A
Two‐Proposal
Review
of
Geoengineering

Methods

and
a
brief
recommendation
to
resolve
global
warming

By
Kelly
Boyd

























PREPARED
FOR:

PROFESSOR
REBECCA
J.
BARTHELMIE
PH.D

DEPARTMENT
OF
GEOGRAPHY

PHYSICAL
METEOROLOGY
AND
CLIMATOLOGY

GEOG‐G532

SPRING
2011


 

GEOG-G532 Geoengineering © Copyright 2011 by
Kelly Boyd
According to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, geoengineering is an approach to

resolve climate change that involves large-scale human intervention in the Earth’s climate

system by means of technology and man-made production.1 They continue by saying

geoengineering can be done in one of two ways by: (i) either removing greenhouse gases

directly from the atmosphere (ii) or reducing the amount of solar radiation that is absorbed by the

climate system.1 This essay will highlight these methods of geoengineering by describing two

different types of proposed technology. In these two analyses of geoengineering technology,

their feasibility in terms of building the technology, the utility of their functionality at reducing

global warming and their reversibility will be examined. Next, their economic cost to society

and a brief explanation describing how large of an expected impact this technology will have on

the global mean temperature once instituted will be discussed. Finally, a solution to global

warming will be reviewed using a combination of technology and other resolutions.

Artificial Trees to Reduce CO2 in the Atmosphere

The mention for large-scale carbon sequestering technology was brought to the attention

by leading climate scientist Wallace S. Broecker’s in his book Fixing Climate.2 He discussed

that “the need for carbon scrubbers to cycle carbon out of the atmosphere and back into the

earth’s crust where it belongs is necessary.”2
With guidance from Dr. Klaus S. Lackner, a

professor of geophysics, earth and environmental engineering at Columbia University, and Dr.

Broecker’s colleague, pioneered the idea of an artificial tree (sometimes referred to as a “sodium

tree”).3 Years later, Dr. Lackner founded Global Research Technologies (GRT) to help find

better ways to improve the process of carbon capture from ambient air.3 In proposed drawings,

the artificial tree first looked like a large tube sticking out of the ground. He first called it an “air

extractor.”3 After further development and with the help of colleagues, a visual example of an


 1

GEOG-G532 Geoengineering © Copyright 2011 by
Kelly Boyd
artificial tree was rendered (see figures 1-2). The artificial tree and “air extractor” are two

different types of technology proposed by GRT.3

Figures 1 and 2- Rendered images of air extractors (left) and artificial trees (right) 3

Engineering Feasibility of the Artificial Trees

According to Lackner in 2008, artificial trees can be ready for use within the next two to

four years.3 The standard tree would stand 197 feet into the air and would be able to pivot 360°

in any direction in order to maximize wind flow.4 The first artificial tree prototype developed by

GRT had a patent to use sodium hydroxide resin panels that captures CO2 from its screens.5

But, due to safety issues involved with human handling and cost of sodium hydroxide, a new

technology was developed called the The Atmospheric Carbon Capture Systems (ACCESS™

unit).6 According to Popular Mechanics Magazine, the ACCESS™ unit removes CO2 by having

its screens sprayed with a chemical solution on that bond to the CO2 in the air.6 The solution mix

is then remotely drained off by a PVC pipe system to a separation unit, where the CO2 is isolated

as pure gas through electrodialysis.6 This new form of technology will help reduce the physical

handling of the sodium hydroxide panels. Other than GRT’s ACCESS™ unit of carbon

collection, additional methods of carbon capture are in development using a sodium hydroxide


 2

GEOG-G532 Geoengineering © Copyright 2011 by
Kelly Boyd
spray system or calcium oxide pellets.7 These technologies still need to be researched in their

safety, feasibility and cost to determine if there is a better solution.

