Subscribe via E-Mail

Get all of our news delivered fresh to your inbox every morning! Just tell us your name and where to send it using the form below.

PS – We hate spam too. We don’t sell or share our list with anyone, and we never send commercial email.

* = required field

Scheme to slow global warming could wreck tropics: study

Mist Rising in Rainforest

January 8, 2014 (AFP) – An idea by the father of the H-bomb to slow global warming by sowing the stratosphere with light-reflecting particles could wreck the weather system in the tropics, a study said Wednesday.

The scheme may benefit northern Europe and parts of Asia, but around the equator rainfall patterns would be disrupted, potentially drying up tropical forests in South America and intensifying droughts in Africa and Southeast Asia.

“The risks from this kind of geo-engineering are huge,” said Andrew Charlton-Perez, a meteorologist at Britain’s University of Reading.

In 1997, US nuclear physicist Edward Teller and other scientists suggested spreading sulphate particles into the upper atmosphere, reflecting some sunlight back into space to attenuate the Earth-warming greenhouse effect from fossil fuels.

This sunscreen — similar to the cooling effect from ash spewed by volcanic eruptions — would be cheaper than switching out of coal, gas and oil which cause the global warming problem, they said.

The idea is a favourite among geo-engineers, who nevertheless concede that manipulating the climate system on a planetary scale should be a last-ditch option.

In a paper published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the British scientists said it would take a staggering volume of particles, called aerosols, to reverse warming.

“To reduce global temperatures enough to counter effects of global warming would require a massive injection of aerosol,” said Angus Ferraro at the University of Exeter, southwestern England.

Each year, it would require the equivalent of five times the volume of ash disgorged by Mount Pinatubo in 1991 — the biggest volcanic eruption in the last quarter of a century.

The model was based on upper-end projections of having to reverse the warming impact of atmospheric CO2 levels of 1,022 parts per million — compared to about 400 ppm today.

Such a high level would drive the Earth’s surface temperature up by about 4.0 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit).

Tropical rainfall is big victim

The investigation, however, found that releasing the particles would have at least one serious side effect.

They would start to warm the stratosphere and weaken upward convection from the troposphere, the lower levels of the atmosphere where weather takes place.

The result would be to put the brakes on a mechanism of atmospheric turnover and cause a sharp drop in rainfall in the equatorial belt.

“A reduction in tropical rainfall of 30 percent would, for example, quickly dry out Indonesia so much that even the wettest years after a man-made intervention would be equal to drought conditions now,” said Charlton-Perez.

“The ecosystems of the tropics are among the most fragile on Earth. We would see changes happening so quickly that there would be little time for people to adapt.”

In August 2012, a cost analysis, also published in Environmental Research Letters, found that the basic technology to distribute aerosols exists and could be implemented for less than $5 billion (3.65 billion euros) a year.

This compared to a cost, in 2030, of between $200 billion and $2,000 billion (146 and 1,460 billion euros), to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) to safer levels, it said.

That estimate, though, did not factor in any environmental risks.

In a 2009 overview of geo-engineering, the Royal Society, Britain’s academy of sciences, said the advantage of aerosols was that they could be deployed quickly and start reducing temperatures within a year.

But they would not stop a buildup of CO2 from fossil fuels, nor prevent acidification of the oceans, which absorb the gas. There could also be a knock-on effect on rainfall patterns and on Earth’s protective ozone layer, the Royal Society said.

costa rica news

ATTENTION: If you are seeing this message,

Advertisement


Get our news delivered fresh to your inbox every morning.

Click here to subscribe to our email list. We hate spam too and never send commercial email.

Like us on Facebook and receive our news in your timeline

  • mhogan

    Stop mucking about with Mother Nature. If nothing else can be admitted: Earth is resilient; Man needs to be more so.

  • expatin paradise

    Yeah, adding more crap into the atmosphere to save the cost of changing to clean energy. That would keep profits up for the fossil fuel industry, which, of course rules the planet. Of course, warming is not the only product of fossil fuel consumption – we also have poor air quality and ocean acidification, which are killing living both terrestrial and aquatic organisms at alarming rates and are at a tipping point now.

    At first glance, this seems like a great solution for those living north of the Tropic of Cancer where all the world powers reside – that is, until one considers the effect on the tropics where die-back of flora would result in the loss of the planet’s ability to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, compounding the warming problem and compounding the problem of over-saturation of carbon dioxide in the air and water.

    If these particles are capable of reflecting energy away from the planet, it seems reasonable to conclude that the same particles would reflect the energy that reaches earth and is bounced toward space back at the earth again. This would increase the percentage of heat energy trapped in the atmosphere, blanketing the planet with bad air.

    Of course, if this idiotic plan were ever implemented, it would doom life on Earth. My guess is that this “plan” is just a stalling strategy to divert attention from viable plans to convert to clean energy, allowing the fossil fuel industry to continue to reap the benefits of their enterprises for as long as possible.

    One can only hope that science and reason will prevail and that governments all over the globe will continue to develop and put into place clean energy alternatives.

  • gcblues

    should read scheme to expose bogus climate science blocks grants to idiots and gives know nothing publishers roadblocks to printing more lies.