The increasing speed that climate change is impacting our globe, coupled with slow transformations of lifestyle and policy to radically reduce GHG emissions, have prompted many climate change scientists to (re)consider Geoengineering, A.K.A planetary climate-engineering, to rapidly cool the earth.  Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have surpassed 385 parts per million, rising above the limit of 350 parts per million that many scientists consider to be the threshold for maintaining a stable ‘natural’ climate.  Despite the present interest in global warming, current studies reveal that we are still pumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere – approximately increasing the levels by 2 parts per million each year.  Geoengineering – an option that was seldom considered viable, is now being acknowledged as a potential solution, or Plan B to climate change.  One of the reasons for this (beyond the grim reality of carbon levels) is that geoengineering could potentially be very cheap.  Many now argue that geoengineering is an economic alternative to ‘buy us time’ to develop zero-emission technology in a cost effective manner.  While most scientists agree that the reduction of GHG emissions is the fundamental solution (Plan A), they also admit that geoengineering may one of the few options to address future climate change. Ronald Prinn, a professor of atmospheric science and the director of the Center for Global Change science at MIT, explains why climate scientists have started to change their minds about geoengineering in this video.   Put simply, we have come too far and engineering our way out of this situation may be our only choice.

[Comparison of various Geoengineering Strategies via newscientist.com]

For years, geoengineering techniques were only to be found in science-fiction novels, and not put on the table as possible options.  Now, as geoengineering is being reconsidered, we realize how little we know about the atmosphere and climatic changes.  This has already prompted research and a report on Geoengineering by the UK’s Royal Society, as well an American report, instigated in part by President Obama’s science advisor, John Holdren.  Even the IPCC’s report touches on geoengineering in section 4.7, stating what many scientists firmly believe – geoengineering focuses on the symptoms rather than the cause.  The purpose of this nascent research, however, is to wage the various options of geoengineering, understand how to implement them, and run models to gain insights on their potential side effects.  There are several schemes currently being cooked up by scientists to geoengineer our climate that fall into two basic categories: (i) Solar Radiation Management and  (ii) Mitigation techniques, such as carbon sequesterering.  While several of these initial ideas are seemingly sci-fi in nature, they are becoming increasingly plausible solutions to address climate change.  Step 1 is to understand atmospheric systems more precisely and Step 2 is to figure out how to manipulate this system.

[Cloud seeding and cloud brightening with salt water to increase solar reflection via wired.com]

Solar Radiation Management could take several forms, but the basic premise of each strategy is the same: to block or reflect solar radiation out of the atmosphere.  Proposals range from cloud seeding, to arctic ice harvesting (for its reflective quality) to large sun disks in outer space.  The first notable proposal, which is still under investigation today, was by the Soviet Scientist, Mikhail Budyko in 1974.  Budyko suggested the injection of gases into the upper reaches of the atmosphere would cool the earth.  The idea is inspired by the natural phenomenon of volcanic eruptions or massive forest fires that send sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere where it acts as micro-deflectors of sunlight.  Hovering 10 kilometers above the earth in the stratosphere, this sulfur not only reduces the amount of sunlight that hits the surface, it also creates a haze that diffuses the sunlight.  The most cited precedent for such an approach is the eruption of Mount Pinatubo (Philippines) in 1991, which released 15 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, and cooled average temperatures by half a degree Celcius.   Current predictions estimate that between one and five million tons of sulfur would need to be injected into the stratosphere each year.  From rockets filled with sulfur to hot air balloon smokestacks from coal-fired power plants, there are several options on how to actually get the sulfur into the stratosphere.  One major issue with sulfur injections is that they do not address GHG emissions.  In fact, they require a continual supply of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere – and, as the earth is further heated – will always require more and more sulfur dioxide in future years.  The economic and resource investment would be continually past down to future generations.  Beyond the technical and unsustainable growth model of sulfur dioxide injections, scientists don’t know enough about atmospheric chemistry to predict exactly what will happen. Without percise climate models, there is little understanding on how this will affect rain, wind patterns and ocean currents.  And simultaneously, climate modeling is our only choice – as it is difficult to test several ideas without impacting climatic systems.  The unpredictable nature of the ensuing effects could be more disasterous than our current climatic crisis.  Others have noted that sulfate shields only work to block sun, and would therefore be less effective during the night and winter.  This differential climate would have several large reaching effects on the world’s ecosystems and oceans.  Oceans, in fact, would continue to acidify because the GHG’s would linger and build in the atmosphere.  Other climate models show that sulfur sunshades could also create catastrophic droughts (droughts were noticed for a year after Mount Pinatubo’s eruption).  With so many variables and little precision in climate modeling, sulfur dioxide injections may pose more problems than solutions, especially because they are cheap.

