The quandary of cleaner air, rising temperatures and atmospheric intervention

In the ever-evolving discourse on climate change, a significant debate is emerging, one that may soon capture mainstream attention. The crux of this debate is whether direct intervention in Earth’s atmosphere is necessary to reduce incoming heat radiation, essentially terraforming our own planet.

The classical stance in the scientific community has been cautious, arguing that intervention could be more hazardous than beneficial. However, this perspective is increasingly challenged by the realization that human activities are already influencing Earth’s climate. A notable example is the rapid decrease in atmospheric particle pollution due to clean air policies, particularly in countries like China. These policies, while improving air quality, inadvertently reduce the cooling effect provided by atmospheric particles, potentially accelerating warming.

This situation could escalate if India, grappling with domestic pressure over air pollution, follows suit. The reduction in particle pollution, beneficial for health, might ironically contribute to a sharp increase in global warming.

Compounding this issue is the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels have reached 420ppm, the highest in millions of years. This increase is a primary driver of global warming, presenting a dire need for effective solutions.

Further adding complexity is the impact of natural events like the Tonga volcano eruption. Such eruptions can have unpredictable effects on climate, acting as “forcing events” that can either exacerbate or mitigate climate change. The Tonga eruption, for instance, has introduced vast amounts of water into the upper stratosphere, with implications that will persist for years.

The past 12 months have been particularly alarming, marked by a series of global temperature records. This unprecedented net warming has reignited the discussion around the urgency of climate intervention. The debate is not just about the need for intervention but its immediacy. Scientists like James Hansen argue that intervention might be the only option to avert the worst impacts of climate change. Hansen’s stance, focusing on immediate action, contrasts with more conservative views that emphasize the risks and uncertainties of such interventions.

However, the debate extends beyond the scientific community. The concept of interventions like carbon offsets through reforestation is met with skepticism by some, viewed as a mere delay in the essential transition away from fossil fuels. Hansen, however, contends that such measures are secondary to the urgent need for direct intervention, given the alarming trends in climate data.

The article goes on but never clearly states what form this direct intervention should be. I suppose the implication is upper atmosphere particles to reflect back heat? Make the air dirtier to slow climate change?