2014

Geoengineering of
Climate: What, How
and Why
ASL410

Submitted By:Raghavender Goel

Nitesh Kumar
Jatin Sarode
Kunal lohia
Sunil Dudi

EVALUATION OF GEOENGINEERING (IPCC)

The comparative evaluation of the relative merits of various technologies of climate
geoengineering is complicated, especially given modelling uncertainties and the early stage of
engineering development of many geoengineering schemes.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has assessed the scientific literature on
climate engineering. The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report was published in 2007. It states:
Geo-engineering options, such as ocean fertilization to remove CO2 directly from the
atmosphere, or blocking sunlight by bringing material into the upper atmosphere, remain largely
speculative and unproven, and with the risk of unknown side-effects. Reliable cost estimates for
these options have not been published.
The IPCC's fifth Assessment Report was published in 2013. It states:
Models suggest that if SRM methods were realizable they would be effective in countering
increasing temperatures, and would be less, but still, effective in countering some other climate
changes. SRM would not counter all effects of climate change, and all proposed geoengineering
methods also carry risks and side effects. Additional consequences cannot yet be anticipated as
the level of scientific understanding about both SRM and CDR is low. There are also many
(political, ethical, and practical) issues involving geoengineering that are beyond the scope of
this report.
CARBON DIOXIDE REMOVAL TECHNIQUE
Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) method is one of the suggested method which can be used to
engineer the climate by removing the amount of carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere.
Number of technologies have been developed or are in phase of development which may reduce
the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. To mention some of them are bio-energy with
carbon capture and storage, biochar, direct air capture, ocean fertilization and enhanced
weathering. CDR is a different approach than removing CO2 from the stack emissions of large
fossil fuel point sources, such as power stations. The latter reduces emission to the atmosphere
but cannot reduce the amount of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere. As CDR removes
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, it creates negative emissions, offsetting emissions from
small and dispersed point sources such as domestic heating systems, airplanes and vehicle
exhausts. It is regarded by some as a form of geoengineering, while others regard it as a form of
carbon capture and storage.
The likely need for CDR has been expressed by a range of individuals and organizations
involved with climate change issues, including IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri, the UNFCCC
executive secretary Christiana Figueres, and the World Watch Institute. Institutions with major
programs focusing on CDR include the Lenfest Center for Sustainable Energy at the Earth
Institute, Columbia University, and the Climate Decision Making Center, an international
collaboration operated out of Carnegie-Mellon University's Department of Engineering and
Public Policy.

The mitigation effectiveness of air capture is limited by societal investment, land use, and
availability of geologic reservoirs. These reservoirs are estimated to be sufficient to sequester all
CO2 generated by anthropogenic activities.
Limitations:
Cost of CDR methods differs substantially among the different technologies, some which are not
developed enough to perform cost assessments of. The American Physical Society estimates the
costs for direct air capture to be $600/tonne with optimistic assumptions.The IEA Greenhouse
Gas R&D Programme and Ecofys provides an estimate where 3.5 billion tonnes could be
removed annually from the atmosphere with BECCS prices as low as 50.
Also, CDR is slow to act, and requires a long-term political and engineering program to effect.

SOLAR RADIATION MANAGEMENT

Solar radiation management (SRM) projects are a type of climate engineering which seek to
reflect sunlight and thus reduce global warming. Proposed examples include the creation of
stratospheric sulfate aerosols. They would not reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere, and thus do not address problems such as ocean acidification caused by these gases.
Their principal advantages as an approach to climate engineering is the speed with which they
can be deployed and become fully active, as well as their low financial cost. By comparison,
other climate engineering techniques based on greenhouse gas remediation, such as ocean iron
fertilization, need to sequester the anthropogenic carbon excess before they can arrest global
warming. Solar radiation management projects can therefore be used as a climate engineering
'quick fix' while levels of greenhouse gases can be brought under control by greenhouse gas
remediation techniques. By changing the Earth's reflectivity, scientists propose that we could
reflect more heat back out into space, or intercept sunlight before it reaches the Earth through a
literal shade built in space. A 0.5% albedo increase would roughly halve the effect of CO 2
doubling.
Solar geoengineering approaches work by reflecting to space sunlight that would otherwise have
been absorbed. This can be done by:
(a) Using satellites in space
(b) Injecting aerosols into the stratosphere
(c) Brightening marine clouds
(d) Making the ocean surface more reflective
(e) Growing more reflective plants
(f) Whitening roofs and other built structures.
Limitations:
SRM techniques are being suggested to be implemented locally to control regional climates but
their effectiveness in controlling climates over global boundaries hasnt been tested yet.
Also, risk of abrupt cessation exists. If SRM were to abruptly stop while masking a high degree
of warming, the climate would rapidly warm. This would cause a sudden rise in global
temperatures towards levels which would have existed without the use of the climate engineering
technique. The rapid rise in temperature may lead to more severe consequences than a gradual
rise of the same magnitude.
2