[Solar Shading - Sulfur, Clouds or Disks? via livingearth.com]

Mitigation Techniques include different forms of carbon capture and carbon sequestering.  Three of the major strands of research here involve (i) Phytoplankton Storage (ii) Artificial Trees, and (iii) Geological Storage.  Phytoplankton consume large amounts of carbon dioxide during photosynthesis. Filling the seas with iron – a favorite of phytoplankton – would encourage blooms that would absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide and transport this to the bottom of the ocean.  The dropping of massive quantities of iron into the ocean and promoting large scale phytoplankton production would have great repercussions on ocean ecosystems – repercussions that we cannot predict.

[The Ocean as a Mega-Phytoplankton Farm? via popularmechanics.com]

Other materials that can capture and store large amounts of carbon dioxide are being explored to augment natural processes.  One such trajectory of research is examining peridotite rocks, which form magnesium carbonate when they react with carbon dioxide.  Others, such as Columbia University’s Klaus Lackner, are exploring the production of ‘artificial trees’.  Lackner’s tree is able to capture a ton of carbon from the atmosphere each day.  What are these ‘trees’ made of?  For the most part, panels of an absorbent resin that react with carbon dioxide to form a solid.  Lackner’s prototypes suggest that a 10m x 10m area of panels could extract 1,000 tons of carbon dioxide each year.  Once captured, these filters can be cleaned with steam.

[Rendering of Artificial Trees developed by Lackner]

The largest issue with attempting to orchestrate a climatic transformation is that we just don’t know enough about how our atmosphere works and the repercussions of our tampering.  Further, most geoengineering schemes require future generations to maintain such measures, with little end in sight.  Geoengineering also poses a political issue, as any response would affect the entire globe.  Because certain schemes, such as sulfate shading, are quite simple and relatively cheap to implement, they could be done by most nations, creating the seeds for future conflicts. Currently, no international laws or treaties would prevent a country from unilaterally beginning a geoengineering project.  Who would monitor such projects, and who should have a say?  The political administering of geoengineering is just as complex as some of the schemes.  Another issue is a social one – the present energy on climate change initiatives may slow if there is a belief that we can always find new engineering solutions to address unsustainable practices.  As it stands, the risks of geoengineering seem to outweigh any possible benefits.  Some scientists predict that we are about 40 years away from understanding this technology.  Once we do, Plan B may be less risky than doing nothing.

A great discussion on Geoengineering took place a few weeks ago on TVO’s The Agenda.  You can watch the episode here.

Editors Note: File under Glacier / Island / Storm, a studio run by BLDGBLOG at Columbia University GSAPP. Storm edition.

———–

"It is time  /  It is time for  /  It is time for stormy weather" – The Pixies

Storms deal in simple materials: air, water (in various states), and other particulates, such as dirt or dust. Though, not unlike species swarming in nature (or microcosmic viruses for that matter), they assemble, grow, pulse, and respond to environmental conditions. All the while, luring other similar material into their agitated state. Storms move somewhat indifferently to us and often in spite of us. They are often predictable and just forecastable enough to tease those of us that want to know when, where, and how much. All of this is done through pattern play, and behavioral modeling at two-scales: the massive regional and continental airpsaces, and the molecular or particle-based scale. Storms work in cycles, some small seasonal cycles, some century long, and even some on significant larger timespans (quasi-periodic). We are looking here at three storms; all recurring, swirling, pulsing, and shifting–of various particulate matter: dust, water, nitrogen (air). This is through the filter of states of matter: solid, liquid, and gaseous.