According to Dr. Lackner’s technology, the main advantage of the air capture approach is

that it focuses on the reduction of atmospheric CO2 regardless of the source on the planet. It

completes this process through three main stages in the function of the artificial tree:

1. Capture of CO2 from the air into a filter via the ACCESS™ unit
2. Removal of the captured CO2 from the filter
3. Sequestering of the removed carbon from the environment until final disposal.9

Of these three steps, long-term carbon sequestering will be the greatest challenge to engineers.

According to a report by the IPCC in 2007, it will take millions of years for CO2 to return to

solid form.8 To solve this problem of natural long-term phase changes (from gas to a solid),

several methods of CO2 sequestering have been examined, but the most feasible is geological

confinement of CO2 in depleted oil and gas reserves across the world.9 Another form of carbon

sequestering currently being researched by Lackner is a process of solidifying CO2 into CO2

rocks by man-made processes.3 Many more years of research will be required to determine the

appropriate technology for CO2 solidification and the means to help handle with potential CO2

leakage from the ground sequestration.

Impact of Artificial Trees and the Reversibility of CO2 in the Environment

The main impact from artificial trees is the obvious reduction of CO2 in the air, a major

component of greenhouse gases (GHG). If a large number of trees are produced, then a

substantial amount of CO2 can be reduced in the atmosphere world-wide. According to Lackner,

artificial trees will be thousands of times more effective than natural trees by removing CO2

faster.9 Lackner also mentions that trees will be most effective along highways, streets, and

major urban areas where CO2 is particularly high in concentration.9 As of 2009, mankind emits


 3

GEOG-G532 Geoengineering © Copyright 2011 by
Kelly Boyd
approximately twenty-nine gigatons of carbon a year of which approximately fourteen gigatons

is produced by transportation.9 With current proposed trees, it would take in the demand of five

to ten million artificial trees to collect 3.6 gigatons of carbon a year.9 But with better technology,

around five to ten million artificial trees scattered around the world would eventually be

necessary to capture all twenty-nine gigatons of annual CO2 emissions. 9 To add, the current

technology of the trees using the ACCESS™ unit only captures and removes less than one

hundred kilograms of CO2 per day, but GRT predicts with future models, trees would eventually

capture one ton per day or at a rate of three kilograms per second (an amount of gas equivalent to

that produced by 20 cars daily).5, 9 Many more years of research and work need to be done to

better refine the ACCESS™ unit system. If something detrimental, such as a massive decline in

carbon dioxide for plants and other natural processes, then trees can be switched off immediately

and carbon dioxide can be released back into the environment in a controlled manner.

The Cost of Reducing GHG via Artificial Trees

Figure 3- Current GHG Concentrations (Source: NOAA)10
As of January 2011, global mean

GHG concentrations of CO2 are 391.06

ppm (see figure 3).10 In order to reduce

this number to pre-industrial levels or at

the levels at which global mean

temperature will not continue to rise, the

concentration of CO2 would need to be

reduced to 260 - 280 ppm, a decrease in

order of 131 to 111 ppm.8 According to a UNFCCC meeting in Cancun, MX in November of

2010, it would take two gigatons of CO2 to reduce the concentration of CO2 by 1ppm in the


 4

GEOG-G532 Geoengineering © Copyright 2011 by
Kelly Boyd
atmosphere.11 To put this needed reduction in an economic scale, it would cost $10 to $15 trillion

(USD) to reduce the CO2 concentration 50 parts per million worldwide with proposed

technology.4

The monetary cost of manufacturing of artificial trees is expensive, but with newer

cheaper technology and mass production, Dr. Lackner predicts the cost could drop to $20,000-

