Great article but I would add one more form of geoengineering: Direct Air Capture of CO2 and Carbon Sequestration.
Imagining that we can ACTUALLY filter out GIGATONNES of CO2 from the atmosphere and then somehow "pump it all back into the ground" in a timeframe that would cool the planet. That's geoengineering with a CAPITAL 'G".
Of these the most dangerous is probably the use of SOx particulates. Mostly because we KNOW it works and could cool the Earth as much as -1.0°C up to -2°C.
Hansen estimates the effect of changing the sulfur content in marine diesel alone caused +0'5°C of warming since 2020. Just putting the sulfur back in marine diesel takes us down half a degree C. If we AMP it up and start burning high sulfur coal in power plants again to make electricity the cooling effect could potentially reach -2°C.
It would be unpleasant yes, but IT WOULD work.
At least as long as we kept it going. As you point out, the "Termination Shock" of halting such a program would be SEVERE.
In my CR-14 (Feb 2023) I discussed geoengineering as the "hidden factor" in the developing US/China conflict - "China and the US are moving towards a showdown, why? In a word, “geoengineering. Because we are going to try geoengineering the Earth’s climate. Otherwise, too many people will die too quickly and COLLAPSE happens".
If geoengineering is attempted on a global scale it will be with sulfate particulates. That's the ONLY "semi-viable" option available to us in the immediate future.
And you ARE Right. It WILL have CONSEQUENCES.
For example, in 1893 when Krakatoa erupted. The eruption caused a volcanic winter.
In the year following the eruption, average Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures fell by -0.4 °C (-0.72 °F). The record rainfall that hit Southern California that year is known as the “water year”.
From July 1883 to June 1884 Los Angeles received 38.18 inches of rainfall. Normal rainfall for LA is 14.77 inches per year.
It has been attributed to the Krakatoa eruption. Because, when you suddenly cool the atmosphere down. Water falls out of it. Cool air holds less water than warm air.
Just implementing a "cool down" at this point would cause flooding globally of "biblical proportions".
I accidentally posted the power specs first for what I describe here.
I have been looking into all this carbon removal technology recently. Obviously nothing concrete of any significance has happened throughout the approximate trillion dollars of offsets and so on spent in this area, but I wanted to try to find out for myself if it was even possible. Short answer: yes, assuming a couple of new inventions pan out. The first new invention is an electrochemical device can efficiently separate CO2 from sea water, at scale. The CO2 can be permanently stored in basalt by mixing it with sea water (carbonating it) and injecting that into holes in the basalt. In a couple of years it will be completely mineralized. This technique is already proven in the field by CarbFix. The seawater after having CO2 removed must then be treated to restore its alkalinity. The cheapest way to do this is to send the water through a raceway filled with crushed olivine, and circulate it until enough dissolves to reach optimum alkalinity. At this point the outflow can be put back into the ocean. Since air and water in contact seek equilibrium with respect to CO2 (see Henry’s law) CO2 is then pulled from the air into the outflow, which in effect becomes a large direct air capture device. The captured CO2 is at that point stored in carbonates in the ocean, which are permanent on the scale of thousands of years. This indirect method of removing carbon from the atmosphere is more efficient than direct air capture, simply because in sea water CO2 is about 100 times more concentrated than in the same volume of air. This method also treats ocean acidification. All that is needed is a site that is on a coast, on basalt, near a source of electricity.
To be clear, there are many climate issues to grapple with. Here I am only addressing the problem of reducing the CO2 level down to a safe level of 350 ppm, which is the same as removing about 600 billion tons of CO2.
Also, there are hard limits as to how fast you can change ocean alkalinity in a given time frame, so this is at best a 100 year project. We will have to muddle through for that long, buying time with SRM. Humanity’s biggest challenge, I would say.
This system can be scaled up just by finding appropriate sites and duplicating this setup. I have an extended version that brings in a second invention, which I will post a bit later.
After looking over the comments, it is clear nobody has anything better than a bandaid for the issue of issues facing humanity. There is only one solution: end the system that created this in the first place. Sadly, this is untenable in the most existentialway imaginable. First and foremost, we cannot even stop a genocide because our economies are so interconnected. What I mean is trade with Israel has not stopped to end a genocide because even that disruption would be devastating to the world economy. Now imagine what stopping fossil fuel extraction would do... every single bit of our economies are connected to the very thing that has caused all the conundrums we are facing from global warming to overpopulation to forever war. This is the ultimate damned if we do, damned if we don't.
Maybe World War 3 and a serious global pandemic? Hate to admit it, but these outcomes might be more likely because of AI. I'm all for humanity going to into deep ecology, voluntary or otherwise. 500 million humans is plenty, and probably sustainable.
The pandemic would be enough but a non nuclear WW3 would be icing on the cake. The frantic development of AI centers and robotics are an indicator of a coming pandemic thanks to genetic engineering. Gates has openly said that robots will be able to replace humans in virtually every task. They are not able to be autonomous yet due to the hardware requirements for complicated tasks but can be linked in realtime to super computer AI centers. I'd expect a deadlier version of COVID-19 when robotics are available to replace us parasites.
Anyone who thinks this is insane needs to look at Gaza, Israel and the United States. Along with the rest of Western society.
That's my speculative fiction for today. It's a lot more realistic than the geoengineering BS in Sarah's post.
Great article but I would add one more form of geoengineering: Direct Air Capture of CO2 and Carbon Sequestration.
Imagining that we can ACTUALLY filter out GIGATONNES of CO2 from the atmosphere and then somehow "pump it all back into the ground" in a timeframe that would cool the planet. That's geoengineering with a CAPITAL 'G".
