APS111 2012 - Geo-engineering

Room GB412, Mondays Noon-2:00pm

Seminar leader: Jim Prall

Email me via UTORmail jim dot prall at utoronto dot ca

In week 1, we discussed the nature of the global warming problem, and we touched on possible responses:

There are many proposed means to do this:
  • orbiting mirrors - idea by Roger Angel
  • space dust at L1 point - plan by Dr. Curtis Struck of Iowa State
  • reflective balloons in the stratosphere
  • injecting aerosols into the stratosphere
  • keeping areas of the Earth's surface brighter:
    • painting roofs and pavement white, or
    • GM crops with shinier surface - reflect away some sunlight, or
    • even tarping over glaciers??
  • machines to generate more clouds, such as on robot ships at sea spraying seawater mist -- Stephen Salter
  • feeding ocean plankton - add limiting nutrient to spur algae to bloom, thus absorbing carbon - 2004 experiment by Victor Smetacek
  • and various others. See e.g. this graphic in IEEE Spectrum
For some discussion of various proposed solutions, with the name of the researcher who put forward each idea see this IEEE Spectrum article

As an engineer, you can have relevant input to these on two levels:

  • Is the mechanism proposed for this well-designed? Is the proposed delivery mechanism feasible / affordable?
  • Is the system we're proposing to alter well enough understood / modeled to be able to project how the intervention will change it? Will our impact be clearly measurable, or lost in the noise? Can we decide how far to turn the 'knob' of our intervention to get a specified amount of effect, or not? Can we get a handle on what side-effects our intervention could have?
The first group of presenters will be talking about a selection of proposed solutions to aspects of the "carbon problem."

Prepare an oral presentation on your chosen topic (no PowerPoint or other visual aids.) (If I've misread what you wanted for your topic, do let me know, but please go ahead and prepare the topic you really wanted - anything that bears on our subject.)

Make your talk two and a half to three minutes in length, and be ready to answer questions from your listeners on your topic. Practice your talk with a clock to check the length. You might ask a friend to listen and give feedback.

Week 2 Presenters

Here are the eight students presenting on week 2 - I'd love to get 2-3 more on week 2 if you can - just email me to sign up. Everyone else will present on week 3.
  • Awais: SRM - solar radiation management (pick one type)
  • Wasif: SRM - solar radiation management (pick another type)
  • Aaron: Reflective balloons into the stratosphere
  • Catherine: Biochar
  • Clara: TBA
  • Scott: Cloud seeding
  • Shubham: TBA
  • Steven: TBA
Giving your own opinion on the issue is definitely welcome. If you refer to the work of others, be sure to give them credit by name, just as you would do in footnoting a paper.
If you have any problem finding sources on your topic, email me at jim.prall (at) utoronto.ca and I'll be glad to provide pointers. This Wikipedia page has a long list of proposals - use the numbered footnotes that link to source material. 		Click this diagram to visit a page discussing its contents:

spreading aerosol particles

One of the most plausible and seemingly close at hand would be injecting aerosol particles into the stratosphere, artificially mimicking the cooling effect from large volcanic eruptions which inject aerosols into the stratosphere. Sulphates lend themselves to this approach, and bulk sulphur would appear to be affordable at this scale.
However, sulphate aerosols react to produce sulphuric acid, which can lead to acid precipitation. We already worked a long time to avoid acid rain caused by sulphur content in coal and diesel fuel. This would bring back that problem as an unwanted side effect.

READINGS: International opinion on the prospect of geoengineering

Read this short article in Time magazine that briefly sums up why such schemes are being considered, and some of the perceived trade-offs.

For next session, please read Alan Robock's essay 20 Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be A Bad Idea (5 pages + footnotes)
Consider his points in light of my suggested precepts to live by from week 1

Next look at the recent UN Convention on Bio-diversity (CBD) position "banning" deployment of Geo-engineering:

Commentary in advance of 2010 UN CBD meeting:

Blotting out the sun may soon be banned (1/2 page)

Outcome of CBD meeting

UN CBD meeting bans geo-engineering (1/2 page)
Response to UN Moratorium by the 'ETC Group' NGO including rebuttals of misstatements of the nature or import of the UN CBD decision. (NGO stands for non-governmental organization, and includes charities and religious organizations, trade unions, social advocacy groups, policy "think tanks", etc.)

July 2011 Open letter to IPCC on Geoengineering (1 page) signed by 167 NGOs. So you can see the prospect of implementing geoengineering makes a lot of people very worried.

Note that the U.S. shows signs of willingness to act unilaterally. They have the money and the technical means to start such a project alone if they chose.

Is this appropriate? Has the U.S. tended to follow U.N. rules, or just write its own rules? (Think of examples - Iraq; World Court; Land Mine Treaty) We will look at the idea of U.S. "exceptionalism" but other nations might also be capable of unilateral action.

Some audio links

If you have time, try out some of these audio links: Updated 2011-11-17 at 5:15pm