$30,000 a tree.9 About twenty percent of the cost is accounted for in building the trees with the

remaining amount being absorbed by the sorbent filter materials for carbon filtration.9 The

filtering of CO2 and containment would be an estimate in cost of $300 per ton.4 But according

to Lackner, "In the long term, the price will come down to $30 per ton.”3

Artificial Trees Effects on Global Mean Temperature

As mentioned earlier, artificial trees will be successful at reducing CO2 in the

atmosphere, which will change the atmosphere’s CO2 concentrations. A reduction in the

greenhouse gas will eventually change the emissivity of earth’s atmosphere. Emissivity is the

percentage of energy radiated by a substance relative to that of a blackbody or the efficiency with

which a material radiates infrared energy.12,13 Emissivity plays a vital role in the global mean

temperature of earth by means of the zero global energy balance model of Earth (𝑆 1 − 𝛼 𝜋𝑟 ! =

𝜀𝜎𝑇 ! 4𝜋𝑟 ! ). The sun allows for shortwave incoming radiation to enter the atmosphere, and in

response, the Earth emits longwave energy to keep the temperature in balance. Sometimes part of

the longwave radiation is absorbed by gases in our atmosphere. This phenomenon describes the

greenhouse effect and properties of emissivity of GHG. In this case, emissivity is a function of

the measure of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Based on current averages, the emissivity

of earth is 0.68.14 If CO2 would continue to rise, this number would decrease, allowing for more


 5

 GEOG-G532 Geoengineering © Copyright 2011 by
Kelly Boyd
absorption of longwave energy which would cause the global mean temperature of earth to rise.

A slight increase or decrease of emissivity can dramatically affect the earth’s climates. The

last ice age had an emissivity of

Desired
Temperature (⁰C) Emissivity Increase
Emissivity 0.72, only a 0.04 difference
Current (14.5) N/A Current - 0.680
13.5 0.008 0.688 from current levels.12 To reduce
12.5 0.016 0.696
11.5 0.024 0.704 current global mean
10.5 0.032 0.712
9.5 0.040 0.720 temperatures by 2-6 degrees °C
8.5 0.049 0.729
Figure 4 - A chart representing the increase in emissivity to the degree of degrease in global using the zero-dimensional
mean temperature

energy balance model to solve for emissivity and assuming the following: a global average

albedo of 0.32, a solar constant of 1.37 KW/m², the global mean temperature of 14.5° C or

287.65 Kelvin, and the Stephan-Boltzman constant of 5.67 x 10-8W/m2 K4, the emissivity would

need to increase anywhere between 0.01 to 0.05 for a 1-6° C decrease in temperature.15, 16, 17, 18

Wind-Driven Spray Vessels to Reduce Solar Radiation

The second type geoengineering technology is the Wind-Driven Spray Vessels that
Figure
5—A
rendering
of
the
wind‐driven
spray
vessel20

enhances marine cloud cover to increase

cloud reflectivity of sunlight (see figure

5). John Latham first received the idea

of the spray vessel when “tinkering”

around with marine cloud calculations to

offset global warming in the 1990’s via

the Twomey Effect.7, 19 The Twomey

Effect was noticed by Sean Twomey in 1974 after watching the formation of water droplets in

clouds aided by the presence of ship pollution particles over the ocean over which the water


 6

GEOG-G532 Geoengineering © Copyright 2011 by
Kelly Boyd
droplets can be formed.7 Years later after developing the idea of the spray vessel, Latham

partnered with Stephen Salter a mechanical engineer, and Graham Sortino, a technical

consultant, to formally propose schematics of the spray vessel in a 2008 Royal Society report.20

In the report, they mention how the wind-driven spray vessels will sail back and forth

perpendicular to the prevailing wind and release micron-sized drops of seawater into the

turbulent boundary layer under marine stratocumulus clouds to enhance cloud development over

a large area of the sky.20

Wind-Driven Vessels Impact on Reducing Global Warming

Once the boat sprays water droplets into the atmosphere, they will evaporate, allowing

for cooling and permitting for remaining cloud condensation nuclei (CCN, such as salt) to persist

in the air which would serve as a center of production for additional bigger water droplets to

form.18 These water droplets would eventually form long-lasting clouds over the ocean that

would produce less rainfall.20 This proposed method would possibly increase the number of

water droplets in about ten percent of the world’s marine cloud layers, which would increase the

cloud albedo by 0.06.21 In figure six, the graph depicts other calculations of albedo based upon

the concentration of water droplets and cloud depth for the proposed areas in the Pacific and
Figure
6—Cloud
top
reflectivity
as
a
function
of
water
drop
concentration
for

