After
reading his article[1] in Scientific American magazine in which he
talks about persistent contrails, cirrus clouds and aviation emissions in
general , I wanted to ask David Biello, journalist editor of the magazine, if the
effects on the hydrological cycle of these aviation emissions are similar to
those of geoengineering .
I think
that due to the limit of 140 characters I could not articulate my question
clearly, but still Mr. Biello’s kind
reply and the short conversation that
followed were interesting to me and gave me much to think about.
In the
first tweet was the title of the article, the link and my original question:
(OE) Airplane #Pollution Needs to Descend http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=airplane-pollution-needs-to-descend-13-10-06
@dbiello hydrological
cycle effects of #aviation #emissions = #Geoengineering?
Leaving
aside the issues of the hydrological cycle and the concept of intentionality,
his reply:
(DB) "that's
a very good question. i'd say yes as "soft" geoengineering but no
formally since unintentional (at this point)”
Indicates
to me that in fact he believes, aviation emissions are a form of ‘soft’
geoengineering
Blogger John Kennard pointed out that:
(JK) "In
the week-long aviation shutdown after 9/11 in the US the country noticeably
cooled. #greenhouse #AGW"
Regarding
the flights stoppage after 9/11 it was noted that daytime temperatures rose and nighttime
temperatures fell.[2] But in general persistent contrails and
cirrus clouds from aviation contribute to global warming.
The Working
Group I of the IPCC 's latest report, the AR5, specifically confirms the
greenhouse effect (positive forcing) by the artificial cloudiness produced by aviation,[3]
but does not quantify or even explore its effects on the hydrological cycle.
The report recognizes that there is a relationship between aerosols in general
and changes in precipitation but admits that the magnitude of these changes are
still un-clear.[4]
The report
adds this about the RF “This forcing can
be much larger regionally but there is now medium confidence that it does not
produce observable regional effects on either the mean or diurnal range of
surface temperature."
Well, the
short conversation continued, but concentrated on the theme of 'intentionality'
which is an integral part to the definition of geoengineering as noted by both
David Biello and Dr. Victor Galaz, Associate Professor at The Stockholm
Resilience Centre and co -author of the CBD’s paper: IMPACTS OF CLIMATE-RELATED
GEOENGINEERING ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY.[5]
There
are various definitions of geoengineering, definitions that could still change,
but they always include the concept of intentionality. In Wikipedia (en español) I wrote:
(translated) The Royal Society defines
geoengineering as “the deliberate
large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract
anthropogenic climate change" [6] [7]
In this
definition the concept of ' intentionality' seems to be very concise and easy
to understand.
But when
you want to talk about the known effects of commercial aviation and marine
traffic of cargo ships, which can be very similar to those of a geoengineering
program, the concept of 'intentionality 'becomes very complex.[8]
To me it seems like very 'meta ' because it attempts to describe an actual, visible
and ongoing reality as… beyond reality; as if it was not happening, or was only
hypothetical. In the end it becomes something like…
In a very
brief way and specific to aviation, some philosophical concepts might say that:
Although it
is known that certain actions when traveling by plane or that the mere act of
traveling by plane produces an effect comparable to geoengineering, if the main (perceived)
intention is transportation or any other
purpose that is not specifically declared to be for changing the climate, then
performing these actions and indeed change the climate is not geoengineering. It is to say that (all) side effects are 'unintended'. Similarly if it is known that taking certain actions would prevent climate
change, but they are not taken, or even preventing them and therefore produce climate change, this still is not geoengineering. And what's more, purposely using fuels or additives known to ultimately exacerbate climate change, e.g. through cloudiness, or increased aerosol generation would not constitute geoengineering if it is perceived as being done with intentions other than geoengineering.
I disagree
with this concept of intentionality, but I will not write about it today.
My
intention as I said earlier, was to ask about the effects of aviation on the
hydrological cycle, so I asked again in a different way.
(OE) I'd like to ask:
do #aviation #emissions affect the #hydrological cycle in a way similar to what
a SRM #geoengineering prog. would?
(DB) i think it
depends on the scale of a SRM geoengineering prog. so, for example, a global
sulfate distribution would be bigger...
Noting that
the aviation’s sulfate distribution is global, my reply included a link to a
study: [9]
(OE) But #aviation's
sulfate dist. is global.
Effects of aircraft on
aerosol abundance in the upper troposphere http://www.researchgate.net/publication/237445161_Effects_of_aircraft_on_aerosol_abundance_in_the_upper_troposphere
In his last
reply David Biello emphasizes:
( DB ) like i said,
depends on scale of the geoengineering effort then, doesn't it
I agreed, it is relative. I wanted to ask if there was an up to date quantification of
the effects of aviation on the hydrological cycle both globally and regionally.
In other words: are there measurements of the effects of aviation on rain, drought,
etc.; at global and regional level ? Who has done it? I asked the question this way:
(OE) yes! But as of
now does anyone know, or is there quantification of actual present #aviation
effects on global and regional hydro?
