The American president may be mocked, asking for the return of “global warming” on the days (at the end of last January) when polar (literally) temperatures hit the northern and central parts of the US. However, “global warming” (sometimes the “greenhouse effect”) has been on the daily agenda of governmental measures, conferences, energy restructuring – threats of “Apocalypse” but also myths for at least two decades now. The most well-known aspect of the issue is the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. It is not the only one. Nor is it about the acknowledged targeting of changing the energy model of the capitalist world, moving away from the burning of hydrocarbons; primarily oil, for geopolitical reasons.
According to Wikipedia:
Geoengineering [we could perhaps call it “geomachinery”] is the most commonly used term for climate engineering. It refers to deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system, usually aimed at reversing global warming. The term climate engineering is an umbrella term that covers measures of two categories: the removal of greenhouse gases, and solar radiation management. The second category of approaches aims to address the consequences of greenhouse phenomena through interventions so that the planet absorbs a smaller amount of solar radiation.
This view of global warming is, essentially, divided into two parts. On one side are all those things that can be considered “scientific data” – which, paradoxically or not, are not many. On the other side are social beliefs and, certainly, interpretations of observable climate changes when related (or not) to the idea of global warming.
For example, the changes (and the gradual increase) in average temperature in the upper layers of the Earth’s atmosphere over recent decades could be considered accurate and tangible “scientific data” – thermometers don’t lie. The explanation for this rise (as well as predictions about its future course), however, is an entirely different matter. For instance, the idea that the planet’s temperature increase is due to human factors, and more specifically to carbon dioxide emissions, is not a 20th-century idea caused by the Second Industrial Revolution – as many believe. Rather, it dates back to the early 19th century – a period when the First Industrial Revolution (and the burning of coal) was only in its initial stages, and certainly not yet an intensive global-scale phenomenon.
Like many other Victorian natural philosophers, John Tyndall was interested in many issues. While preparing a significant study on “heat as a mode of motion,” he had time to also engage with geology. Tyndall had firsthand knowledge of the subject, as he was an enthusiastic mountaineer. Since he was familiar with glaciers in the mountains, he had become convinced that tens of thousands of years ago, massive sheets of ice covered all of northern Europe. How was it possible for the climate to change so drastically?
Spencer Weart, The carbon dioxide greenhouse effect, 2008
One possible answer would be a change in the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere. Starting from Joseph Fourier’s work in the 1820s, scientists of that era had realized that gases in the atmosphere could trap heat coming from the sun. As Fourier put it, energy in the form of visible light easily penetrates the atmosphere and reaches the surface, warming it; but heat cannot easily be reflected back into space. Because air absorbs invisible heat rays as they emerge from the surface. The air thus heated re-emits part of the heat back to the surface, keeping it warm…
The equations and data available to scientists in the 19th century were minimal for making an accurate calculation. However, physicists of that period were convinced that they could prove that a simple rock without an atmosphere, and at a distance from the sun equal to Earth’s, would be much colder than our own planet.
Tyndall made it his goal to find out whether there really were gases in the Earth’s atmosphere that could trap heat. In 1859, after careful laboratory work, he identified various gases that could function in this way. The most important was the gaseous form of water, water vapor. Carbon dioxide was also effective, despite its very low concentration in the atmosphere.
It is historically interesting that the discovery of carbon dioxide’s responsibility emerged alongside the discovery of water vapor’s even greater role (in the “production” of terrestrial heat). Therefore, apart from solar radiation, the other significant factor for this heat and the retention of part of it was (at least according to the findings of pioneer Tyndall) the fact that 70% of the Earth’s surface is covered by water… It would be difficult to prove scientifically correct the 19th-century view that “a simple rock without an atmosphere… etc.” since, quite simply, it was circular reasoning: if there is no water, there is no atmosphere…
In any case, by the end of the 19th century, Swedish physical chemist Svante Arrhenius, with the same prehistoric interests as Tyndall, argued that if the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were to increase in the future, this might affect the climate. According to Arrhenius, the end of the ice ages should retroactively be attributed to carbon dioxide released from volcanic eruptions.
But why did Arrhenius emphasize carbon dioxide so much, in relation to heat at the surface and lower atmospheric layers, rather than the far more abundant water vapor? For humble reasons: the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere changes constantly, so such an unstable factor could not become an object of measurement and, consequently, a scientific element… According to Arrhenius, the increase in CO2 concentration would not directly but indirectly affect temperature, because it would reduce the evaporation of water—which otherwise remained the main (but immeasurable) regulator of the planet’s temperature.