North Atlantic Oceans. various
cloud
thicknesses
and
a
proposed
liquid
water
content
of
0.3ml/m3
19


These assumptions kept

during the calculations

include: the twenty-four

hour mean solar output

of 340 watts per square

meter, the cloud depth of


 7

GEOG-G532 Geoengineering © Copyright 2011 by
Kelly Boyd
300 meters, the boundary layer depth of 1,000 meters, the water droplet diameter of 0.8 microns,

the area of the sea being treated is taken as 18 percent of the total global sea area, and the

average water droplet life in the atmosphere of three days.20 The impact from these clouds will

allow for the ocean and atmosphere to cool within one year.22 The Southern Hemisphere would

see more cooling due to the disproportionate area of ocean compared to the Northern

Hemisphere7. Other possible side effects of the technology could include: a change in rainfall

patterns globally, a change in ocean currents, amplified algae growth on the ocean surface and

salt particulate pollution over certain areas20, 22. If the ships are successful at cooling the planet,

then possible restoration of Arctic sea ice cover could be re-established, the slowing of methane

from the permafrost in the Arctic could be slowed and perhaps renewed saving of coral reefs

could commence.21, 22

Feasibility of the Vessel in Engineering Terms

The forty-five meter boat would be powered by two twenty meter turbines powered by

being dragged through water and controlled by Flettner rotors.23 It will also be operated remotely

without any sails and be designed to not capsize.20 The vessel would also operate as a remote met

station recording atmospheric and oceanic data. The water spray portion of the vessel would

allow for ten kilograms a second of seawater to be sprayed by three four hundred bar pressure

nozzles to allow for water droplets at a size of one micron to be dispersed into the atmosphere.20

Based upon modern technology and trends of growth, these boats will be feasible in engineering

in the near future.

Spray Vessels Economic Cost and Their Reversibility

To begin building a prototype and for tooling the vessel, Latham suggest the initial cost

to be $161 million dollars .22 On the other hand for full production-line deployment, Latham and


 8

GEOG-G532 Geoengineering © Copyright 2011 by
Kelly Boyd
his team estimate a cost of $1.61 - $3.22 million per fully-equipped vessel.22 The team also

calculated that a fleet of 1,500 ships would produce the required volumes of spray to offset a

doubling of CO2 at a cost of $2 -5 billion dollars.22 Latham then proposed that another $1.61

billion would need to be invested in the construction of 300-400 other vessels per year in case of

malfunction, sinking or damage including the infrastructure to conduct maintenance on the

ships.22 If any unforeseen problems arise, spraying could be stopped and within ten days nearly

all of the salt particles would rain or settle out of the atmopshere22. Another aspect to be

researched is the possibility of anthropogenic clouds absorbing solar radiation and causing a

warming from their existence (i.e. Venus).

Effect on Global Mean Temperature

According to Aguado and Burt, albedo is the fraction of solar radiation arriving at a

surface that is reflected.12 In this case, albedo is measured at the top of the clouds and is a

function of the number of droplets, droplet size, and cloud depth (see figure 6).20 Based upon the

simple zero dimensional energy balance model, 𝑆 1 − 𝛼 𝜋𝑟 ! = 𝜀𝜎𝑇 ! 4𝜋𝑟 ! , and solving for α,

scientists can estimate the total change in albedo for a 2-6° C average global temperature change
to be somewhat linear with
temperature (see figure 7). Just a slight
increase of 0.06 in average global
albedo can drop the temperature 6° C.
Again to put this number in
perspective, an average global albedo
Figure
7—Depicted
decreases
in
temperature
based
upon
changed

albedos

Temperature


 Net
Change
 Global
Average

(°C)
 increase
in
α
 Albedo

Current
(14.5)
 N/A
 (Current)
0.32

13.5
 0.01
 0.33

12.5
 0.02
 0.34

11.5
 0.03
 0.35

10.5
 0.04
 0.36

9.5
 0.05
 0.37

8.5
 0.06
 0.38


increase of only 0.05 caused the last ice age.12 A small increase in albedo can cause a drastic

decrease in temperature worldwide.


