Introduction:
There have been many solutions proposed to-date for coping with and combating climate change (CC). Although not all viable solutions, you can hear one hundred climate conversations (which started in March 2022, see here) thanks to Australia’s most ambitious climate-focused cultural project. These evidence-based conversations showcase visionary Australians taking effective action to respond to CC. From regional farmers sequestering soil carbon, traditional owners managing country through cultural burning, architects building carbon-neutral homes, to entrepreneurs leading the world’s most ambitious renewable energy projects — each offers an inspired narrative of invention, community and resilience1.
In this, my last climate related post, I would like to firstly restate the evidence for human attribution of CC. I will then briefly discuss several aspects of human interventions, including some already in place and others coming out of the research stage, all with varying degrees of confidence in their suitability for ‘real-world’ application. I will continue with a focus on clouds but also endeavour to list any articles/videos that may be of interest, including any major environmental events, which I have not fully investigated/commented previously2. Through my research for these posts, one question that I would like to pose/share in parting is as follows:
‘Can regional CC impacts produce regional negative feedback/s, maybe even tipping points, that taken collectively, end up producing more ‘pros’ than ‘cons’ on a global basis?’
This is in contrast to the findings and suggestions by experts such as Jim Hansen3 (e.g. see here), one of the original advocates for CC. Further, for those that hold a Christian worldview, the following podcast (choose here) is worth a listen, especially to be reminded of the incredible real stories of some of the most vulnerable people on our planet (if you are time poor then at least listen from the 42 min 30 sec mark).
Attribution:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) previously made the statement4:
It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land since pre-industrial times. Combining the evidence from across the climate system increases the level of confidence in the attribution of observed climate change to human influence and reduces the uncertainties associated with assessments based on single variables. Large-scale indicators of climate change in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and at the land surface show clear responses to human influence consistent with those expected based on model simulations and physical understanding.
Further, a major undertaking (see here) provides this quote:
The Consensus Project measured the level of consensus in published, peer-reviewed climate research that humans are causing global warming. In the most comprehensive analysis to date, we analysed 21 years’ worth of peer-reviewed papers on “global warming” or “global climate change”. Among the 12,465 papers, we identified over 4,014 abstracts authored by 10,188 scientists that stated a position on human-caused global warming. Among those 4,014 abstracts, 97.1% endorse the consensus. Among the 10,188 scientists, 98.4% endorse the consensus.
with the following quote aimed at policy makers5:
The question for policy makers should ultimately be one of risk assessment, not of the validity of climate science. What are the risks associated with the changing climate, and how might those risks be addressed? Evaluating risk involves assessing (i) the likelihood of an event occurring, and (ii) the consequence of that event…Policy makers, armed with that information, need to make a judgment about what level of risk is appropriate to bear, and what courses of action (if any) should be embarked upon to reduce the risk. In other words, it is to the response to climate change that the activity and ingenuity of policy makers should be deployed, not to questions of its existence.
Finally, the above information needs to be carefully weighed-up against seemingly credible publications, such as (here), and not dismissed outright as climate denialism (i.e. maintaining a healthy scientific scepticism).
Intervention:
Most of us are familiar with the term CC adaptation (e.g. see here), and would have some idea as to the difference between this and mitigation (e.g. here)6. Centres/movements, that provide practical resources that individuals and small groups can do to help the planet, have been growing in numbers (a few examples can be found here, here and here). Even private companies are appearing in all sorts of places/guises to help with the day-to-day practical implications/reality of CC (e.g. owning and buying a house, see here).
However, in recent times there has also been a renewed interest in the topic of climate modification/intervention7 (e.g. see previous efforts here). Specifically, the term geoengineering is being used and according to the London School of Economics and Political Science (here):
Geoengineering, also known as climate engineering, describes a range of ways to intervene on a large scale in the Earth’s natural systems – the oceans, soils and atmosphere – to directly combat climate change. They mostly fall into two categories: those designed to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air and those that try to limit the amount of sunlight that reaches the Earth’s surface.