[Map showing plume expansion rate, dircetion and growth of the Australian dust storm of 2009. Image by Advanstra.]

1. Solid Storm: Dust // Certainly as one of the most fantastically documented storms of our young century, the Australian Dust Storm of 2009, you have no doubt seen the surreal images of highly saturated red and orange airspace. For this event, air particulate readings were about 15,400 micrograms per cubic meter. A typical day registers at about 50 micrograms, and a bushfire registers around 500 micrograms per cubic meter. It was thick. What was interesting though when this 2-day event rapidly escalated was that its long-term effects were somehow overlooked in favor of the evocative photography of a Mars-like outback. Within two weeks after the flash storm, scientists realized that the event caused a massive shift of phosphates and nitrogen as 4000 tons of desert topsoil particulates were dumped in the Sydney Harbour. Beyond that, the estimates for materials dumped in the Tasman Sea were an astounding 3,000,000 tons. And, as if a massive simulation of ocean fertilization, it was believed that this spurned phytoplankton growth to triple. So, what was in limited supply–yet was needed to grow life–in the desert ocean is ironically abundant in desert land. Further estimates put the additional phytoplankton in the Sea at 2 million tons, and, more impressively, with that about 8 million tons of CO2 captured. Eight million tons; thats a full months of a coal-fired power plant CO2 emission. Estimates for the amount of fish spawned from the increased phytoplankton are not known, but one can only imagine. Storms spawn swarms. Ocean fertilization inadvertently simulated at a massive scale by nature itself. Should it still be called geo-engineering if, in fact, it already occurs naturally on a massive?

[Dust storm approaching Stratford, Texas. Dust bowl surveying in Texas, April 18, 1935. Courtersy of NOAA George E. Marsh Album.]

A note should also be included on the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, aka dirty thirties. The Dust Bowl phenomenon lasted during a drought in the Great Plains from 1930-36. After the dust had settled, it was shown that farming practices in the region were irresponsible with crop rotation, deep plowing, and erosion prevention. On numerous occasions during the dust clouds, the sky would turn black by day as far East as Washington DC. Dirt fell like snow in Chicago. The winter of 1934 red snow fell in the Northeast. And on April 24, 1935, the day became known as Black Sunday.

Some believe the Dust Bowl was predictable. Here is a PBS video on the Dust Bowl years.

Another interesting diversion on dust storms is the alkali storms found at Owens Lake and other salt flats. This is well documented by Barry Lehrman in The Infrastructural City. (Pruned has an excellent writeup on this here.)

[Thermohaline circulation based on a "dolphins perspective" that is where the oceans are shown as a single body of water and the flux can be easier understood without cutting it anywhere. via Avsa.]

[Trend Velocities in North Atlantic in meters per second per decade from May 1992 to June 2002. vectors trace the following graphic of the subpolar circulation in reverse direction, which denotes a slowing gyre. Credit: Sirpa Hakkinen, NASA GSFC.]

The seasonal movement of the ice shelf constitutes one of the largest annual transformations in the Arctic and is the basis for the arctic ecosystem. As the summer months thaw the ice shelf, causing it to migrate northwards, fresh water is released into the sea. This freshwater promotes a blanket of fertile phytoplankton that forms the foundation of the arctic ecological food chain. Ecosystems that migrate with the annual retreat of ice traverse the Arctic seasonally. In the last 30 years, however, the summer sea ice extent has reduced by approximately 15 – 20%, while its average thickness has decreased by 10 – 15%. Both of these rates continue to increase, decreas­ing the foundation of the food chain and consequently applying pressure on species higher in the food chain.