 9

GEOG-G532 Geoengineering © Copyright 2011 by
Kelly Boyd
A Brief Solution to Global Warming Using Geoengineering

Global warming is a world problem that requires global participation to remedy the

problems associated with climate change. Policymakers and governments, especially those in

developed nations, still need to lead by example by being the first in reducing GHG emissions by

mitigation. Human adaptation to climate change is also necessary for the earth’s climate is never

consistent and will eventually change no matter what is done with GHG emission regulation.

Still with hopeful heavy future regulation and major impetus in reducing of GHG emissions, the

planet will still warm based upon delayed response of heating from GHG.24 For this reason and

for the uncertain future of GHG emission regulation by governments, currently geoengineering

technology developed by scientists and engineers are the only options to help deal with global

warming head on. Of the two technologies, artificial trees would be the best technology to invest

in globally because it would remove the problem of CO2 in the atmosphere. Wind-driven vessels

would simply “put a bandage” on the problem of CO2 absorption by the emissivity of GHG and

could actually increase GHG emissions by this false impression global warming has been fixed.22

In closing, geoengineering is still a developing technology that requires many minds and

ideas by individuals’ worldwide for its potential development. Hopefully, this relatively new

technology of artificial trees and carbon sequestering along with continued research in wind

driven water vessels and other technologies (reforesting, reflective surfacing, space mirrors) will

hopefully curb anthropogenic climate change if policy fails.


 10

GEOG-G532 Geoengineering © Copyright 2011 by
Kelly Boyd

























































1
Institution
of
Mechanical
Engineers
(2009)
“Environmental
Policy
Statement
on
Geoengineering”.



http://www.imeche.org/Libraries/Position_Statements‐
Environment/GeoEngineering_Positition_Statement.sflb.ashx



2
The Earth Institute, Columbia University. (2011) "Wallace S. Broecker.”
http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2246.


3
The
Breakthrough
Institute.
(2008).
“From
Synthetic
Trees
to
Carbon
Sponges:
an
Interview
with
Scientist


Klaus
Lackner”.
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2008/03/from_synthetic_trees_to_carbon.shtml



4Glikson,
A.
(2009)
“Toward
climate
geoegineering?
|
‐
Founded
and
Inspired
by
Margo
Kingston”


http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2783



5
Brooks,
G.
T.
(2010).
,
“Global
Warming
Technologies”
Undergraduate
Research
Awards.
Paper7.


http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/univ_lib_ura/7



6Borns,
J.
(2009).
“Spongelike
Air‐Capture
Gadget
Scrubs
Away
Carbon
Emissions”
Popular
Mechanics


Magazine.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/4256184



7
Irvine,
P
and
Ridgwell,
A.
(2009).”Geoengineering—Taking
control
of
our
planet’s
climate”.
The
Journal
of


Science
Progress.
Ed.
92,
pgs
139‐162.



8
Intergovernmental
Panel
on
Climate
Change
(IPCC).
Workgroup
I.
IPCC
(2007).
Climate
Change
2007:

The


Physical
Science
Basis
:
Contribution
of
Working
Group
I
to
the
Fourth
Assessment
Report
of
the

Intergovernmental
Panel
on
Climate
Change.
(S.
Solomon,
D.
Qin,
M.
Manning,
Z.
Chen,
M.
Marquis,
K.
B.
Averyt,

et
al.,
Eds.)
Cambridge,
United
Kingdom
and
New
York,
NY
USA:
Cambridge
Press.




