Scientists in Washington have developed a new idea for potentially decreasing Earth’s rising temperatures: Manipulate the upper atmosphere to reduce its moisture.

Water vapor — water in its gas form — is a natural greenhouse gas that traps heat, just like carbon dioxide from burning coal, oil and gas. So researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA figure if they can just inject ice high up in the air, water vapor in the upper atmosphere would get a bit drier and that could counteract a small amount of the human-caused warmth.

According to the lead author of a study published in the journal Science Advances, it is simply the beginning of a preliminary thought.

The latest method proposed to address climate change by manipulating the atmosphere or oceans is to dry out the upper atmosphere. This approach, also known as geoengineering, is often dismissed due to potential negative impacts and is typically brought up as a supplement to reducing carbon emissions, rather than a replacement.

Joshua Schwarz, a physicist from NOAA and lead author of a study published in Science Advances, stated that currently, this is not something that we are able to put into action. He clarified that the purpose of their research is to consider potential future developments and establish avenues for further investigation.

Potentially, the process would involve advanced aircraft releasing ice particles at an altitude of approximately 11 miles (17 kilometers), right before the stratosphere where air gradually ascends. As the ice and chilly air continue to rise, they reach the coldest region, causing the water vapor to solidify and descend, removing moisture from the stratosphere, according to Schwarz. Presently, there is no feasible method for injection, according to him.

According to Schwarz, injecting 2 tons of water vapor per week at its peak could potentially decrease heating by about 5% of the total warming caused by carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels. However, this should not be seen as a substitute for reducing pollution.

Other scientists mentioned that Schwarz is unsure about the potential side effects, which is causing concern.

Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist at the University of Victoria who was not involved in the study, warns that deliberately manipulating the Earth’s atmosphere in an attempt to address climate change could potentially create a chain reaction of new issues. While he acknowledges the logical reasoning behind this engineering approach, he compares it to a children’s tale in which a cheese-loving king is plagued by mice, and resorts to using cats, then dogs, then lions, and eventually elephants to solve the problem. However, in the end, he ultimately relies on the mice themselves to get rid of the elephants.

Weaver suggests addressing the root issue, whether it be the cheese or the carbon dioxide, as it would be more logical.

Atmospheric chemist Lynn Russell from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, who was not involved in the study, believes it is worth exploring the idea, but notes that there are many unknowns and the study does not provide many answers.

The ethical, negative impacts, legal issues, and advantages of geoengineering have been examined by organizations such as the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations Environment Programme, with differing levels of doubt and careful curiosity.

During the UN environment conference, countries are contemplating a resolution to examine solar radiation modification, which involves the dispersion of particles into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight and reduce atmospheric temperature. There is also discussion about potential regulations for nations or companies undertaking such actions.

“If you’re going to do lab experiments indoors, maybe that’s all right,” UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen told The Associated Press. “But we do believe, from a UNEP perspective, that the moment we step outdoors and we begin to do small- and large-scale experimentation outdoors we need actually need to have a global conversation.”

“I believe that solar radiation modification is comparable to artificial intelligence,” stated Andersen. “Once it’s been unleashed, it cannot be reversed. It is a form of technology that exists. However, we do not view it as a solution for solving climate issues.”

___

Carlos Mureithi made a contribution from Nairobi, Kenya.

Check out more climate-related articles by AP on their website: http://www.apnews.com/climate-and-environment

___

Please follow Seth Borenstein on X platform @borenbears.

___

Financial aid from various private organizations assists the Associated Press in their coverage of climate and environmental news. All material is the sole responsibility of AP. Visit AP.org to view their guidelines for collaborating with philanthropic groups, a breakdown of contributors, and the specific areas of coverage that have been funded.

Source: wral.com