Recent data points to something not-so-innocently called the Great Atlantic Shutdown. As increasing amounts of freshwater enter the THC water is more bouyant and less likely to sink, slowing or even stalling circulation.

[The jet stream. The northern hemisphere polar jet stream is most commonly found between latitudes 30°N and 60°N, while the northern subtropical jet stream located close to latitude 30°N. AP Photo/NOAA.]

3. Gaseous Storm: Jet Stream // Winds have names: Katabatic, Foehn, Mistral, Bora, Cers, Marin, Levant, Gregale, Khamaseen, Harmattan, Levantades, Sirocco, Leveche, and many others (all exhaustively documented here). But all pale in comparison to the steady circulations of the tropospheric jet stream. The jet stream is a shifting river of air about 9-14 km above sea level that guides storm systems and cool air around the globe. And when it moves away from a region, high pressure and clear skies predominate. The jet stream marks a thick shifting swirling line that separates airspace that warms with height and airspace that cools with height. In short, it is the jet stream(s) that creates weather – all kinds of weather, from the ordinary, uninteresting dull gray sky to the devastating life-changing weather phenomenon.

The path of the jet typically has a meandering shape, and these meanders themselves propagate east, at lower speeds than that of the actual wind within the flow. Each large meander, or wave, within the jet stream is known as a Rossby wave. Rossby waves are caused by changes in the Coriolis effect with latitude, and propagate westward with respect to the flow in which they are embedded, which slows down the eastward migration of upper level troughs and ridges across the globe when compared to their embedded shortwave troughs.

[The jet stream core region averages 160 km/h (100 mph) in winter and 80 km/h (50 mph) in summer. Those segments within the jet stream where winds attain their highest speeds are known as jet streaks.]

When the jet stream fractions off an eddy, such a minor event at the scale of the stream generates an cyclone as it hits the ground. Thought to be weakening and moving poleward, the jet stream would produce less rain in the south and more storms in the north. Though in the meantime, there is considerable ongoing research on how to harness this steady streaming power.

[A wind machine, floated into the jet stream, would transmit electricity on aluminum or copper cables--or through invisible microwave beams--down to power grids, where it would be distributed locally. via SFGate.]

One study (above) shows a range of kites responding to the stream in a variety of ways and at different altitudes. The possibility of a series of kites–ladder, rotor, rotating, or turntable–hovering 1000 feet in the air generating anywhere from 50- 250 kilowatts is hard to refute. Afterall, they are just kites. Or maybe, to test this possibility, we just need to tap into all the already ongoing leisurely kite-flying practices–so that regular kites are no longer available, but instead streaming kites only. Streaming kites flying much higher, and of course bigger, and equipped with gear that helps store and harness energy. At the end of a pleasurable day flying a kite you have next weeks electricity in a black box to tote back home.

Post inspired by: Star Archive, Storm Archive, Storm Control Authority, Meteorological Alchemy, Carcinogenic Storms, Life on Mars, Average Natures.

[Thermarium Site Plan. All images c/o Daniel Rabin & Annie Ritz.]

The Thermarium is a project by University of Toronto M.Arch Graduates Daniel Rabin and Annie Ritz, that examines how to process water overflow.  The Thermarium envisions a new beach typology for the Toronto Waterfront. Responding to the lack of swimming at Toronto’s new urban beaches and consistent CSO (combined sewage overflow) closures at surrounding swim areas, the Thermarium offers new possibilities for water immersion and activity that are enabled, rather than prohibited, by the polluted run-off instigated by heavy rainstorms.

[Adapting the Silos into a processor.]

[Site Processing.]

On days when rainstorms force the city’s water flow to exceed the infrastructural limit, CSOs are dumped into Lake Ontario untreated. They cause high levels of pollutants and E.Coli, forcing beaches to post “No Swimming” signs. Ritz and Rabin state:

"We use water to clean everything; from the dishes to our bodies, water is imperative to our notion of cleanliness and purity. However, the act of cleaning transforms uncontaminated water into dirty water. This project is enabled by dirty water. On the days when the weather overloads the infrastructure, the site and silo are put into action."

