Climate engineering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hometheatercalibrator (talk | contribs) at 01:55, 30 November 2022 (→‎top: Fixed grammar). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Geoengineering" redirects here. For other uses, see Geoengineering (disambiguation).

Climate engineering (also called geoengineering) is a term used for both carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM), also called solar geoengineering, when applied at a planetary scale.[1]: 6–11  However, they have very different geophysical characteristics which is why the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) no longer uses this overarching term.[1]: 6–11 [2] Carbon dioxide removal approaches are part of climate change mitigation. Solar geoengineering involves reflecting some sunlight (solar radiation) back to space.[3] All forms of geoengineering are not a standalone solution to climate change, but need to be coupled with other forms of climate change mitigation.[4] Another approach to geoengineering is to increase the Earth's thermal emittance through passive radiative cooling.[5][6][7]

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is defined as "Anthropogenic activities removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and durably storing it in geological, terrestrial, or ocean reservoirs, or in products. It includes existing and potential anthropogenic enhancement of biological or geochemical CO2 sinks and direct air carbon dioxide capture and storage (DACCS), but excludes natural CO2 uptake not directly caused by human activities."[2]

Some types of climate engineering is highly controversial due to the large uncertainties around effectiveness, side effects and unforeseen consequences.[8] However, the risks of such interventions must be seen in the context of the trajectory of climate change without them.[9][10]

Definition

As of 2018 the terms "climate engineering" and "geoengineering" are not used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).[11]: 550  Climate engineering (or geoengineering) is used in the literature as a term for both CDR (carbon dioxide removal) or SRM (Solar radiation management or solar geoengineering) when applied at a planetary scale.[1]: 6–11  However, they have very different geophysical characteristic which is why the IPCC no longer uses this term.[1]: 6–11 [2]

Methods

Overview

The following list is an incomplete list of example technologies that have been called climate engineering approaches:[12]: 30 

Carbon dioxide removal

This section is an excerpt from Carbon dioxide removal.[edit]
Planting trees is a nature-based way to temporarily remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.[20][21]

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is a process in which carbon dioxide (CO2) is removed from the atmosphere by deliberate human activities and durably stored in geological, terrestrial, or ocean reservoirs, or in products.[22]: 2221  This process is also known as carbon removal, greenhouse gas removal or negative emissions. CDR is more and more often integrated into climate policy, as an element of climate change mitigation strategies.[23][24] Achieving net zero emissions will require first and foremost deep and sustained cuts in emissions, and then—in addition—the use of CDR ("CDR is what puts the net into net zero emissions"[25]). In the future, CDR may be able to counterbalance emissions that are technically difficult to eliminate, such as some agricultural and industrial emissions.[26]: 114 

CDR includes methods that are implemented on land or in aquatic systems. Land-based methods include afforestation, reforestation, agricultural practices that sequester carbon in soils (carbon farming), bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), and direct air capture combined with storage.[26]: 115  There are also CDR methods that use oceans and other water bodies. Those are called ocean fertilization, ocean alkalinity enhancement,[27] wetland restoration and blue carbon approaches.[26]: 115  A detailed analysis needs to be performed to assess how much negative emissions a particular process achieves. This analysis includes life cycle analysis and "monitoring, reporting, and verification" (MRV) of the entire process.[28] Carbon capture and storage (CCS) are not regarded as CDR because CCS does not reduce the amount of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere.

Solar geoengineering

refer to caption and image description
Proposed solar geoengineering using a tethered balloon to inject sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere.
This section is an excerpt from Solar radiation modification.[edit]

Solar radiation modification (SRM), or solar geoengineering, is a type of climate engineering (or geoengineering) in which sunlight (solar radiation) would be reflected back to outer space to offset human-caused climate change. There are multiple potential approaches, with stratospheric aerosol injection being the most-studied, followed by marine cloud brightening. SRM could be a temporary measure to limit climate-change impacts while greenhouse gas emissions are reduced and carbon dioxide is removed[29] but would not be a substitute for reducing emissions.

Studies using climate models have generally shown that SRM could reduce many adverse effects of climate change. Specifically, controlled stratospheric aerosol injection appears able to greatly moderate most environmental impacts—especially warming—and consequently most ecological, economic, and other impacts of climate change across most regions. However, because warming from greenhouse gases and cooling from SRM would operate differently across latitudes and seasons, a world where global warming would be offset by SRM would have a different climate from the world where this warming did not occur in the first place, mainly as the result of an altered hydrological cycle. Furthermore, confidence in the current projections of how SRM would affect regional climate and ecosystems is low.[29]

SRM would pose environmental risks. In addition to its imperfect reduction of climate-change impacts, stratospheric aerosol injection could, for example, slow the recovery of stratospheric ozone. If a significant SRM intervention were to suddenly stop and not be resumed, the cooling would end relatively rapidly, posing serious environmental risks. Some environmental risks may remain unknown.