Of these the most dangerous is probably the use of SOx particulates. Mostly because we KNOW it works and could cool the Earth as much as -1.0°C up to -2°C.
Hansen estimates the effect of changing the sulfur content in marine diesel alone caused +0'5°C of warming since 2020. Just putting the sulfur back in marine diesel takes us down half a degree C. If we AMP it up and start burning high sulfur coal in power plants again to make electricity the cooling effect could potentially reach -2°C.
It would be unpleasant yes, but IT WOULD work.
At least as long as we kept it going. As you point out, the "Termination Shock" of halting such a program would be SEVERE.
In my CR-14 (Feb 2023) I discussed geoengineering as the "hidden factor" in the developing US/China conflict - "China and the US are moving towards a showdown, why? In a word, “geoengineering. Because we are going to try geoengineering the Earth’s climate. Otherwise, too many people will die too quickly and COLLAPSE happens".
If geoengineering is attempted on a global scale it will be with sulfate particulates. That's the ONLY "semi-viable" option available to us in the immediate future.
And you ARE Right. It WILL have CONSEQUENCES.
For example, in 1893 when Krakatoa erupted. The eruption caused a volcanic winter.
In the year following the eruption, average Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures fell by -0.4 °C (-0.72 °F). The record rainfall that hit Southern California that year is known as the “water year”.
From July 1883 to June 1884 Los Angeles received 38.18 inches of rainfall. Normal rainfall for LA is 14.77 inches per year.
It has been attributed to the Krakatoa eruption. Because, when you suddenly cool the atmosphere down. Water falls out of it. Cool air holds less water than warm air.
Just implementing a "cool down" at this point would cause flooding globally of "biblical proportions".
DOC (pure electro): based on ~0.77 MWh/t capture work + 0.1–0.3 for pumps/BOP, +~0.1 for CarbFix-style dissolved injection → ~0.9–1.2 MWh/t.
I accidentally posted the power specs first for what I describe here.
I have been looking into all this carbon removal technology recently. Obviously nothing concrete of any significance has happened throughout the approximate trillion dollars of offsets and so on spent in this area, but I wanted to try to find out for myself if it was even possible. Short answer: yes, assuming a couple of new inventions pan out. The first new invention is an electrochemical device can efficiently separate CO2 from sea water, at scale. The CO2 can be permanently stored in basalt by mixing it with sea water (carbonating it) and injecting that into holes in the basalt. In a couple of years it will be completely mineralized. This technique is already proven in the field by CarbFix. The seawater after having CO2 removed must then be treated to restore its alkalinity. The cheapest way to do this is to send the water through a raceway filled with crushed olivine, and circulate it until enough dissolves to reach optimum alkalinity. At this point the outflow can be put back into the ocean. Since air and water in contact seek equilibrium with respect to CO2 (see Henry’s law) CO2 is then pulled from the air into the outflow, which in effect becomes a large direct air capture device. The captured CO2 is at that point stored in carbonates in the ocean, which are permanent on the scale of thousands of years. This indirect method of removing carbon from the atmosphere is more efficient than direct air capture, simply because in sea water CO2 is about 100 times more concentrated than in the same volume of air. This method also treats ocean acidification. All that is needed is a site that is on a coast, on basalt, near a source of electricity.
To be clear, there are many climate issues to grapple with. Here I am only addressing the problem of reducing the CO2 level down to a safe level of 350 ppm, which is the same as removing about 600 billion tons of CO2.
Also, there are hard limits as to how fast you can change ocean alkalinity in a given time frame, so this is at best a 100 year project. We will have to muddle through for that long, buying time with SRM. Humanity’s biggest challenge, I would say.
This system can be scaled up just by finding appropriate sites and duplicating this setup. I have an extended version that brings in a second invention, which I will post a bit later.
After looking over the comments, it is clear nobody has anything better than a bandaid for the issue of issues facing humanity. There is only one solution: end the system that created this in the first place. Sadly, this is untenable in the most existentialway imaginable. First and foremost, we cannot even stop a genocide because our economies are so interconnected. What I mean is trade with Israel has not stopped to end a genocide because even that disruption would be devastating to the world economy. Now imagine what stopping fossil fuel extraction would do... every single bit of our economies are connected to the very thing that has caused all the conundrums we are facing from global warming to overpopulation to forever war. This is the ultimate damned if we do, damned if we don't.
A massive immediate reduction in population will slow or stop climate change. The technology is available but not discussed.
Population reduction is going to occur one way or another. It's inevitable. Like it or not.
Maybe World War 3 and a serious global pandemic? Hate to admit it, but these outcomes might be more likely because of AI. I'm all for humanity going to into deep ecology, voluntary or otherwise. 500 million humans is plenty, and probably sustainable.
The pandemic would be enough but a non nuclear WW3 would be icing on the cake. The frantic development of AI centers and robotics are an indicator of a coming pandemic thanks to genetic engineering. Gates has openly said that robots will be able to replace humans in virtually every task. They are not able to be autonomous yet due to the hardware requirements for complicated tasks but can be linked in realtime to super computer AI centers. I'd expect a deadlier version of COVID-19 when robotics are available to replace us parasites.
Anyone who thinks this is insane needs to look at Gaza, Israel and the United States. Along with the rest of Western society.
That's my speculative fiction for today. It's a lot more realistic than the geoengineering BS in Sarah's post.
Stock up on masks!
Or this: https://open.substack.com/pub/towardseudaemonia/p/there-be-dragons?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=340lm2
Success continues to be defined by increasing our individual (and collective) carbon footprint. So simple but so, apparently, immutable.