TYPES OF SIMULATIONS
1. Control Simulation
In this kind of simulation, present day conditions are simulated as it is without any
modification to check the accuracy and efficiency of the model being used to evaluate the
possible geoengineering solution to the current problem of climate change and global warming.
Over 200 variables are being used to simulate the various parameters which may directly or
indirectly affect the climatic conditions prevailing at present in the atmosphere over the planet.
All the simulation details are fed in the modelling system and the results are being collected over
a period of months. Simultaneously, the real world conditions are also observed and the data of
various parameters like temperature, wind speeds, precipitation, concentration of various gases,
incoming solar radiations, etc. is collected. Then, the results obtained from the model simulating
the present conditions are compared with the real world observations to check the accuracy of
the model being used. To improve the accuracy of the model is the main focus of control
simulations being conducted.
The data are plotted on same plot and the differences arising between them are studied. The
differences between the control simulations and the observed data are calculated in terms of Root
Mean Square Error (RMSE). As low the RMSE is, more accurate is the model used for climatic
simulations of present conditions.
Some models give quite accurate results in terms of some parameters but fail miserably in terms
of some others. The real challenge in front of the scientists who are trying to develop these
techniques is to improve the accuracy of the other parameters without affecting those which are
giving accurate results presently. Some models prove quite effective in providing accurate results
on land surface but may not be as good in calculating the data for ocean surfaces or atmosphere
above water bodies because the natural phenomena occurring over land surfaces differ from
those occurring in and above oceans.
Also, a result obtained from a model may differ significantly from that obtained from another
model because no two models use same set of parameters. Use of appropriate number of
parameters and giving correct weightage to each one of them are the two major criteria which
may prove to be deciding in terms of selecting a better model for future use and predictions.
One cant exactly simulate the real conditions in any model but as close are the results, more
preferable the model proves to be.
2. Experiment 1- Doubled CO2, Rest Identical to Control
As we know that greenhouse gas emissions have direct impact on the climate and are a major
cause in the present climate change scenario, so in this simulation we vary this parameter to
obtain the predictions about the effect of change in concentration of greenhouse gases on climate
change.
Instead of varying the concentration of other gases present in atmosphere and are likely cause of
global warming, we vary only the concentration of carbon dioxide because it has the main
contribution in climate change among all the greenhouse gases. We try to simulate the condition
when the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is being doubled keeping all the other
parameters identical to the ones in Control simulation and obtain the results.

