Can Geoengineering UNDO Climate Change? Featuring@ClimateAdam

The dinosaurs were wiped out by an asteroid that hit the earth and caused rapid global cooling from the sulfuric aerosols dispersed by the impact. Rapid cooling sounds like just the ticket to UNDO global warming... Can we artificially recreate the cooling effects of the asteroid’s impact to erase the effects of climate change?

Well, yeah, kind of. We could inject sulphuric aerosols into the upper atmosphere to reflect sunlight back into space. This idea is called solar geoengineering, also known as solar radiation management or SRM and that’s the topic of today’s video. We’re going to talk about how it works, the pros and cons and uncertainties. And especially how we should proceed. Because solar geoengineering is much less a question of “can we” than “should we”?

And, we’re going to hear from my favourite atmospheric physicist, ClimateAdam, about what those aerosols could actually do to our atmosphere, and what we ought to think about before we start spraying them around everywhere.

The Engineering with Rosie team is:
Rosemary Barnes: presenter, producer, writer
Kevin Irman: research, calculations, assistant editor
David Hodgson: research and writing

Or for a one-off contribution you can support by buying a coffee ☕️ here —

Bookmarks:
00:00 Intro
01:20 What is Solar Radiation Management?
02:09 How does Solar Radiation Management work?
04:35 Methods of injecting aerosols into the atmosphere
05:46 Non-aerosol SRM methods
07:51 The negatives and positives of SRM
09:52 An anecdote about messing with nature
12:08 Is SRM the way forward?
13:53 Outro

Sources:
Was breaking the taboo on research on climate engineering via albedo modification a moral hazard, or a moral imperative?
Lawrence and Crutzen 2016

Climate Stabilization: For Better or for Worse?
Kellogg and Schneider 1974

[ClimateAdam]

thanks so much for having me on Rosie! always great chatting climate change (and its solutions) with you.

[hngldr]

8:00 to 9:00 - I really wish people would specify that one of the "human health effects" is that raised CO2 makes us dumber. It's impact on our ability to think as shown in Kurtis Baute's great video (though I think I saw the one on Tom Scott's channel first) where he stayed in a sealed box.
That video is what got me - not necessarily a climate denier, but someone who thought we could handle it and wasn't worried about it - to finally give a damn and start taking actions.
It eventually led to me realizing how we can't handle the temperature or other effects either, but "humans will get dumber if we keep doing this" really broke me out of my "well even if it happens/even if it's bad, we're a pretty smart/inventive species and we'll probably figure it out" phase.

I really wish this was included more often because it helped bring me around, and has GREATLY helped discussion with my family (many of which are quite staunch climate deniers who literally fall asleep to Tucker Carlson). Temperature discussions are easy for them to dismiss as being wrong because they are more complicated (more avenues for attack) and often too abstract to easily demonstrate the problem such that people can understand/believe it.

But everyone has been in a stuffy room that's hard to think in, most people have seen stuff like Apollo 13, and in general it's harder to dismiss the claims that elevated CO2 will impact our cognitive ability because it's simply less complicated and therefore has fewer attack avenues for confusion/distraction.
It also directly attacks probably the most important people who can be won over, producing the most change in human action - those who think we can invent our way out of it. They depend on the idea that we're smart enough to do so - if the problem itself makes us dumber every day we don't solve it, then it really give a kick in the butt to that procrastinatory attitude (one that I previously had myself).

[SocialDownclimber]

Keen to see you discuss ocean fertilisation as CO2 capture and storage next! Also the space mirrors are already being developed by China, but for putting more sunlight into earth rather than pushing it away, for city lighting purposes.

[charlesminckler]

Scientist 1: We have a polution problem causing climate change
Scientist 2: Lets release more polution to fix it
Scientist 1: Great idea, what could possibly go wrong

[I.____.....__...__]

- 3:55 The effects would be that fast? So we WOULDN'T have enough time to build a massive train-ark system à la _Snowpiercer_ when the planet begins to freeze?
- 11:03 The aerosols would dissipate quickly? So _The Matrix_ WOULDN'T happen with the sun being blocked out for years and years to stop the machines? - It's almost as if fiction isn't realistic. 🤔

[andrewgarcia]

🤯 Test it on your home planet before trying it on mine 🌍

[petewright]

I recently built a large barn and roofed it with bright white roof sheets. This is because I figured that it would help with climate change as well as keeping the shed cool in the summer. It would be very interesting to know how much CO2 equivalent it is effectively offsetting. Any thoughts? An yes, why aren't all roofs white if not covered with solar panels.