These ideas were not accepted as real science for several decades, although occasionally various physicists brought them back into the daily agenda. In the 1950s, the issue of temperature increase remained a rather marginal topic in scientific circles; however, it was the media coverage that began to draw attention. In November 1957, the Indiana newspaper The Hammond Times had a report on the position of an academic geologist/oceanographer, Roger Revelle, according to whom CO2 emissions cause a “greenhouse effect”… which could lead to radical changes in climate… The concept of the “greenhouse” should already have been socially established, for one thing; and interest (and anxiety) about issues beyond the Earth’s surface should have increased (the superpowers’ space race), for the atmosphere to begin to become an object of interest and, perhaps, a source of dangers. The mid-20th century was a “ripe” time for this…
In the end, while global warming caused by humans was revolving around industrial CO2 emissions, it remained on the relatively low shelves of scientific interests. There were other more tangible issues, such as the (also industrial) origin of urban air pollution (including, of course, the rapid increase in the use of A.C.), which made the air (and climate) tangible health issues – and politically interesting.
The summer of 1988 was particularly hot in the U.S., while intense drought was also created in various regions, as it had rained little in the immediately preceding winters. NASA climatologist James Hansen was called upon to present the available scientific explanations to the American Congress. On June 23 (1988), Hansen declared that “…global warming has reached such a point that we can say with a high degree of certainty that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the greenhouse phenomenon and the observed temperatures…”
The date could be considered a birthday from a political point of view: the media (newspapers and television) massively spread the expert’s opinion, the public showed great interest, public discussions ignited… From that point in time onward, the capitalist planet began to feel as if it were covered with a huge but invisible nylon veil – of its own making.
thermal death; the redemption!
We do not intend to get involved, even by accident, in a dispute over “causes and effects” regarding the increase in average temperatures; it is a highly (and institutionally) politicized debate, especially since the American conservatives, under Trump, withdrew from the “international climate agreement” – in order to protect the oil-based energy model of American capitalism, since it has significantly lagged behind in the paradigm shift. However, this energy paradigm shift (that is, the steady reduction in the use of hydrocarbons, starting with oil) would be reasonable for various reasons, even without the greenhouse phenomenon…
Conversely, it is interesting to explore how and why the extensive international state (initial) self-commitment to systematically reduce CO2 emissions into the Earth’s atmosphere is introduced into the technological/scientific “interests” (or/synergies) of the 3rd and, now, the 4th industrial revolution.
The idea of local climate modification and its applications (which have caused some interest but also conspiracy theories) had much more humble causes than saving the planet. It is known, for example (already from World War II), that clouds and fog are particularly annoying for certain types of bombing (let’s say against moving targets, which cannot be located via geolocation). Therefore, a systematic “dissolution of cloud cover” in a specific area and for a certain duration was a demand not of environmentalists but of generals. Similarly, there is “demand” for rain in areas with prolonged periods of drought, which threaten either agricultural production or electricity (through hydroelectric dams). The technological management of clouds is, therefore, an existing field of applications. However, it has another name: it is called weather modification. 1
On the contrary, global warming, as it appears as a worldwide problem, gives ground for extremely bold, even fictional (for now…) ideas. From the “absorption” of CO2 (and its “burial” in the Earth’s interior…) to the creation of some kind of “filter” in the stratosphere, in order to absorb part of the solar energy.
For example, Zhen Dai, a researcher at Harvard, proposed in a recent publication (early 2019) the spraying of the stratosphere (at a height of, indicatively, 20 kilometers above the sea surface) with calcium carbonate powder – commonly used so far as a digestive aid. According to Dai and her team, this material is the safest to reflect part of the solar radiation before it reaches the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface.
Dai’s research has been conducted so far through electronic simulations. She proposes (and is seeking government approval and funding) experiments under real conditions: spraying the stratosphere with calcium carbonate over selected areas of the seas using special balloons, and measuring how it functions as a filter. Obviously, different thicknesses of such a layer will have different effectiveness.
Harvard seems to want leadership on the issue. And, just as happened when the “recognition of the greenhouse phenomenon” began through mental projection, so now reputable climate scientists are playing their role. In an article (on November 23, 2018) under the title “Solar geoengineering could be ‘remarkably cheap’ – report” the English Guardian wrote:
Cooling the Earth by spraying particles that block sunlight in the stratosphere could be “remarkably cheap” according to the most detailed mechanical analysis done so far.
