By Phil Berardelli
ScienceNOW Daily News
13 March 2009
Aerosol particles come from sources as diverse as industrial smokestacks and volcanoes. Even at low concentrations, they can scatter sunlight, lessening its intensity and therefore the amount of heat it delivers to the surface. Scientists were treated to a firsthand look at the effect in 1991, when Mount Pinatubo erupted. The Philippine volcano ejected about 15 million metric tons of sulfur-dioxide?aden dust into the air, cooling the planets average temperature by about 0.6??C for nearly 2 years. Based on that event, some scientists have advocated replicating it artificially to help offset greenhouse-gas buildup in the atmosphere (ScienceNOW, 28 January). The idea would be to spread sulfur aerosols by high-flying jets, balloons, and even rockets on a periodic or regular basis.
But how effective would such a scheme be? Thats what an atmospheric physicist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations (NOAAs) Earth System Research Lab in Boulder, Colorado, attempted to quantify. Using well-established data on the light-diffusing effects of aerosol particles, Daniel Murphy calculated that the geoengineering scheme currently envisioned could reduce incoming sunlight by about 3%. That squares with data from the Mount Pinatubo eruption.
The geoengineering scheme would also mean 3% less sunlight reaching flat photovoltaic collectors that generate electricity. But the aerosols would cut the available solar radiation even more to dish- and tube-shaped collectors that use mirrors to concentrate sunlight. Murphys research shows that for every watt per square meter of sunlight diffused by the aerosols, as much as 5 watts per square meter would be made unavailable to mirrored collectors on the ground. The dimmed sunlight would also reduce the energy collected by solar water heaters, although Murphys paper did not calculate the ratio specifically.
Such a reduction demonstrates the need to pay careful attention "to the potential unintended consequences of employing geoengineering concepts," says Murphys NOAA colleague, atmospheric chemist A. R. Ravishankara.
The paper marks another possible strike against using the particles to geoengineer the climate, says atmospheric scientist Simone Tilmes of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder. The first is the evidence, studied by Tilmes and colleagues last year (ScienceNOW, 24 April 2008), that sulfur particles could damage the planets already fragile ozone layer. "Perhaps we should concentrate on mitigation efforts," she says, and attempt geoengineering as "a last resort, until more research is done."
Join the 25,000 subscribers to get research hotpots, technical tips, latest information on events, sales and offers.
Sign up now!
We don't deal in spam.