Governing SRM is challenging for multiple reasons, including that several countries would likely be capable of doing it alone.[30] For now, there is no formal international framework designed to regulate SRM, although aspects of existing international law would be applicable. The most common concern about SRM is that its research and evaluation might undermine reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. Issues of governance and effectiveness are intertwined, as poorly governed use of SRM might lead to its highly suboptimal implementation. Thus, many questions regarding the acceptable deployment of SRM, or even its research and development, are currently unanswered.

Passive daytime radiative cooling

Enhancing the thermal emissivity of Earth through passive daytime radiative cooling (PDRC) has been proposed as an alternative or "third approach" to geoengineering[31][32] that is "less intrusive" and more predictable or reversible than stratospheric aerosol injection.[33]

This section is an excerpt from Passive daytime radiative cooling.[edit]
Passive daytime radiative cooling (PDRC) can lower temperatures with zero energy consumption or pollution by radiating heat into outer space. Widespread application has been proposed as a solution to global warming.[34]

Passive daytime radiative cooling (PDRC) is a zero-energy building cooling method proposed as a solution to reduce air conditioning, lower urban heat island effect, cool human body temperatures in extreme heat, move toward carbon neutrality and control global warming by enhancing terrestrial heat flow to outer space through the installation of thermally-emissive surfaces on Earth that require zero energy consumption or pollution.[35][36][37][38][39][34][40][41][42] In contrast to compression-based cooling systems that are prevalently used (e.g., air conditioners), consume substantial amounts of energy, have a net heating effect, require ready access to electricity and often require coolants that are ozone-depleting or have a strong greenhouse effect,[43][44] application of PDRCs may also increase the efficiency of systems benefiting from a better cooling, such like photovoltaic systems, dew collection techniques, and thermoelectric generators.[45][46]

PDRC surfaces are designed to be high in solar reflectance (to minimize heat gain) and strong in longwave infrared (LWIR) thermal radiation heat transfer through the atmosphere's infrared window (8–13 µm) to cool temperatures even during the daytime.[47][48][49] It is also referred to as passive radiative cooling, daytime passive radiative cooling, radiative sky cooling, photonic radiative cooling, and terrestrial radiative cooling.[48][49][45][50] PDRC differs from solar radiation management because it increases radiative heat emission rather than merely reflecting the absorption of solar radiation.[51]

Some estimates propose that if 1–2% of the Earth's surface area were dedicated to PDRC that warming would cease and temperature increases would be rebalanced to survivable levels.[52][49] Regional variations provide different cooling potentials with desert and temperate climates benefiting more from application than tropical climates, attributed to the effects of humidity and cloud cover on reducing the effectiveness of PDRCs.[53][54][55] Low-cost scalable PDRC materials feasible for mass production have been developed, such as coatings, thin films, metafabrics, aerogels, and biodegradable surfaces.

Issues

Artefact

According to climate economist Gernot Wagner the term "geoengineering" is "largely an artefact and a result of the terms frequent use in popular discourse" and "so vague and all-encompassing as to have lost much meaning".[8]: 14 

Moral hazard and ethics

Climate engineering may reduce the urgency of reducing carbon emissions,[56] a form of moral hazard. However, several public opinion surveys and focus groups reported either desire to increase emission cuts in the presence of climate engineering, or of no effect.[57][58][59] Other modelling work suggests that the prospect of climate engineering may in fact increase the likelihood of emissions reduction.[60][61]

If climate engineering can alter the climate then this raises questions whether humans have the right to deliberately change the climate, and under what conditions. For example, using climate engineering to stablize temperatures is not the same as doing so to optimize the climate for some other purpose. Some religious traditions express views on the relationship between humans and their surroundings that encourage (to conduct responsible stewardship) or discourage (to avoid hubris) explicit actions to affect climate.[62]

Opponents offer several objections:[63] Climate engineering could reduce pressure for emissions reductions, which could exacerbate overall climate risks. Also, most efforts have only temporary effects, requiring ever-increasing interventions which imply rapid rebound if they are not sustained. Others assert that the threat of climate engineering could spur emissions cuts.[63][64][65]

Hesitation

Some environmental organizations (such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace) have been reluctant to endorse or oppose solar geoengineering, but are often more supportive of nature-based carbon dioxide removal projects, such as afforestation and peatland restoration.[56][66]

Interventions at large scale run a greater risk of unintended disruptions of natural systems, resulting in a dilemma that they such disruptions might be more damaging than the climate damage that they offset.[9]