[bobsponge]

I remember back in September 2022, on Labor Day (a US 3 day weekend), when I was camping, there was a huge range fire. The smoke cloud was so huge, it loomed miles away from the fire, 1000's of ft above the 8000ft elevation I was at, and it turned a 95 F afternoon temp, to 75 F. The sunlight coming through the smoke, was a bright bronze color. So I could see how aerosols could work, but would this affect photosynthesis of plants?

[glike]

Correction! The upgraded B-52's with pilots on oxygen or autonomous pilots can fly high enough to do initial flights. I'm an Aeronautical Engineer.

[mikeklein]

Aerosols are incredibly difficult to manage such as to reverse, it seems to this layman. Even the wild mirrors are more easily managed, such as reversed even by simply reflecting less solar energy by simply changing the angle of the mirrors. Of course the mass of the mirrors might require a massive amount of CO2 generation simply to produce as well as to deliver to the site they're needed. I think we must work to remove GHG's as well as stop emitting them.

[lluisboschpascual]

This is just swell. Crazy ideas for crazy politics. The main one is fabulous: "This event exterminated most life on Earth, including the dinosaurs. So let's do the same again!" 🤦🤦🤦

[patricktwo]

Excellent info.

To effect the average temperature, what percentage of air would sulfur represent?

We all need to learn how to get by with 95% less stuff.

[vernepavreal]

Good topic though more numbers would have been great I look forward to real solutions being discussed in the carbon sequestration video cheers

[jackcoats]

It would be nice if we could do white solar panels. Getting a double use of the panels plus keeping down their temperature, helping with their electric production too.

[paulzozula]

The discussion should not form around using SO2. There have been studies that recommended against this. At least one recommends using calcite. This will have minimal impact on resident stratospheric ozone. When it rains out it will alleviate, somewhat, acidification in the oceans. As well, on land there will be beneficial effects. Consider, there was a study that recommended applying calcite to cropland with high amounts of heavy metals in order to reduce crop uptake.

Even more so, it should be recognized that what the Human Enterprise is currently doing to our climate is insanely risky. At the same time there has been non-selective aerosol masking provided by ongoing fossil fuel emissions and if not compensated for there will be a cumulative increase of the global mean temperature of about .8 degrees Celsius when we ultimately, by necessity, cease all emissions.

Largely, the risks that we are currently incurring stem from numerous factors.There are mounting and some looming major feedbacks from natural carbon reservoirs, such as forests, peat, permafrost and Arctic Ocean Shelf methane hydrates. Reductions of marine tropical high albedo stratocumulus clouds, increasing intensifications from both weather system and oceanic overturning derangements are some of the natural system wild cards. Many of these have potential to prematurely trigger additional feedbacks. Unanticipated, or too complex to model developments are occurring. As well sinks are being diminished.

Often overlooked are individual and societal climate impacts of mobilizations in regard to adaptation, mitigation, recovery, rebuilding and relocation as additional feedbacks.

Then there is the risk of a disabling breakdown of polite society. This should be viewed as a major tipping point.

If SRM where to be cautiously and slowly initiated it seems that risk could be fairly well managed. I think the primary risk is the moral hazard of giving further license to fossil fuel producers to continue with their business model. A simple fee and dividend, large enough, carbon tax would go a long ways to managing this most concerning downside. If you're not familiar with this strategy after some investigation you might find it the most benign and least imposing approach. I think the biggest problem is international consensus.

[jeffbybee]

Question if the Sahara were forested would that not warm the earth by the greenery be less reflective than the bare rock. And converting light energy into biomass energy?

[ambulocetusnatans]

OMG, if we used aircraft to disperse aerosols, the conspiracy nuts would go *Bonkers* !

[ntwndrboy]

In nature there is only one thing colder than ice and that is melting ice 😮

[michaeljames]

Is it possible to selectively spray, to cover certain areas? If so, I think it is worth trying it over the arctic, as methane release from melting permafrost, seems to be the first tipping-point, we have already triggered.

[VRtechman]

This is already going on! And just one result is more forest fires! 🥵