http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31475761

'Next Pinatubo' a test of geoengineering

By Jonathan Amos
BBC Science Correspondent, San Jose

15 February 2015 From the section
Science & Environment

The 1991 Mount Pinatubo blast was the biggest on Earth in recent times

Scientists who study ideas to engineer the climate to mitigate global
warming say we should be ready to deploy an armada of instrumentation when
Earth has its next major volcanic eruption.

Data gathered in the high atmosphere would be invaluable in determining
whether so-called "geoengineering" solutions had any merit at all.

It would have to be an event on the scale of Mount Pinatubo in 1991.

That eruption cooled global temperatures for a couple of years.It did so by
pumping 20 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide high into the sky above the
Philippines.

The resulting droplets of sulphuric acid that formed on contact with
moisture reflected incoming sunlight back out into space, preventing that
radiation from warming the surface.

Some have suggested humanity could mimic this same effect by deliberately
seeding the stratosphere with sulphur.

Missing information

But Prof Alan Robock from Rutgers University said we had no real knowledge
currently of how such a strategy would play out.That is why he wants to see
a co-ordinated investigation of the next big volcanic eruption to gather
additional data."We'd like to be able to see how this sulphur dioxide cloud
evolves from gas into particles and how the particles grow. If the
particles are too big then they'll fall out much more rapidly and you'd
have to replenish them much more rapidly, if you're interested in doing
geoengineering. And so we'd like to understand the processes in the
formation of these droplets," he told BBC News.

Prof Robock was speaking in San Jose at the annual meeting of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science.He and other experts were
discussing the US National Research Council report published this week on
geoengineering.

The committee members found there was presently insufficient insight into
the likely consequences of climate intervention techniques to justify their
use.

'Plan Z'

On many themes, the NRC report echoed UK Royal Society findings released
last year.

Geoengineering is often described as a "Plan B" that could be implemented
if the world could not agree a "Plan A" to reduce carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gas emissions blamed for warming the climate - a kind of
last-resort or technical fix.

Many scientists researching the area though are deeply sceptical that
geoengineering has any role to play, because of the uncertainties involved.
For example, as well as cooling the climate, Mt Pinatubo disrupted the
Asian Monsoons and by limiting direct sunlight reduced the capability of
solar power generation."I don’t like the Plan B framing; I tend to think of
it as Plan Z," Prof Steve Gardiner, of the University of Washington, told
the meeting. And Prof Robock himself said: "People who work on this don't
want to work on this."Nonetheless, the committee believes the research
should go on. "And so that research programme would involve modelling,
observations, and possibly some small experiments that can be conducted at
low risk," said Prof Lynn Russell, from the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography.

'No alternative?'

However, the necessary instrumentation to follow through on the research
programme also needed to be put in place, added Prof Robock.

A proper study of droplet behaviour in another Pinatubo-like event would
need balloons, aircraft, lidars, and satellites that could look down
through and across the eruption plume. This was not currently available,
Prof Robock said."We need more information to know what the relative
benefits and the relative risks would be, and so we need a lot more
research."I hope if in the future global warming continues and the world
gets towards more dangerous impacts, that policymakers will have more
information to make this decision."But if our research very quickly shows
that it is not going to work, that it's going to be more risky to do it
than not do it, that’ll have a much stronger incentive to stop putting
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere because there will be no alternative

[email protected]

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to