Public perception

A large 2018 study used an online survey to investigate public perceptions of six climate engineering methods in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand.[12] Public awareness of climate engineering was low; less than a fifth of respondents reported prior knowledge. Perceptions of the six climate engineering methods proposed (three from the carbon dioxide removal group and three from the solar geoengineering group) were largely negative and frequently associated with attributes like 'risky', 'artificial' and 'unknown effects'. Carbon dioxide removal methods were preferred over solar geoengineering. Public perceptions were remarkably stable with only minor differences between the different countries in the surveys.[12][67]

History

Several organizations have investigated climate engineering with a view to evaluating its potential, including the US Congress,[68] the US National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine,[69] the Royal Society,[70] the UK Parliament,[71] the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,[72] and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IMechE report examined a small subset of proposed methods (air capture, urban albedo and algal-based CO2 capture techniques), and its main conclusions were that climate engineering should be researched and trialed at the small scale alongside a wider decarbonization of the economy.[72]

The Royal Society review examined a wide range of proposed climate engineering methods and evaluated them in terms of effectiveness, affordability, timeliness, and safety (assigning qualitative estimates in each assessment). The key recommendations reports were that "Parties to the UNFCCC should make increased efforts towards mitigating and adapting to climate change, and in particular to agreeing to global emissions reductions", and that "[nothing] now known about geoengineering options gives any reason to diminish these efforts".[73] Nonetheless, the report also recommended that "research and development of climate engineering options should be undertaken to investigate whether low-risk methods can be made available if it becomes necessary to reduce the rate of warming this century".[73]

In 2009, a review examined the scientific plausibility of proposed methods rather than the practical considerations such as engineering feasibility or economic cost. The authors found that "[air] capture and storage shows the greatest potential, combined with afforestation, reforestation and bio-char production", and noted that "other suggestions that have received considerable media attention, in particular, "ocean pipes" appear to be ineffective".[74] They concluded that "[climate] geoengineering is best considered as a potential complement to the mitigation of CO2 emissions, rather than as an alternative to it".[74]

In 2015, the US National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded a 21-month project to study the potential impacts, benefits, and costs of climate engineering. The differences between these two classes of climate engineering "led the committee to evaluate the two types of approaches separately in companion reports, a distinction it hopes carries over to future scientific and policy discussions."[75][76][77] The resulting study titled Climate Intervention was released in February 2015 and consists of two volumes: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth[78] and Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration.[79] According to their brief about the study:[80][78]

Climate intervention is no substitute for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions and adaptation efforts aimed at reducing the negative consequences of climate change. However, as our planet enters a period of changing climate never before experienced in recorded human history, interest is growing in the potential for deliberate intervention in the climate system to counter climate change... Carbon dioxide removal strategies address a key driver of climate change, but research is needed to fully assess if any of these technologies could be appropriate for large-scale deployment. Albedo modification strategies could rapidly cool the planet's surface but pose environmental and other risks that are not well understood and therefore should not be deployed at climate-altering scales; more research is needed to determine if albedo modification approaches could be viable in the future.