Also, as we know from the research conducted in the past that CO 2 climate sensitivity has a
component directly due to radiative forcing (hence change in temperature) by CO 2, and a further
contribution arising from climate feedbacks, both positive and negative. "Without any feedbacks,
a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 C global
warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed. The remaining uncertainty is due entirely
to feedbacks in the system, namely, the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud
feedback, and the lapse rate feedback"; addition of these feedbacks leads to a value of the
sensitivity to CO2 doubling of approximately 3 C 1.5 C.
So, we obtain the new plots of various parameters showing the possible change in the climatic
conditions when CO2 concentration is increased to twice of the original value and note their
variations from the plots obtained in the first simulation (Control Simulation).
3. Experiment 2- Doubled CO2, Reduced (1.8% less) Solar Constant, Rest Identical to
Control
Solar constant is the other parameter used in the model simulations. Reducing it will lead to a
reduction in the solar energy reaching the Earths atmosphere. The solar constant, a measure of
flux density, is the amount of solar electromagnetic radiation (the solar irradiance) per unit area
that would be incident on a plane perpendicular to the rays, at a distance of one astronomical unit
(AU) from the Sun (roughly the mean distance from the Sun to the Earth). The solar constant
includes all types of solar radiation, not just the visible light. It is measured by satellite to be
roughly 1.361 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m) at solar minimum and approximately 0.1%
greater (roughly 1.362 kW/m) at solar maximum.
As shown in many researches, the radiative forces increased from doubling the concentrations of
CO2 in the atmosphere can be countered by the radiative forces generated by 1.8% reduction the
value of solar constant. This simulation should therefore present results as close as possible to
the control simulation, i.e., the present day conditions. We try to check the feasibility of the solar
radiation management technologies as these techniques are capable of giving the desired result of
climate engineering in a comparative shorter interval than the other methods like mitigation or
reducing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
NCAR COMMUNITY ATMOSPHERE MODEL (CAM 3.0)
CCM0 and CCM1
Over the last fifteen years, the NCAR Climate and Global Dynamics (CGD) Division has
provided a comprehensive, three-dimensional global atmospheric model to university and NCAR
scientists for use in the analysis and understanding of global climate. Because of its widespread
use, the model was designated a community tool and given the name Community Climate Model
(CCM). The original versions of the NCAR Community Climate Model, CCM0A and CCM0B,
were based on the Australian spectral model and an adiabatic, inviscid version of the ECMWF
spectral model. The CCM0B implementation was constructed so that its simulated climate would

match the earlier CCM0A model to within natural variability, but also provided a more flexible
infrastructure for conducting medium and longrange global forecast studies.
The second generation community model, CCM1, was introduced in July of 1987, and included
a number of significant changes to the model formulation which were manifested in changes to
the simulated climate. Principal changes to the model included major modifications to the
parameterization of radiation, a revised vertical finite-differencing technique for the dynamical
core, modifications to vertical and horizontal diffusion processes, and modifications to the
formulation of surface energy exchange.
CCM2
The most ambitious set of model improvements occurred with the introduction of the third
generation of the Community Climate Model, CCM2, which was released in October of 1992.
This version was the product of a major effort to improve the physical representation of a wide
range of key climate processes, including clouds and radiation, moist convection, the planetary
boundary layer, and transport. The introduction of this model also marked a new philosophy with
respect to implementation.
CCM3
The CCM3 was the fourth generation in the series of NCARs Community Climate Model. Many
aspects of the model formulation and implementation were identical to the CCM2, although there
were a number of important changes that were incorporated into the collection of parameterized
physics, along with some modest changes to the dynamical formalism. Modifications to the
physical representation of specific climate processes in the CCM3 were motivated by the need to
address the more serious systematic errors apparent in CCM2 simulations, as well as to make the
atmospheric model more suitable for coupling to land, ocean, and sea-ice component models.
CAM 3.0
The CAM 3.0 is the fifth generation of the NCAR atmospheric GCM. The name of the model
series has been changed from Community Climate Model to Community Atmosphere Model to
reflect the role of CAM 3.0 in the fully coupled climate system. In contrast to previous
generations of the atmospheric model, CAM 3.0 has been designed through a collaborative
process with users and developers in the Atmospheric Model Working Group (AMWG). The
AMWG includes scientists from NCAR, the university community, and government laboratories.
For CAM 3.0, the AMWG proposed testing a variety of dynamical cores and convective
parameterizations. The data from these experiments has been freely shared among the AMWG,
particularly with member organizations (e.g. PCMDI) with methods for comparing modeled
climates against observations.
The major changes from the previous versions in the physics include:
Treatment of cloud condensed water using a prognostic treatment
A new thermodynamic package for sea ice
Explicit representation of fractional land and sea-ice coverage

A new, general, and flexible treatment of geometrical cloud overlap in the radiation
calculations
A new parameterization for the long wave absorptivity and emissivity of water vapor
The near-infrared absorption by water vapor has been updated
The uniform background aerosol has been replaced with a present-day climatology of
sulfate, sea-salt, carbonaceous, and soil-dust aerosols
Evaporation of convective precipitation following Sundqvist [1988]
A careful formulation of vertical diffusion of dry static energy
A new, extensible sea-surface temperature boundary data set
Clean separation between the physics and dynamics