Researchers add that the fear that a pariah state or military force could unilaterally take control of the global climate is unfounded, as it would require thousands of flights, and this would quickly become detectable.The new study calculated the costs of the technology to deploy millions of tons of calcium particles high into the atmosphere. This form of geoengineering mimics the effects of large volcanic eruptions, which have significantly reduced global temperatures in the past.
“We show that a hypothetical program of such dispersion, while simultaneously highly uncertain and highly ambitious, would be technically feasible,” said Gernot Wagner, from Harvard University. “It would also be remarkably cheap, with an annual cost of around $2 to 2.5 billion.” Current investments in green technologies are approximately $500 billion per year.The idea of geoengineering provokes objections, with those opposed arguing that it would be a cheap solution to planetary overheating, thus undermining efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions at their roots. Others warn that there is a risk of serious and unforeseen consequences, such as droughts and crop damage. In October, over 100 civil society organizations condemned geoengineering as “dangerous, unnecessary and unjust.” 2
However, many scientists say that not proceeding with geoengineering research could prove even more dangerous, as climate change may have consequences so severe that governments will be unable to cope with them.“Unfortunately, climate change is so urgent that we need to think about fast action,” says Dr. Matthew Watson of the University of Bristol. “Some argue that we shouldn’t do such research, but personally I think that would be wrong. There may come a time, in the not too distant future, when it would be unethical not to intervene.”
A study, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, showed that the cheapest way to spread calcium particles would require the construction of a new type of aircraft. If the calcium particles were to be deployed by commercial aircraft, they would fall back to the ground within a few days.
There is no aircraft that can carry tons of such particles at an altitude of 20 kilometers, a height required for them to remain there for a year or more. Rockets are a very expensive solution. The new type of aircraft should have larger wings and 4 engines instead of 2, since the air at that altitude has a density of only 7% of that at sea level. “It would be an unusual design, but it doesn’t require technological leaps,” says Wake Smith, an aeronautical engineer who collaborated with Wagner.The researchers calculated the cost of a 15-year program that would require the construction of 6 to 8 new aircraft of this type each year, and included costs for crew salaries, repairs, insurance, fuel, spare parts, and training. The program would start with 4,000 flights per year and at its peak, by the end of the 15-year period, would reach 60,000 flights per year, from 100 aircraft.
The result of such a program would be a reduction in warming by 0.1 degrees Celsius per year, with a total reduction of 1.5 degrees, says Wagner. This estimate was made with the working assumption that emissions would indeed decrease, but nevertheless, the temperature increase they would cause would be 3 degrees Celsius, a level considered catastrophic by scientists. A recent study by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) showed that the maximum acceptable level of temperature increase is 1.5 degrees.
The researchers say they do not advocate for the development of solar geoengineering, but that they believe it should be considered. “It could be part of a broader climate policy that primarily includes emissions reduction and the absorption of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere,” says Wagner.
…
At this stage, these geoengineering proposals may seem like science fiction to the general public – though less so than other projects such as lunar colonization or quantum computers. Their low cost is appealing – while the main objections stem from the fact that the negative consequences are not clear (of limiting solar radiation 3). On the other hand, CO2 “absorption” technologies from the atmosphere (usually directly from its source, industries) and its recycling for various purposes are developing but are far from forming a “radical” large-scale application for the next decade. This involves the electrochemical mimicry of photosynthesis (of plants). There are 25 such applied projects in various parts of the world, but the goal of the international energy service was for more than 100 by 2020.
Despite the seemingly futuristic nature of the idea to place the planet inside an “anti-greenhouse” bubble, and despite the strong likelihood that unforeseen consequences could arise from such an application, there is something (beyond the relatively low cost) that is intriguingly in favor of such plans: the fact that they could, indeed, have unforeseen consequences! If the upcoming Internet of Things shapes the trend of universal recording / representation of everything and forms predictions through “smart” algorithms, it is precisely the unpredictable that could fuel the evolution of the 4th industrial revolution…
Ziggy Stardust
cyborg #14 – 2/2019
- Artificial rain induction through “cloud seeding” with iodide salts is a known practice for decades. Moreover, there are international agreements for mutual notification between countries when such actions are carried out. ↩︎
- The text of the protest titled “hands off mother earth”, in pdf format, is available here. ↩︎
- The chemical industries of anti-solar should find new justifications to promote their products – what a negative consequence! ↩︎