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d IPCC (2022) Chapter 1: Introduction and Framing in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA
  2. ^ a b c IPCC, 2021: Annex VII: Glossary [Matthews, J.B.R., V. Möller, R. van Diemen, J.S. Fuglestvedt, V. Masson-Delmotte, C.  Méndez, S. Semenov, A. Reisinger (eds.)]. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2215–2256, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.022.
  3. ^ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering (2021-03-25). Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance. doi:10.17226/25762. ISBN 978-0-309-67605-2. S2CID 234327299. Archived from the original on 2021-04-17. Retrieved 2021-04-17.
  4. ^ Munday, Jeremy (2019). "Tackling Climate Change through Radiative Cooling". Joule. 3 (9). Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-09-27 – via ScienceDirect. Further, radiative cooling cannot be a complete, standalone solution, but rather is part of a more comprehensive approach that must include CO2 reduction. Otherwise, the radiative balance will not last long, and the potential financial benefits of mitigation will not fully be realized because of continued ocean acidification, air pollution, and redistribution of biomass.
  5. ^ Zevenhovena, Ron; Fält, Martin (June 2018). "Radiative cooling through the atmospheric window: A third, less intrusive geoengineering approach". Energy. 152 – via Elsevier Science Direct. An alternative, third geoengineering approach would be enhanced cooling by thermal radiation from the Earth's surface into space.
  6. ^ Wang, Tong; Wu, Yi; Shi, Lan; Hu, Xinhua; Chen, Min; Wu, Limin (2021). "A structural polymer for highly efficient all-day passive radiative cooling". Nature Communications. 12 (365): 365. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-20646-7. PMC 7809060. PMID 33446648. One possibly alternative approach is passive radiative cooling—a sky-facing surface on the Earth spontaneously cools by radiating heat to the ultracold outer space through the atmosphere's longwave infrared (LWIR) transparency window (λ ~ 8–13 μm).
  7. ^ Chen, Meijie; Pang, Dan; Chen, Xingyu; Yan, Hongjie; Yang, Yuan (2022). "Passive daytime radiative cooling: Fundamentals, material designs, and applications". EcoMat. 4. doi:10.1002/eom2.12153. S2CID 240331557 – via Wiley. Passive daytime radiative cooling (PDRC) dissipates terrestrial heat to the extremely cold outer space without using any energy input or producing pollution. It has the potential to simultaneously alleviate the two major problems of energy crisis and global warming.
  8. ^ a b Gernot Wagner (2021). Geoengineering: the Gamble.
  9. ^ a b Matthias Honegger; Axel Michaelowa; Sonja Butzengeiger-Geyer (2012). Climate Engineering – Avoiding Pandora's Box through Research and Governance (PDF). FNI Climate Policy Perspectives. Fridtjof Nansen Institute (FNI), Perspectives. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-09-06. Retrieved 2018-10-09.
  10. ^ Zahra Hirji (October 6, 2016). "Removing CO2 From the Air Only Hope for Fixing Climate Change, New Study Says; Without 'negative emissions' to help return atmospheric CO2 to 350 ppm, future generations could face costs that 'may become too heavy to bear,' paper says". insideclimatenews.org. InsideClimate News. Archived from the original on November 17, 2019. Retrieved October 7, 2016.
  11. ^ IPCC (2022). Global Warming of 1.5°C: IPCC Special Report on impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels in context of strengthening response to climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty (1 ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781009157940.008. ISBN 978-1-009-15794-0.
  12. ^ a b c Carlisle, Daniel P.; Feetham, Pamela M.; Wright, Malcolm J.; Teagle, Damon A. H. (2020-04-12). "The public remain uninformed and wary of climate engineering" (PDF). Climatic Change. 160 (2): 303–322. Bibcode:2020ClCh..160..303C. doi:10.1007/s10584-020-02706-5. ISSN 1573-1480. S2CID 215731777. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2021-06-14. Retrieved 2021-05-18.
  13. ^ Dominic Woolf; James E. Amonette; F. Alayne Street-Perrott; Johannes Lehmann; Stephen Joseph (August 2010). "Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change". Nature Communications. 1 (5): 56. Bibcode:2010NatCo...1E..56W. doi:10.1038/ncomms1053. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 2964457. PMID 20975722.
  14. ^ Obersteiner, M. (2001). "Managing Climate Risk". Science. 294 (5543): 786–7. doi:10.1126/science.294.5543.786b. PMID 11681318. S2CID 34722068.
  15. ^ "Guest post: How 'enhanced weathering' could slow climate change and boost crop yields". Carbon Brief. 2018-02-19. Archived from the original on 2021-09-08. Retrieved 2021-11-03.
  16. ^ Committee on Geoengineering Climate: Technical Evaluation and Discussion of Impacts; Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate; Ocean Studies Board; Division on Earth and Life Studies; National Research Council (2015). Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth. National Academies Press. ISBN 978-0-309-31482-4. Archived from the original on 2019-12-14. Retrieved 2016-10-21.