[Bubbles as a pressure-programme device.]

[The (by)productive landscape of the Urban Beach created by rain overflow.]

[Project plan shows accumulation and subtraction over time.]

Acting as a processor, the silo treats the dirty water as an input and productively reuses its by-products: sediment, heat, and clean water. These outputs are used to construct new ponds in which visitors can bathe, swim, and socialize. The ponds are heated by the cleansing process and filled with treated CSO water. As the number of overflows mount, the silo site continues to grow and the lattice-like structure of sedimentation accumulates. The program on the site is based on water immersion and experience. Acting as a new type of park, the site can be navigated from within or on top of the new formwork. Pools are distributed in varying sizes to accommodate an array of uses, group sizes, and atmospheric conditions—forming a new public space for the city while cleansing its water.

[Interior view of grotto-like spaces.]

[Sectional perspective showing various pool typologies.]

[Water cleanliness, temperature, and location determine its type and ecosystem.]

[Atmospheric spaces initiated from rain overflow.]

Thermarium is one of several '-arium' projects featured in -arium: Weather + Architecture.  Click here for more information on the book launch, which will occur on Feb. 22nd, 2010 at the Univeristy of Toronto.  To purchase -arium online, click here.  We hope to see you at the launch.

With seating for 10,000, an eight foot deep concrete tank under the entire stage complete with wave machine and wind machines, railroad ties to aid in the shifting of three dimensional scenery behind a "light curtain," the Spectatorium was envisioned for the 1893 Chicago Exposition. Conceived by the engineer and dramatist Steele MacKaye (father of Benton MacKaye), the Spectatorium was intended as a "mechanical duplication of nature." In fact the spectacle was intended to be so immersive that the play was written intentionally to contain no speaking parts.

[A section through The Spectatorium, a twenty-five stage theatre designed to mount Steele Mackaye's play about Christopher Columbus for the Chicago Exposition of 1893, unbuilt.]

Recommended reading: Pictorial Illusionism: The Theatre of Steele MacKaye by J.A. Sokalski.

Is Weather the last vestige of nature in the City?
Do the forces in Weather systems hold the key to the energy crisis?
Is instability and disorder something that can be designed?
Is Weather the nemesis of Architecture or its best friend?
Is Weather becoming the last form of cultural specificity?
Does it all come down to the “Green”?

The dynamic, turbulent and unpredictable forces that comprise the weather are shared by economic cycles of production and consumption.  We are at the cusp of an intriguing moment wherein the cycles of economics and weather have collided to instigate a new green economy.  The consumptive aspects of 'green' have granted architecture a moment to explore its nemesis – instability and disorder – the key characteristics of weather.

-arium: Weather + Architecture is a research investigation carried out during the 2008 Gehry Chair studio at the John H. Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design under the direction of Jürgen Mayer H. and Neeraj Bhatia that centers upon how to renegotiate the relationship between architecture and weather.  Composed of three sections – The Weather Report, The Weather Forecast, and The Weather Outlook – that respectively, research, design and theorize on weather and architecture, -arium offers a guide for both architectural designer and critics. The University of Toronto’s John H. Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design invites you to join celebrating the launch of –arium: Weather + Architecture. Hard copies will be available for purchase during the reception or can be purchased online.

