-change-poznan
  33. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/opinion/24caldiera.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
  34. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/01/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange2
  35. ^ http://royalsociety.org/landing.asp?id=1278
  36. ^ http://event.arc.nasa.gov/main/home/reports/SolarRadiationCP.pdf
  37. ^ http://www.californiaskywatch.com/documents/htmldocs/geoengineering.htm
  38. ^ http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=8085
  39. ^ http://www.imeche.org/about/keythemes/environment/Climate+Change/Cooling+the+Planet+competition/Hot+Ideas+for+Cooling+the+Planet.htm
  40. ^ http://www.imeche.org/about/keythemes/environment/Climate+Change/Cooling+the+Planet+competition/Geo-engineering+methods.htm
  41. ^ http://www.imeche.org/media/Public+Affairs/geoenginq.htm
  42. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/01/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange2
  43. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/01/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange1
  44. ^ http://www.21stcenturychallenges.org/focus/geo-engineering/
  45. ^ La temperature grimpe-documentary
  46. ^ http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/CLIMATE/IPCC_TAR/wg3/176.htm
  47. ^ http://www.imeche.org/media/Public+Affairs/geoenginq.htm
  48. ^ http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4290084.html
  49. ^ http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/the-science-of-ozone.html
  50. ^ http://thehardlook.typepad.com/thehardlook/files/schnare_supplemental_testimony_a_framework_for_geoengineering.pdf
  51. ^ http://www.cleverclimate.org/climate/25/motivation/
  52. ^ Zimov, S. A., et al. (2006), CLIMATE CHANGE: Permafrost and the Global Carbon Budget, Science, 312(5780), 1612-1613.
  53. ^ http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/008091.html
  54. ^ http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/07/16/can-we-engineer-a-cooler-earth/
  55. ^ Seasonal rhythms of net primary production and particulate organic carbon flux to depth describe the efficiency of biological pump in the global ocean”, Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 112, C10011, doi:10.1029/2006JC003706
  56. ^ http://infohost.nmt.edu/~chem/wingenter/Wingenter_PeECE_III_GRL_2007.pdf
  57. ^ http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0627-planktos.html
  58. ^ Keith Bower et al., 2006 Computational assessment of a proposed technique for global warming mitigation via albedo-enhancement of marine stratocumulus clouds. Atmos. Res., vol. 82, no. 1-2, 2006, pp. 328-336
  59. ^ http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6232
  60. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4762720.stm
  61. ^ http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1605&page=824
  62. ^ The Sensitivity of Polar Ozone Depletion to Proposed Geoengineering Schemes”, Science, vol. 320, no. 5880, 30 May 2008, pp. 1201-1204, doi:10.1126/science.1153966
  63. ^ http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12397
  64. ^ I. M. Held et al., “Simulation of Sahel drought in the 20th and 21st centuries”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 102, no. 50, pp. 17891–17896, doi:10.1073/pnas.0509057102. Available online at: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/2008JD010050small.pdf
  65. ^ Keith Bower et al., 2006 Computational assessment of a proposed technique for global warming mitigation via albedo-enhancement of marine stratocumulus clouds. Atmos. Res., vol. 82, no. 1-2, 2006, pp. 328-336
  66. ^ http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4146
  67. ^ http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c15/v3c15-1.htm
  68. ^ http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/lgb.htm
  69. ^ http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4783.htm
  70. ^ L. Gu et al., “Responses of Net Ecosystem Exchanges of Carbon Dioxide to Changes in Cloudiness: Results from Two North American Deciduous Forests,” Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 104, no. 31, pp. 421–31, 434 (1999); L. Gu et al., “Advantages of Diffuse Radiation for Terrestrial Ecosystem Productivity,” Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 107, (2002); L. Gu et al., “Response of a Deciduous Forest to the Mount Pinatubo Eruption: Enhanced Photosynthesis,” Science, vol. 299, pp. 2,035–38 (2003)
  71. ^ Balan Govindasamy and Ken Caldeira, “Geoengineering Earth’s Radiation Balance to Mitigate CO2-Induced Climate Change,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 27, pp. 2,141–44 (2000). For the response of solar power systems, see Michael C. MacCracken, “Geoengineering: Worthy of Cautious Evaluation?” Climatic Change, vol. 77, pp. 235–43 (2006)
  72. ^ http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/researchernews/rn_robockfeature.html
  73. ^ K. Sassen et al., “The 5–6 December 1991 FIRE IFO II Jet Stream Cirrus Case Study: Possible Influences of Volcanic Aerosols,” Journal of Atmospheric Science, vol. 52, pp. 97–123 (1993)
  74. ^ David Adam, “Extreme and risky action the only way to tackle global warming, say scientists”, Guardian, 1 September 2008. Available online at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/ 2008/sep/01/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange2
  75. ^ David Keith. ""A surprising idea for solving climate change (lecture at TED conference)"". Retrieved 2008-04-06.
  76. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/analysis/transcripts/31_07_08.txt
  77. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/18/climatechange-greentech
  78. ^ David Keith. ""Engineering the Planet"" (PDF). pp. "3-4, 8". Retrieved 2008-04-08.
  79. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/analysis/transcripts/31_07_08.txt
  80. ^ http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2007/11/09/2085584.htm
  81. ^ http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/media/press/2007/WWFPresitem973.html
  82. ^ http://www.celsias.com/article/geo-engineering-a-moral-hazard/
  83. ^ http://docs.google.com/gview?attid=0.1&thid=11e473ed2477ae05&a=v&pli=1
  84. ^ http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/coolroof/
  85. ^ http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/2094/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_engineering&oldid=266338686"