New update from Project Save the World
Episode 621 Oceans and Spray: Climate Researchers Discuss Marine Cloud Brightening
Some of the most provocative discussions of climate that Project has hosted revolved around marine cloud brightening (MCB), a scientific innovation that reflects sunlight to cool the Earth.
|
Marine Cloud Brightening has sparked a wave of research and debate. In this fascinating discussion, three experts—Jessica Wan, Patricia Quinn, and Robert Tulip—explored both the potential and the risks of this geoengineering approach. (Excuse the expression! Some scientists try not to mention the word “geoengineering” because so many people react viscerally against it and end the conversation abruptly. But I assume that my readers are all open-minded, aren’t you? And some of you are climate scientists yourselves.)
What is Marine Cloud Brightening?
Thanks for reading Project Save the World’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
At its core, marine cloud brightening is a proposed climate intervention that involves spraying seawater particles into the atmosphere to brighten clouds and increase their reflectivity. The idea is simple: white clouds reflect sunlight back into space, potentially cooling the planet and helping to mitigate global warming.
Jessica Wan, Patricia Quinn, and Robert Tulip
Jessica Wan, a PhD student studying marine cloud brightening, explained her work on modeling its effects in the Pacific Ocean. Through computer simulations, Jessica has modeled the regional impacts of MCB over areas such as California and the Aleutian Islands, showing that while it might offer short-term cooling effects, it could have unintended consequences in the long run—especially as the climate continues to warm.
The Challenges and Implications
Patricia Quinn, a senior researcher at NOAA, provided valuable insights into the complexities of atmospheric particulates and aerosols. She reminded us that while sulfates naturally occur in the atmosphere—emitted from phytoplankton and even from industrial sources like coal plants—the reduction of these particles apparently unintentionally contribute to global warming. This paradox, where efforts to clean up pollution might inadvertently exacerbate climate change, complicates the decision-making around geoengineering solutions like MCB.
One of the key insights from the conversation was the issue of teleconnections—the phenomenon where local interventions (like marine cloud brightening over the Pacific) can have far-reaching effects on other regions of the world. Jessica’s research revealed that cooling the ocean in one part of the world can influence temperatures on land far away, from North America to Europe. This is a reminder that climate is a global system, and any intervention must be studied and implemented with careful consideration of its global implications.
A Heated Debate: To Act or Not to Act?
The discussion also highlighted the deep divisions within the scientific community regarding the viability and ethical considerations of geoengineering. Robert Tulip, a climate repair advocate, underscored the urgency of finding solutions to slow down climate change, but raised critical governance concerns. If marine cloud brightening is ever to be deployed at scale, it will require global cooperation and oversight. The question remains: who gets to decide when and where these interventions happen? And what are the risks of unintended consequences?
Jessica’s findings suggest that MCB, while promising in certain contexts, might not be as effective in a warming world. By 2050, the same intervention might no longer deliver the cooling effects it promises today. This raises important questions about the role of geoengineering in climate strategy. Should we rush to experiment with MCB, or should we focus on understanding its risks in more detail before any real-world application?
Looking Forward: The Future of Marine Cloud Brightening
As the conversation drew to a close, there was a consensus that more research is needed. While the technology to implement marine cloud brightening at a large scale is now in its infancy, the discussion highlighted the urgency of continuing, and even expanding, such experimentation. Patricia and Jessica agreed that small-scale studies are crucial in advancing our understanding of MCB’s potential benefits and risks.
The panelists mentioned two recent experiments. One is an ongoing, long-term application of MCB to cool the waters and save the corals forming the Great Barrier Reef outside Australia. The local people, including indigenous groups, strongly support the measure.
On the other hand, there was a brief recent test in the San Francisco Bay, which spooked the local townspeople of Alameda into prohibiting it, though there would have been no possible harm in spraying a little more sea water into the air short period. As Robert pointed out, global cooperation and governance will be required to ensure that all geoengineering experiments are conducted responsibly.
The debate over MCB is just one part of the larger conversation about climate solutions. But it is an important one. The fact that small-scale interventions could have large-scale impacts underscores the complexity of managing climate change in a way that benefits everyone. It also reminds us that as we seek to mitigate climate risks, we must remain vigilant, recognizing the interconnectedness of our planet’s systems as well as the rapid approach of probable catastrophic climate change.
Conclusion: A Critical Moment in Climate Research
This conversation is an important contribution to the ongoing discourse on geoengineering and climate intervention. While marine cloud brightening offers exciting possibilities, its implementation is far from straightforward. The global implications of any climate intervention, particularly those that are based on geoengineering, should ordinarily proceed through prolonged phases of deep research. The question is: should scientists slow down and approach research cautiously, or is the global climate warming so fast that some interventions should be deployed as rapidly as possible, though if harmful effects arise, it may be necessary to stop suddenly?
For now, the debate continues. This conversation is far from over, and it will be critical to shaping the future of our planet.
Thanks for reading Project Save the World’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Project Save the World’s Substack is free today. But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell Project Save the World’s Substack that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription. You won’t be charged unless they enable payments.
