How would cloud seeding affect sea ice?

We have already discussed the possibility of implementing the SPICE project (Robock, 2000) but some fascinating research has been undertaken which looks at quantifying the extent of the sea ice changes post cloud seeing. 

If you’ve forgotten the basics of the SPICE project then let me give you a few reminders. It consists of injecting aerosol particles into boundary layer clouds which act as condensation nuclei. This results in increased droplet numbers being present leading to an increased albedo. Consequently, the planet undergoes a trend of cooling. For more in depth information on this method may i refer you to a previous post.

Rashch et al. (2009) agree that cloud seeding can indeed stabilise earth temperatures and ice extent. However, the issue that would arise if this was attempted would be the difficulty in compensating uniformly for all changes across the globe. As in the majority of studies in this field, Rashch et al. simulate the affects geoengineering in a simulation where atmospheric CO2 is twice the levels that it is presently at. The great loss of ice that would result is shown in (a) and (b) in the figure below. However, with varying magnitudes of cloud seeding, large increases in sea ice are demonstrated leading to both restoration and stabilisation of the sea ice extent which is present today.

The Case Against Geoengineering

A recent report, powerfully entitled ‘Geopiracy’, has been published that gives an interesting insight of some of the obstacles that face geoengineering proponents  (ETC Group, 2010)

Can’t be sufficiently tested -      

          Cannot be experimented with at an extent to show a significant impact whilst not risking the possible  negative effects that  might occur through large scale deployment    

Violation of treaties -    

          The UN Environmental Modification Treaty states that the use of environmental modification for hostile action is not permitted

Unilateral -    

          Geoengineering is a hugely expensive business which can put it out of the reach of small, less developed countries. However, those more wealthy countries (and in some cases, individuals) will be able to put into place their own schemes to suit their needs. How can we govern this on a global scale?

Commodification of Climate  -           

          Should any one individual or company own a patent for the the climate   possible climate fix? This owner might purely wish to profit by their actions and are unlikely to have to best wishes of the planet at heart. Again, global treaties would need to be signed to govern this.

An excuse -  

          Lastly, but believed by many to be the most important critique of geoengineering is that it provides an excuse for governments not to reduce emissions. This in the long term could have devastating effects on the environment 

“We cannot solve our problems
with the same thinking we used
when we created them.”

Albert Einstein

“We already are
inadvertently changing the climate.
So why not advertently try to
counterbalance it?”

Michael MacCracken,
Climate Institute, USA

Climate change targets......meaningless?

In 1997, The Kyoto Protocol was signed by 191 states (not including the U.S.) which promised to reduce there greenhouse emissions by between 5.2%. Other goals have been set for example the Montreal Protocol which focuses on reducing CFC’s. However, these targets have will not be met, but does this matter? Are countries penalised for not reaching these targets? Well, in short, no!

Many of these goals (including those set within individuals countries) are just constantly postponed. When the deadline gets closer...its just constantly pushed back! alternatively, these targets are quietly reduced! Canada in June 2005 cut its target for 2010 by 5 million tonnes in the hope of not falling too short (esciencenews, 2010). Today Canada have also rejected signing the new international agreement on the future of the Kyoto Agreement (AFP, 2011). This shows that countries are starting to follow the path of the US in attempting to reduce their own emmisions, but in their own time, and without international commissions looking over their shoulder.

I think it is best summed up by this quote taken from Nature:

‘The Kyoto Protocol is a symbolically important expression of governments' concern about climate change. But as an instrument for achieving emissions reductions, it has failed. It has produced no demonstrable reductions in emissions or even in anticipated emissions growth’

                                                            (Prins and Rayner, 2007)