That was it. There was no reply.
Anyway I am
thankful for the twitter chat. It was more than I expected.
For me it
is clear that there is a relationship between aviation and the hydrological cycle,
and the fact that there is not much information, or that is not easy to find it;
is very disturbing, especially in light of the recent years of drought and floods
that have been suffered globally. How much of it can be attributed to aviation? Disturbing, but there may be hope of
reducing those effects if measures (but not more geoengineering!) are taken to
reduce the impacts of aviation.
I’ll keep
looking for studies, or wait to see if the, still to come, IPCC reports address
the issue specifically and in depth.
Updates:
November 16, 2013
“But I
didn’t mean it!” Why it’s so hard to prioritize impacts over intents.
By Melanie Tannenbaum | October 14, 2013
“It’s not
about intent. It’s about impact.”
“The
overall message in all of these conversations is that when someone does
something hurtful or offensive to another person, the perpetrator’s intent is
not what’s most important when gauging the appropriateness of an action — in
fact, many would say that it is inherently privileged to redirect the focus of
a conversation to the perpetrator’s (presumably harmless) intentions, rather
than focusing on the feelings and experiences of the person who has been
harmed. So, the point is that we really need to focus on impact, not intent.
Was someone hurt by something? Was there a negative outcome? Did someone
suffer? If so, that is what’s important. Whether or not the perpetrator meant
to cause harm is not.”
“As long as
we continue to engage with societal issues in which there is an agent with
intentions and a patient receiving the consequences of those actions, we must
all struggle to tease apart these issues of intent and impact. We must all
focus on how actions that harm others — regardless of intent — need to be addressed,
not pushed under the rug because the agent “didn’t mean” to do anything wrong.
Yet at the same time, we must learn to understand our own cognitive biases, and
how we can’t continue to treat intent and impact as if they are cognitively
separate, orthogonal factors.”
Geoengineering: Goldilocks effect to cloud seeding
Get this climate techno-fix right, and the effect is dramatic, Get it wrong, though, and you make the problem worse. So how do you get this to work as planned?
By Philip Ball - BBC
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130304-the-trouble-with-cloud-seeding
November 10, 2013
Who bears the cost of airline emissions?
"Aviation is today responsible for some 2% of the planet’s man-made CO2 emissions. But when the effects of nitrogen oxide emissions, water vapour, soot and sulphates, contrails and enhanced cirrus cloud formations are also factored in, the best scientific estimates put aviation’s overall contribution to global warming at 4.9%.
The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has forecast that CO2 emissions from international aviation (about 60% of total aviation emissions) will grow from approximately 400 million tonnes in 2010 to 650 million tonnes by 2020. Unchecked, there may be a 274% increase in the fuel used by airlines by 2050, measured against 2006 levels.
Put plainly, the aviation industry bears a share of responsibility for the accelerated drought-flood cycle that climate change will bring to countries such as India." (emphasis mine)
http://www.hindustantimes.com/comment/columnsothers/who-bears-the-cost-of-airline-emissions/article1-1147628.aspx
October 24, 2013
Volcanic-ash sensor to take flight
Researchers will fly jet towards giant artificial particle cloud to test safety device.
http://www.nature.com/news/volcanic-ash-sensor-to-take-flight-1.14001?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20131024
October 23, 2012:
The conversation here:
https://twitter.com/oscare2000/status/387260950086049792
Added paragraph:
And what's more, purposely using fuels or additives known to ultimately exacerbate climate change e.g. through cloudiness, or increased aerosol generation, would not constitute geoengineering if it is perceived as being done with intentions other than geoengineering.
------------------------------------
References
[1] Airplane
Pollution Needs to Descend
Airplanes
may only contribute roughly 2 percent of the greenhouse gases warming the
atmosphere. But they are one of the fastest growing sources. David Biello
reports
[2] Jet
Contrails Alter Average Daily Temperature Range
[3] WORKING GROUP I CONTRIBUTION TO THE IPCC
FIFTH ASSESSMENT
REPORT
(AR5), CLIMATE CHANGE 2013: THE PHYSICAL SCIENCE BASIS
Chapter 7:
Clouds and Aerosols - Final Draft Underlying Scientific-Technical
Assessment (pg. 7-5]
[4] WORKING
GROUP I CONTRIBUTION TO THE IPCC FIFTH ASSESSMENT
REPORT
(AR5), CLIMATE CHANGE 2013: THE PHYSICAL SCIENCE BASIS
Chapter 7:
Clouds and Aerosols - Final Draft Underlying Scientific-Technical Assessment
(pgs. 7-55-58)
[5] IMPACTS
OF CLIMATE-RELATED GEOENGINEERING ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
[6]
Geoingeniería
[7]
Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty
[8]
Starting a flood to stop a fire? Some moral constraints on solar radiation
management
by David
Morrow
[9] Effects
of aircraft on aerosol abundance in the upper troposphere
G. V. Ferry
