Our Broken Sky, Part Two


Read Part One of “Our Broken Sky” here.

In 1992, the National Academy of Sciences defined geoengineering as “large-scale engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry,” including the build-up of greenhouse gases like Carbon Dioxide (CO2).

But that was not the first time human beings thought about how to fix what they knew would break. For that we have to count back eight American presidents to Lyndon Johnson in 1965.

That year the Environmental Pollution Board of the President’s Science Advisory Committee warned that “by the year 2000 there will be about 25% more CO2 in our atmosphere than at present [and] this will modify the heat balance of the atmosphere to such an extent that marked changes in climate … could occur.”

In response Johnson gave a “Special Message” to Congress: “This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through … a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.”

What Johnson didn’t mention was that this distinguished group of scientists anticipated our massive failure and suggested methods to geoengineer our way out of the climate catastrophe they saw coming.

Forty-three years later in a Scientific American article in 2008 we were told, “Geoengineering schemes fall into two categories, corresponding to the two knobs you might imagine twiddling to adjust the earth’s temperature. One knob controls how much sunlight — or solar energy, to be more precise — reaches the planet’s surface; the other controls how much heat escapes back into space, which depends on how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.”

In a paper published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics in January of 2009, the authors wrote, “By 2050, only stratospheric aerosol injections or sunshades in space have the potential to cool the climate back toward its pre-industrial state.”

The paper referred to two proposals for reflecting solar radiation back to space: adding “sulfate aerosol” or “manufactured particles” to the stratosphere. The authors wrote, “Adding such aerosols to the troposphere has been ruled out due to negative impacts on human health, the greater loading required than the equivalent intervention in the stratosphere, and the need for multiple injection locations.  However, increasing the reflectivity of low level marine stratiform clouds by mechanical or biological generation of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) is being considered.”

While they concluded by stating “climate geoengineering is best considered as a potential complement to the mitigation of CO2 emissions, rather than as an alternative to it,” they wrote that “a number of geoengineering options show promise … most promisingly stratospheric aerosol injections.”

They also wrote, “mechanical enhancement of marine stratiform cloud albedo could achieve a patchy or partial cancellation of mitigated CO2 radiative forcing.” However, these methods “carry a heavy burden of risk because they have to be continually replenished and if deployment is suddenly stopped, extremely rapid warming could ensue.”

Watch for Part Three of “Our Broken Sky” next week.

Doug Craig earned a B.A. in journalism during the Carter administration and a doctorate in psychology during the Reagan administration. He has been a clinical psychologist in Redding for 22 years. Since 2004 he has suffered a serious obsession with the science of climate change and is most concerned about the Earth his children will inherit. You can find him at his website, ClimateTruth.org.

Comment Policy: We welcome your comments, with some caveats: Please keep your comments positive and civilized. If your comment is critical, please make it constructive. If your comment is rude, we will delete it. If you are constantly negative or a general pest, troll, or hater, we will ban you from the site forever. The definition of terms is left solely up to us. Comments are disabled on articles older than 90 days. Thank you. Carry on.

3 Responses

  1. Avatar Greg Pate says:

    Hey Doug,

    Just wanted to drop in here and say "Thank you" for your work on these issues. I was also glad to see the amount of good discussion posted after Broken Sky #1, and not too much inanity from the naysayers. Keep up the good work.

  2. Avatar sandymac says:

    With a simple google search you will find [below] instant information about historical clean air legislation and citizen’s participation of the past 50+ years. Why are we now, in 2010, allowing airplanes to fly back and forth across our skies spewing some kind of particulate matter? We watch as our skies slowly change from clear-blue to milky-gray-overcast because of these airplanes. What is going on, is there a problem and, if so, what is the answer to the problem? Do some people have their eyes open and other people have their eyes shut? We all live on the same planet.

    Legislation – A look at US air pollution laws and their amendments – Clean Air Acts of 1955, 1970, 1990

    Clean Air Act of 1970

    Clean Air Act Timeline – 1923, 1967, 1970, 1976, 1977, 1983, 1988, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2002, 2003

    Clean Air Act

    Clean Air Act (1970)

    Besides the chemicals being released in the atmosphere, we have to endure the chemical release of flouride in water and toothpaste; aspertame in ALL chewing gums, diet drinks and sugar-free foods; salts and high-fructose corn syrup used as food additives; highly toxic cleaning chemicals in household items etc.

    Allergies, asthma and lung related ailments are at an all time high. Pharmaceutical sales for these ailments are also at an all time high

  3. Avatar mike rose says:

    The paper referred to two proposals for reflecting solar radiation back to space: adding “sulfate aerosol” or “manufactured particles” to the stratosphere. This is basicly what a volcano does, it just fills the sky with particulate that blocks out sunlight. But they are not using anything natural and they are increasing it by factors of 100,000's. This can only happen for a very short time before the whole game collapses. Do they not understand the difference between sunlight and heat? What kind of impact is this going to have on our food supply that depends on sunlight? Why isn't the average person noticing that the sky isn't blue anymore? Great job and I look forward to the 3rd part of the story.