9
Fox,
T.
et
al.,
(2009).
“Geoengineering
Giving
us
the
time
to
act?”
The
Institution
of
Mechanical
Engineers.


http://www.imeche.org/Libraries/Key_Themes/IMechEGeoengineeringReport.sflb.ashx.



10Earth
System
Research
Laboratory
Website.
(2011).
“Trends
in
CO2”.
US.
Dept
of
Commerce—National


Oceanic
&
Atmospheric
Administration.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html.



11
Fournier,
J.
(2010).
“Ocean
Collapse—The
Risk
of
Ocean
Death
from
CO2”.
Planetwork.net.


http://www.planetwork.net/oceanacidity/ocean_collapse.html.



12
Agruado, E. and Burt, J. (2010). “Understanding Weather and Climate (5th edition)”. Prentice Hall. Upper River

Saddle, NJ.


13
Stull,
R.
(2000).
“Meteorology
for
Scientist
and
Engineers
(2nd
edition)”.
Brooks/Cole
Cengage
Learning.


Belmont,
CA.



14
Hertzberg,
M.
(2009).
“Earth’s
radiative
equilibrium
in
the
solar
irradiance”
Journal
of
Energy
and


Environment.
Volume
20.
No
1.
Multi‐science
publishing
Co
Ltd.




15
Goode,
P.
R.;
et
al.
(2001).
"Earthshine
Observations
of
the
Earth’s
Reflectance".
Geophys.
Res.
Lett.
28
(9):


1671–4.



16
NOAA
National
Climatic
Data
Center.
(2011)
“State
of
the
Climate:
Global
Analysis
for
December
2010”,


published
online
January
2011.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2010/13.



17
Willson,
R.
C.,
and
A.
V.
Mordvinov
(2003),
“Secular
total
solar
irradiance
trend
during
solar
cycles”
21–23,


Geophys.
Res.
Lett.,
30(5),
1199



 11

GEOG-G532 Geoengineering © Copyright 2011 by
Kelly Boyd






















































































































































































18
Mohr,
Peter
J.;
Taylor,
Barry
N.;
Newell,
David
B.
(2008).
"CODATA
Recommended
Values
of
the
Fundamental


Physical
Constants:
2006".
Rev.
Mod.
Phys.
80:
633–730.



19UCAR
Website.
(2004).
“UCAR
Staff
Notes:
John
Latham
ponders
a
plan
to
counter
global
warming”.
The


National
Center
for
Atmospheric
Research.

http://www.ucar.edu/communications/staffnotes/0405/latham.html



20
Salter
S.,
Sortino
G.,
Latham
J.
(2008).
“Sea‐going
hardware
for
the
cloud
albedo
method
of
reversing
global


warming”.

Journal
of
Philosophical
Transactions
A
Math.
Phys.
Eng.
Sci.
November
13,
2008



21
Latham,
J.
et
al.
(2008).
“Global
temperature
stabilization
via
controlled
albedo
enhancement
of
low‐level


maritime
clouds”.
Phil.
Trans.
R.
Soc.
A‐Math.
Phys.
Engng.
Sci.,
366(1882),
3969‐3987



22
Royal
Society
Report
(2009).
“Geoengineering
the
Climate:
Science,
governance
and
uncertainty.”
The
Royal


Society
of
the
United
Kingdom



23Salter,
S
and
Latham,
J.
(2007).

“The
reversal
of
global
warming
by
the
increase
of
the
albedo
of
marine


stratocumulus
cloud.”
International
Climate
change
Confrence,
Hong
Kong,
China,
May
2007.

http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham/files/cloud_albedo_spray_quantity_paper.pdf



24
National
Institute
of
Water
and
Atmospheric
Research
(2008).
“Have
greenhouse
gas
emissions
caused


global
temperatures
to
rise?”
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our‐science/climate/common‐questions/all/have‐
greenhouse‐gas‐emissions‐caused‐global‐temperatures‐to‐rise





 12