There have been many organisational statements that have been written about climate intervention. The one found (here) is just one example, and a few paragraphs have been quoted as follows:
Aggressive action must be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the changes that are already occurring. At the same time, additional strategies should be investigated. This policy statement focuses on large-scale efforts to intentionally modify the climate system to counteract the consequences of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. Such efforts are now commonly referred to as climate intervention (also called geoengineering): the deliberate manipulation of physical, chemical, or biological aspects of the Earth system with the intention of tempering the harmful effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions…While it is currently premature to either advocate for or rule out climate interventions, these decisions, when they are made, must be based on the best scientific and technical information. With this goal in mind, AMS calls for a robust program of research with a strong governance framework to assess climate interventions. Such a program should be designed to provide the knowledge base to support decisions that may need to be made within the next decade regarding the inclusion of climate intervention among our responses to global warming.
The following organisation aims to be an up-to-date source of information and provide critical perspectives on climate engineering (here). One type of human intervention that I have been following (with an emphasis on clouds), is what is called solar geoengineering, sometimes referred to as solar radiation modification (SRM)8. I briefly mentioned this topic in a previous post (see here), but the following provides additional information. SRM aims to reflect a small percentage of sunlight back into space to counteract global warming. There are several advantages by including clouds, such as their existing presence in the atmosphere, various modification options, and research programs that can be readily scaled up.
There are various groupings of research efforts, some overlapping, but the following are five possibilities, 1) Cloud Albedo Enhancement -injecting such things as sea salt aerosols into marine stratocumulus clouds to allow them to reflect more sunlight, 2) Cloud Brightening - focusing on increased cloud droplet number and size to enhance reflectivity, 3) Cirrus Cloud Thinning - allowing more infrared radiation to escape, 4) Cloud Radiative Cooling - involving clouds emitting heat into space, and 5) Weather Pattern Modification - modifying weather patterns to create more cloud cover in strategic locations.
Conclusion:
The intricate connections and interconnections within earth’s various ‘systems’ are indeed complex (e.g. see here for a paper discussing the impact of Canadian wildfires on aerosol and ice clouds in the Arctic). We may end up doing more harm than good for our planet by human intervention, however, I am particularly interested in following the journey of cloud brightening/albedo enhancement, specifically marine cloud brightening (MCB) (e.g. see here).
Basically, any technique that focusses on cloud droplet number and size to enhance reflectivity9, could produce manageable and acceptable outcomes. In my opinion, these enterprises are worthy of continued investigation/research, however, not at the expense of measures to reduce/eliminate the actual sources of CC10:
But what I find very worrying is geoengineering, the idea we could “fix it” by putting more stuff out into the atmosphere, rather than stopping burning fossil fuels.
As an example of the possibility of delaying inevitable effects, hear what Dr Daniel Harrison’s refers to as ‘…life support…’, in a discussion of a project undertaken on the Great Barrier Reef (listen to his conversation here).
Finally, I would like to provide this link (here) to a presentation by Katherine Hayhoe (one of the most pro-active spokespeople I have come across advocating for action on CC), where she discusses how the ‘church’ can inspire climate action in a changing world.
For those in Australia there is/has been a TV series about indigenous people having (already) modified the landscape (see here for trailer).
The following is a list of links for possible interest:
Cloud feedback – negative feedback from clouds over land; unusual cloud formations.
Los Angeles fires – the role of land and water-cycle degradation; did southern California once have summer rains? why I took down my climate science video.
Adding nuclear energy to the mix - nuclear excitement (from the 32 min mark); four reasons why nuclear power is a dumb idea for Australia.
It should be noted that some believe CO2 is beneficial (e.g. here), and some acknowledge that fossil fuels should be burned responsibly, deploying cost-effective technologies that minimize emissions of such things as fly ash, carbon monoxide, oxides of sulphur and nitrogen, heavy metals and volatile organic compounds.
Readers beware that there is/has been considerable scepticism/controversies about this topic by some groups (e.g. see here).
Although different to cloud seeding, these techniques would need to complement, and as discussed in a previous post, would need to balance the ‘amplification’ of precipitation over specific areas of the earth. Maybe they could be used in ways that would produce results as if no CC had occurred in the first place?