  17. ^ Kaufman, Rachel (August 8, 2012). "Could Space Mirrors Stop Global Warming?". Live Science. Retrieved 2019-11-08.
  18. ^ Sánchez, Joan-Pau; McInnes, Colin R. (2015-08-26). "Optimal Sunshade Configurations for Space-Based Geoengineering near the Sun-Earth L1 Point". PLOS ONE. 10 (8): e0136648. Bibcode:2015PLoSO..1036648S. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0136648. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 4550401. PMID 26309047.
  19. ^ Crutzen, P. J. (2006). "Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections: A Contribution to Resolve a Policy Dilemma?". Climatic Change. 77 (3–4): 211–220. Bibcode:2006ClCh...77..211C. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9101-y.
  20. ^ Buis, Alan (November 7, 2019). "Examining the Viability of Planting Trees to Help Mitigate Climate Change". Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. Retrieved 2023-04-13.
  21. ^ Marshall, Michael (26 May 2020). "Planting trees doesn't always help with climate change". BBC. Retrieved 2023-04-13.
  22. ^ IPCC, 2021: "Annex VII: Glossary". Matthews, J.B.R., V. Möller, R. van Diemen, J.S. Fuglestvedt, V. Masson-Delmotte, C. Méndez, S. Semenov, A. Reisinger (eds.). In "Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2215–2256, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.022
  23. ^ Schenuit, Felix; Colvin, Rebecca; Fridahl, Mathias; McMullin, Barry; Reisinger, Andy; Sanchez, Daniel L.; Smith, Stephen M.; Torvanger, Asbjørn; Wreford, Anita; Geden, Oliver (2021-03-04). "Carbon Dioxide Removal Policy in the Making: Assessing Developments in 9 OECD Cases". Frontiers in Climate. 3: 638805. doi:10.3389/fclim.2021.638805. hdl:1885/270309. ISSN 2624-9553.
  24. ^ Geden, Oliver (May 2016). "An actionable climate target". Nature Geoscience. 9 (5): 340–342. Bibcode:2016NatGe...9..340G. doi:10.1038/ngeo2699. ISSN 1752-0908. Archived from the original on May 25, 2021. Retrieved March 7, 2021.
  25. ^ Ho, David T. (2023-04-04). "Carbon dioxide removal is not a current climate solution — we need to change the narrative". Nature. 616 (7955): 9. Bibcode:2023Natur.616....9H. doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00953-x. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 37016122. S2CID 257915220.
  26. ^ a b c M. Pathak, R. Slade, P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Pichs-Madruga, D. Ürge-Vorsatz,2022: Technical Summary. In: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. doi: 10.1017/9781009157926.002.
  27. ^ Lebling, Katie; Northrop, Eliza; McCormick, Colin; Bridgwater, Liz (November 15, 2022), "Toward Responsible and Informed Ocean-Based Carbon Dioxide Removal: Research and Governance Priorities" (PDF), World Resources Institute: 11, doi:10.46830/wrirpt.21.00090, S2CID 253561039
  28. ^ Schenuit, Felix; Gidden, Matthew J.; Boettcher, Miranda; Brutschin, Elina; Fyson, Claire; Gasser, Thomas; Geden, Oliver; Lamb, William F.; Mace, M. J.; Minx, Jan; Riahi, Keywan (2023-10-03). "Secure robust carbon dioxide removal policy through credible certification". Communications Earth & Environment. 4 (1): 349. Bibcode:2023ComEE...4..349S. doi:10.1038/s43247-023-01014-x. ISSN 2662-4435.
  29. ^ a b Trisos, Christopher H.; Geden, Oliver; Seneviratne, Sonia I.; Sugiyama, Masahiro; van Aalst, Maarten; Bala, Govindasamy; Mach, Katharine J.; Ginzburg, Veronika; de Coninck, Heleen; Patt, Anthony. "Cross-Working Group Box SRM: Solar Radiation Modification" (PDF). Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. p. 221-222. doi:10.1017/9781009325844.004. In Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke,V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)].
  30. ^ Gernot Wagner (2021). Geoengineering: the Gamble.
  31. ^ Zevenhovena, Ron; Fält, Martin (June 2018). "Radiative cooling through the atmospheric window: A third, less intrusive geoengineering approach". Energy. 152 – via Elsevier Science Direct. An alternative, third geoengineering approach would be enhanced cooling by thermal radiation from the Earth's surface into space.
  32. ^ Wang, Tong; Wu, Yi; Shi, Lan; Hu, Xinhua; Chen, Min; Wu, Limin (2021). "A structural polymer for highly efficient all-day passive radiative cooling". Nature Communications. 12 (365). Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-09-27 – via nature.com. One possibly alternative approach is passive radiative cooling—a sky-facing surface on the Earth spontaneously cools by radiating heat to the ultracold outer space through the atmosphere's longwave infrared (LWIR) transparency window (λ ~ 8–13 μm).
