July 17, 2012 12:06 pm
Harvard Geoengineers Want To Fake a Volcanic Eruption

Volcanic ash from the Ejyafjallajokull eruption floats in the stratosphere. Photo: Andrew McMillan
[Update: Keith and Anderson released a statement yesterday saying that the original description of their plans by The Guardian was inaccurate. They write, "we have been and are currently exploring possible new strategies for interrogating the stratospheric system without affecting the background stratosphere in any quantitative way. To date, we have not written any proposal to actually do so. We want to be absolutely clear that that we have no plans to implement a geoengineering field study to release “thousands of tonnes of sun-reflecting chemical particles into the atmosphere to artificially cool the planet, using a balloon flying 80,000 feet over Fort Sumner, New Mexico.” ]
The original post reads as follows:
According to Martin Lukacs writing in The Guardian, a team lead by engineers David Keith and James Anderson want to spray sunlight-reflecting sulfate particles into the upper atmosphere, a small-scale simulation of a volcanic eruption, to see if they can cool the climate. The experiment,
…will take place within a year and involve the release of tens or hundreds of kilograms of particles to measure the impacts on ozone chemistry, and to test ways to make sulphate aerosols the appropriate size. Since it is impossible to simulate the complexity of the stratosphere in a laboratory, Keith says the experiment will provide an opportunity to improve models of how the ozone layer could be altered by much larger-scale sulphate spraying.
“The objective is not to alter the climate, but simply to probe the processes at a micro scale,” said Keith. “The direct risk is very small.”
Environmental groups, and many scientists, are wary of a big push into geoengineering. Reporting for Wired UK, Joel Winston says that similar proposed technologies could, “lead to adverse effects on the Earth’s climate, including a reduction in global rainfall.”
That work, however, was conducted using a complex computer simulation of the Earth’s climate. Some scientists think that the models, despite their skill and complexity, may not be able to perfectly represent the effects of poking the system with a geoengineering stick. Winston says,
To understand different components of the Earth’s systems, Schmidt agrees that a few experiments are necessary. “I’m not generally against small-scale field experiments if they help us understand processes in nature,” says Schmidt. “But they should obviously be benign, and we should be very careful.” However, small-scale field tests are also limited, Schmidt believes, with climate simulations possibly being the only way to fully grasp the long-term and large-scale climate effects of geoengineering.
The Harvard researchers’ plan would not be the first foray in experimenting with geoengineering. There have been small trials that seeded the ocean’s surface with iron, a nutrient that can increase the population of small marine organisms that pull carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow.
More from Smithsonian.com:
Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.
3 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI























So ‘my experiment is better than SPICE’ is a good enough excuse to move forward with geoengineering initiatives in the US? It seems like few if any lessons have been learned from SPICE at all and it wasn’t that long ago. There is little doubt that this technology if developed properly could decrease the global temperature, but even then it would be temporary unless people were to continuously spray these particles into the stratosphere. A review of some of the lessons learned about SPICE needs to be taken seriously by researchers in geoengineering, experiment first and ask questions later doesn’t help anyone, but the people who develop the technology. Continuing to promote big technological projects of this kind will likely only lead to more public mistrust of science, when the opposite is currently needed to adapt and mitigate climate change. Who did this group consult beyond Bill Gates and the company who funded it?
Comment by B Cherry — July 18, 2012 @ 6:05 am
I agree that it is very important for trials like this to be open with the public–the so-called engagement model of science communication. That being said, I think Keith and Anderson’s plans are still in the early stages, and there will be time to consult with and receive feedback from those who are likely to be affected: the local community. Like you, I hope they take that path and don’t just forge on without regard.
On the other hand, modeled experiments can really only take you so far. Reproducing the full extent of the atmosphere in the laboratory is prohibitively difficult, and I’d rather see scientists conduct small-scale trials now to suss out the dynamics of artificially boosting the planetary albedo than (potentially) fall back on an insufficiently tested technology if the climate is ever seen to be approaching a tipping point.
Comment by Colin Schultz — July 18, 2012 @ 8:38 am
Note, The Guardian article referenced is incorrect.
See:
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/response-to-guardian-article
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/trial-balloon-a-tiny-geoengineering-experiment/
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/7/19/anderson-keith-geoengineering-guardian/
Comment by SEAS Communications — July 19, 2012 @ 12:21 pm