Project Team:

Editors:
Jürgen Mayer H. & Neeraj Bhatia

Graphic Design:
Eric Bury, Visuals Etcetera

Student Researchers:
Tomek Bartzak, Johanna Bollozos, Dan Briker, Piers Cunnington, Andrea Losier, Renee Leung, Daniel Rabin, Dennis Rijkhoff, Annie Ritz, Lisa Spensieri, Andrea Traverso, Geoffrey Turnbull & Marnie Williams

Articles by:
George Baird (Daniels), Neeraj Bhatia (InfraNet Lab/ The Open Workshop/ Daniels), Rodolphe el-Khoury (KLF/ Daniels), Robert Levit (KLF/ Daniels), Filiz Klassen (Ryerson University), Dirk Hebel (DRKH Architects/ ETHZ), Jürgen Mayer H. (J. MAYER H. Architects), Jörg Stollmann (URBANINFORM), Henry Urbach (SFMOMA), Matthais Hollwich (HWKN, UPenn, Architizer), Marc Kushner (HWKN/ Columbia, Architizer), & Mason White (InfraNet Lab/ Lateral Office/ Daniels)

[The Canary Islands as an eddy-creating obstacle via GSFC/NASA.]

Vortex streets emerge when the right wind and cloud formation encounters the right kind of obstacle. Theodore von Kármán, a fluid dynamicist, observed and documented this phenomenon. Swirling rings sequence along a street-like corridor trail beyond the obstacle. Each ring stems from an air pockets are released in a series of vortices alternating parallel to wind direction. This condition can happen at any scale if the proportion of energies and obstacles is present.

[Another set of vortices southeast of the Ilha da Madeira (Madeira Island) via GSFC/NASA December 1, 2002.]

Acting as a defense barrier, these 10 massive towers form a line in the Blackwater Estuary in Essex, UK. They are the vision of Nicholas Szczepaniak, a recent graduate of Westminster, and the winner of the RIBA Presidents Medal. The project, titled "A Defensive Architecture," envisions these towers simultaneously as a militarized coastal defense and a repository of knowledge in the form of a library … a kind of smart-ark.

[Defense infrastructure within the estuary and a detail of the approach.]

The towers collectively act as a bellwe(a)ther for the environment. They are "breathing, creaking, groaning, sweating and crying when stressed." The enclosure is shrouded in air bags that inflate and deflate to register subtle changes in temperature and climate. Jellyfish-like cables dangle below the facade platform and are able to spray seawater onto the heated facade emitting steam. The project conveys nothing short of iconic enviro-veillance.

[Elevation of a typical tower with tensioing hose cables dangling below.]

[Plan of tower showing interior space of inertia with circulation core to the left and tensioning system on the right.]

[Sectional view of the reading wall.]

[Studies of the sugar curtainwall.]

A sugar curtain grows and retracts seasonally, portraying immediate shifts in the weather or climate. So sweet.

[View within the space of inertia looking skyward.]

Found via Bustler.

In a recent drive back from Syracuse to Toronto, I was struck by the inevitable presence of snow in Buffalo. No snow before Buffalo, or after Buffalo, but in Buffalo it was full-on large fluffy precipitation. This micro-weather is a little gift from the surface of Lake Erie to the region of Buffalo. It is known as lake effect snow; something the Great Lakes region specializes in. With winter winds prevailing from the northwest, there is a significant difference in the snowfall on the southern and eastern shores versus the northern and western shores of the Great Lakes. Cold air picks up lake surface water in the form of water vapor, then it freezes and is dumped on the leeward side of the lake shores.

[Compostite image of precipitation showing lake effect snow bands, National Weather Service, 20:18 UTC, February 10, 2008. Obviously data is not coordinated with the Canadian equivalent.]

[Lake Effect in full effect.]

With hundreds of thousands of years knowledge embedded in that geography and ecology, there is an inherent intelligence in the localized weather phenomenon. But what about when a body of water unexpectedly accumulates in a region, providing surface water for just such a micro-weather effect? And this is exactly what many hydrologists have found to be the case in many reservoirs. Call it reservoir effect.

[Lake Volta, created in 1965 in Ghana, is the largest surface area of reservoir in the world.]

Wired recently picked up on the influences that dams have been recorded to have on local weather patterns. And in some cases this has caused concern, as very large reservoirs are known to increase rainfall. All of this means that the dam that was built for one condition may soon have to contend with another enhanced condition by the nature of its very presence. The possibility for micro-weather is created as more standing water means more evaporation which means more precipitation.