  33. ^ Munday, Jeremy (2019). "Tackling Climate Change through Radiative Cooling". Joule. 3 (9): 2057–2060. doi:10.1016/j.joule.2019.07.010. S2CID 201590290. Archived from the original on 2022-02-22. Retrieved 2022-09-27 – via ScienceDirect. A reduction in solar absorption is usually proposed through the injection of reflective aerosols into the atmosphere; however, serious concerns have been raised regarding side effects of these forms of geoengineering and our ability to undo any of the climatic changes we create.
  34. ^ a b Chen, Meijie; Pang, Dan; Chen, Xingyu; Yan, Hongjie; Yang, Yuan (2022). "Passive daytime radiative cooling: Fundamentals, material designs, and applications". EcoMat. 4. doi:10.1002/eom2.12153. S2CID 240331557. Passive daytime radiative cooling (PDRC) dissipates terrestrial heat to the extremely cold outer space without using any energy input or producing pollution. It has the potential to simultaneously alleviate the two major problems of energy crisis and global warming.
  35. ^ Bijarniya, Jay Prakash; Sarkar, Jahar; Maiti, Pralay (November 2020). "Review on passive daytime radiative cooling: Fundamentals, recent researches, challenges and opportunities". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 133: 110263. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2020.110263. S2CID 224874019 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  36. ^ Chen, Meijie; Pang, Dan; Chen, Xingyu; Yan, Hongjie; Yang, Yuan (2022). "Passive daytime radiative cooling: Fundamentals, material designs, and applications". EcoMat. 4. doi:10.1002/eom2.12153. S2CID 240331557.
  37. ^ Wang, Tong; Wu, Yi; Shi, Lan; Hu, Xinhua; Chen, Min; Wu, Limin (2021). "A structural polymer for highly efficient all-day passive radiative cooling". Nature Communications. 12 (365): 365. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-20646-7. PMC 7809060. PMID 33446648. One possibly alternative approach is passive radiative cooling—a sky-facing surface on the Earth spontaneously cools by radiating heat to the ultracold outer space through the atmosphere's longwave infrared (LWIR) transparency window (λ ~ 8–13 μm).
  38. ^ Khan, Ansar; Carlosena, Laura; Feng, Jie; Khorat, Samiran; Khatun, Rupali; Doan, Quang-Van; Santamouris, Mattheos (January 2022). "Optically Modulated Passive Broadband Daytime Radiative Cooling Materials Can Cool Cities in Summer and Heat Cities in Winter". Sustainability. 14 – via MDPI.
  39. ^ Liang, Jun; Wu, Jiawei; Guo, Jun; Li, Huagen; Zhou, Xianjun; Liang, Sheng; Qiu, Cheng-Wei; Tao, Guangming (September 2022). "Radiative cooling for passive thermal management towards sustainable carbon neutrality". National Science Review. 10 (1): nwac208. doi:10.1093/nsr/nwac208. PMC 9843130. PMID 36684522.
  40. ^ Munday, Jeremy (2019). "Tackling Climate Change through Radiative Cooling". Joule. 3 (9): 2057–2060. doi:10.1016/j.joule.2019.07.010. S2CID 201590290. By covering the Earth with a small fraction of thermally emitting materials, the heat flow away from the Earth can be increased, and the net radiative flux can be reduced to zero (or even made negative), thus stabilizing (or cooling) the Earth.
  41. ^ Yin, Xiaobo; Yang, Ronggui; Tan, Gang; Fan, Shanhui (November 2020). "Terrestrial radiative cooling: Using the cold universe as a renewable and sustainable energy source". Science. 370 (6518): 786–791. Bibcode:2020Sci...370..786Y. doi:10.1126/science.abb0971. PMID 33184205. S2CID 226308213. ...terrestrial radiative cooling has emerged as a promising solution for mitigating urban heat islands and for potentially fighting against global warming if it can be implemented at a large scale.
  42. ^ Bijarniya, Jay Prakash; Sarkar, Jahar; Maiti, Pralay (November 2020). "Review on passive daytime radiative cooling: Fundamentals, recent researches, challenges and opportunities". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 133: 110263. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2020.110263. S2CID 224874019 – via Elsevier Science Direct. Passive radiative cooling can be considered as a renewable energy source, which can pump heat to cold space and make the devices more efficient than ejecting heat at earth atmospheric temperature.
  43. ^ Chen, Guoliang; Wang, Yaming; Qiu, Jun; Cao, Jianyun; Zou, Yongchun; Wang, Shuqi; Jia, Dechang; Zhou, Yu (August 2021). "A facile bioinspired strategy for accelerating water collection enabled by passive radiative cooling and wettability engineering". Materials & Design. 206: 109829. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2021.109829. S2CID 236255835.
  44. ^ Chang, Kai; Zhang, Qingyuan (2019). "Modeling of downward longwave radiation and radiative cooling potential in China". Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy. 11 (6): 066501. doi:10.1063/1.5117319. S2CID 209774036.
  45. ^ a b Heo, Se-Yeon; Ju Lee, Gil; Song, Young Min (June 2022). "Heat-shedding with photonic structures: radiative cooling and its potential". Journal of Materials Chemistry C. 10 (27): 9915–9937. doi:10.1039/D2TC00318J. S2CID 249695930 – via Royal Society of Chemistry.
  46. ^ Ahmed, Salman; Li, Zhenpeng; Javed, Muhammad Shahzad; Ma, Tao (September 2021). "A review on the integration of radiative cooling and solar energy harvesting". Materials Today: Energy. 21: 100776. doi:10.1016/j.mtener.2021.100776 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  47. ^ "What is 3M Passive Radiative Cooling?". 3M. Archived from the original on 2021-09-22. Retrieved 2022-09-27. Passive Radiative Cooling is a natural phenomenon that only occurs at night in nature because all nature materials absorb more solar energy during the day than they are able to radiate to the sky.
  48. ^ a b Wang, Tong; Wu, Yi; Shi, Lan; Hu, Xinhua; Chen, Min; Wu, Limin (2021). "A structural polymer for highly efficient all-day passive radiative cooling". Nature Communications. 12 (365): 365. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-20646-7. PMC 7809060. PMID 33446648. Accordingly, designing and fabricating efficient PDRC with sufficiently high solar reflectance (𝜌¯solar) (λ ~ 0.3–2.5 μm) to minimize solar heat gain and simultaneously strong LWIR thermal emittance (ε¯LWIR) to maximize radiative heat loss is highly desirable. When the incoming radiative heat from the Sun is balanced by the outgoing radiative heat emission, the temperature of the Earth can reach its steady state.
  49. ^ a b c Zevenhovena, Ron; Fält, Martin (June 2018). "Radiative cooling through the atmospheric window: A third, less intrusive geoengineering approach". Energy. 152: 27. Bibcode:2018Ene...152...27Z. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.03.084. S2CID 116318678 – via Elsevier Science Direct. An alternative, third geoengineering approach would be enhanced cooling by thermal radiation from the Earth's surface into space." [...] "With 100 W/m2 as a demonstrated passive cooling effect, a surface coverage of 0.3% would then be needed, or 1% of Earth's land mass surface. If half of it would be installed in urban, built areas which cover roughly 3% of the Earth's land mass, a 17% coverage would be needed there, with the remainder being installed in rural areas.
  50. ^ Aili, Ablimit; Yin, Xiaobo; Yang, Ronggui (October 2021). "Global Radiative Sky Cooling Potential Adjusted for Population Density and Cooling Demand". Atmosphere. 12 (11): 1379. Bibcode:2021Atmos..12.1379A. doi:10.3390/atmos12111379.
  51. ^ Munday, Jeremy (2019). "Tackling Climate Change through Radiative Cooling". Joule. 3 (9): 2057–2060. doi:10.1016/j.joule.2019.07.010. S2CID 201590290. By covering the Earth with a small fraction of thermally emitting materials, the heat flow away from the Earth can be increased, and the net radiative flux can be reduced to zero (or even made negative), thus stabilizing (or cooling) the Earth.
  52. ^ Munday, Jeremy (2019). "Tackling Climate Change through Radiative Cooling". Joule. 3 (9): 2057–2060. doi:10.1016/j.joule.2019.07.010. S2CID 201590290. If only 1%–2% of the Earth's surface were instead made to radiate at this rate rather than its current average value, the total heat fluxes into and away from the entire Earth would be balanced and warming would cease.
  53. ^ Han, Di; Fei, Jipeng; Li, Hong; Ng, Bing Feng (August 2022). "The criteria to achieving sub-ambient radiative cooling and its limits in tropical daytime". Building and Environment. 221 (1): 109281. Bibcode:2022BuEnv.22109281H. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109281 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  54. ^ Huang, Jingyuan; Lin, Chongjia; Li, Yang; Huang, Baoling (May 2022). "Effects of humidity, aerosol, and cloud on subambient radiative cooling". International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer. 186: 122438. doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2021.122438. S2CID 245805048 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  55. ^ Liu, Junwei; Zhang, Ji; Zhang, Debao; Jiao, Shifei; Xing, Jingcheng; Tang, Huajie; Zhang, Ying; Li, Shuai; Zhou, Zhihua; Zuo, Jian (September 2020). "Sub-ambient radiative cooling with wind cover". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 130: 109935. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2020.109935. S2CID 219911962 – via Elsevier Science Direct.
  56. ^ a b Adam, David (1 September 2008). "Extreme and risky action the only way to tackle global warming, say scientists". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2019-08-06. Retrieved 2009-05-23.
  57. ^ Kahan, Dan M.; Jenkins-Smith, Hank; Tarantola, Tor; Silva, Carol L.; Braman, Donald (2015-03-01). "Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization Testing a Two-Channel Model of Science Communication". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 658 (1): 192–222. doi:10.1177/0002716214559002. ISSN 0002-7162. S2CID 149147565.
  58. ^ Wibeck, Victoria; Hansson, Anders; Anshelm, Jonas (2015-05-01). "Questioning the technological fix to climate change – Lay sense-making of geoengineering in Sweden". Energy Research & Social Science. 7: 23–30. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2015.03.001.
  59. ^ Merk, Christine; Pönitzsch, Gert; Kniebes, Carola; Rehdanz, Katrin; Schmidt, Ulrich (2015-02-10). "Exploring public perceptions of stratospheric sulfate injection". Climatic Change. 130 (2): 299–312. Bibcode:2015ClCh..130..299M. doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1317-7. ISSN 0165-0009. S2CID 154196324.
  60. ^ Urpelainen, Johannes (2012-02-10). "Geoengineering and global warming: a strategic perspective". International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. 12 (4): 375–389. doi:10.1007/s10784-012-9167-0. ISSN 1567-9764. S2CID 154422202.
  61. ^ Moreno-Cruz, Juan B. (2015-08-01). "Mitigation and the geoengineering threat". Resource and Energy Economics. 41: 248–263. doi:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2015.06.001. hdl:1853/44254.
  62. ^ Clingerman, F.; O'Brien, K. (2014). "Playing God: why religion belongs in the climate engineering debate". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 70 (3): 27–37. Bibcode:2014BuAtS..70c..27C. doi:10.1177/0096340214531181. S2CID 143742343.
  63. ^ a b "Geoengineering". International Risk Governance Council. 2009. Archived from the original on 2009-12-03. Retrieved 2009-10-07.
  64. ^ Reynolds, Jesse (2015-08-01). "A critical examination of the climate engineering moral hazard and risk compensation concern". The Anthropocene Review. 2 (2): 174–191. doi:10.1177/2053019614554304. ISSN 2053-0196. S2CID 59407485.
  65. ^ Morrow, David R. (2014-12-28). "Ethical aspects of the mitigation obstruction argument against climate engineering research". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 372 (2031): 20140062. Bibcode:2014RSPTA.37240062M. doi:10.1098/rsta.2014.0062. ISSN 1364-503X. PMID 25404676.
  66. ^ Parr, Doug (1 September 2008). "Geo-engineering is no solution to climate change". Guardian Newspaper. London. Archived from the original on 2018-08-20. Retrieved 2009-05-23.
  67. ^ Wright, Malcolm J.; Teagle, Damon A. H.; Feetham, Pamela M. (February 2014). "A quantitative evaluation of the public response to climate engineering". Nature Climate Change. 4 (2): 106–110. Bibcode:2014NatCC...4..106W. doi:10.1038/nclimate2087. ISSN 1758-6798. Archived from the original on 2020-07-28. Retrieved 2020-05-22.
  68. ^ Bullis, Kevin. "U.S. Congress Considers Geoengineering". MIT Technology Review. Archived from the original on 26 January 2013. Retrieved 26 December 2012.
  69. ^ "Climate Intervention Reports » Climate Change at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine". nas-sites.org. Archived from the original on 2016-07-29. Retrieved 2015-11-02.
  70. ^ "Stop emitting CO2 or geoengineering could be our only hope" (Press release). The Royal Society. 28 August 2009. Archived from the original on 24 June 2011. Retrieved 14 June 2011.
  71. ^ "Geo-engineering research" (PDF). Postnote. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. March 2009. Retrieved 2022-09-11.
  72. ^ a b "Geo-engineering – Giving us the time to act?". I Mech E. Archived from the original on 2011-07-22. Retrieved 2011-03-12.
  73. ^ a b Working group (2009). Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty (PDF) (Report). London: The Royal Society. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-85403-773-5. RS1636. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2014-03-12. Retrieved 2011-12-01.
  74. ^ a b Lenton, T.M.; Vaughan, N.E. (2009). "The radiative forcing potential of different climate geoengineering options". Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. 9 (15): 5539–5561. Bibcode:2009ACP.....9.5539L. doi:10.5194/acp-9-5539-2009. Archived from the original on 2019-12-14. Retrieved 2009-09-04.
  75. ^ "Climate Intervention Is Not a Replacement for Reducing Carbon Emissions; Proposed Intervention Techniques Not Ready for Wide-Scale Deployment". NEWS from the national academies (Press release). Feb 10, 2015. Archived from the original on 2015-11-17. Retrieved 2015-11-24.
  76. ^ National Research Council (2017). Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth. The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/18988. ISBN 978-0-309-31482-4. Ebook: ISBN 978-0-309-31485-5.
  77. ^ Council, National Research (2015). Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration. doi:10.17226/18805. ISBN 978-0-309-30529-7. Archived from the original on 2018-08-21. Retrieved 2018-08-20.
  78. ^ a b Council, National Research (2015). Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth. ISBN 978-0-309-31482-4. Archived from the original on 2019-12-14. Retrieved 2018-08-20.
  79. ^ Council, National Research (2015). Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration. ISBN 978-0-309-30529-7. Archived from the original on 2018-08-21. Retrieved 2018-08-20.
  80. ^ "Climate Intervention Reports » Climate Change at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine". nas-sites.org. Archived from the original on 2016-07-29. Retrieved 2015-09-02.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_engineering&oldid=1124698565"