Slashdot Mirror
Geoengineering To Cool the Earth Becoming Thinkable
johkir writes "As early as 1965, when Al Gore was a freshman in college, a panel of distinguished environmental scientists warned President Lyndon B. Johnson that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels might cause 'marked changes in climate' that 'could be deleterious.' Yet the scientists did not so much as mention the possibility of reducing emissions. Instead they considered one idea: 'spreading very small reflective particles' over about five million square miles of ocean, so as to bounce about 1 percent more sunlight back to space — 'a wacky geoengineering solution.' In the decades since, geoengineering ideas never died, but they did get pushed to the fringe — they were widely perceived by scientists and environmentalists alike as silly and even immoral attempts to avoid addressing the root of the problem of global warming. Three recent developments have brought them back into the mainstream." We've discussed some
pretty
strange
ideas
in the geoengineering line over the last few years.
It's cool to see some of the speculation about the terraforming of other planets now applied to Earth. I fondly recall how one of the strategies used to warm Mars in Kim Stanley Robinson's trilogy beginning with Red Mars was spreading black dust to absorb sunlight.
Who knows what will happen to important sea-life species if we go spreading reflective dust in the oceans?
This is Earth; we have more than Shai-Hulud to preserve.
So funny, on RevLeft there is a "socialist" who argues the opposite. That the "Green movement" is a capitalist plot.
I guess crazy people exist on all sides of the political spectrum.
Some examples of the brillient mind of "VanGuard1917" can be found in the thread Recession = good for the environment?.
Another good quote is from the thread Is scarcity a myth?
Please note, I think you are both wrong.
------
As to the subject of terraforming, I think that it is obvious that humans can terraform a planet. Maybe not in a predictable manner, but it is certainly possible. Humans as a species have done a heck of a lot of damage to ecosystems around the world, and are pumping out so much carbon dioxide ... You know the rest.
I wank in the shower.
The thing that makes Earths Systems Science and Climate Science so complex is how much they interact with each other. Changing one thing (such as the albedo, which is the scientific term for how much sunlight is reflected) can cause many other things to change which may amplify the effect, or stall the effect. For example, just quick thinking off my head, increasing the albedo of the earth by putting particles in the air would decrease global temperatures. This would increase the area of the polar ice caps. Which increases the albedo more, which cools the earth more. This is a simple feedback. But then there are many, many more feedbacks further down the chain. This is why climate science requires so much processing power to make models of the earth -- everything affects everything else. To answer your question, how it gets "turned off" is that eventually the particles will fall back down to earth, which is dependent on the altitude they're dispersed at and the particle size. But just think of the problems that could cause. What if the particles undergo a chemical change while in the atmosphere that causes them to be a carcinogen? What about those with respiration problems? Will crops be affected? I'm not saying it will cause any of these, but they're scenarios that will have to be carefully studied before ever embarking on planetary geoengineering projects. It's so complicated -- but if it can be carefully studied and simulated, it could lead to huge rewards. Not just for fixing humanity's impact on the earth in the past, but potentially improving the earth for continued growth of humanity. I dare say geology is the science that will have the biggest impact on our everyday lives for the next generation or two.
As has been noted, geo-engineering requires massive amounts of hubris and luck.
Geo-engineering is the act of fighting pollution... with yet more pollution!
And when you intentionally try to change a planet-wide system, all manner of unintended consequences will occur.
Reminds of an old WWII PSA poster.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
"In 1965 and through the 1970s and early 80s, virtually all scientists were Not discussing global warming. They were discussing Global Cooling."
Yes, because on the multi-thousand year timescale scientists are still expecting that -- another Ice Age is expected due to Milankovitch cycles. That hasn't changed. But that's long term. In the meantime, at century scale, we've pumped so much CO2 into the atmosphere that it overwhelms any immediate concern about global cooling. The CO2 will sort itself out eventually (because we'll run low on carbon-based fuels to pump into the atmosphere) and by then, guess what, you're right. We will be worried about global cooling again. Global warming is a temporary spike -- but a spike that will last the entire lifetime of everybody now alive.
It isn't about being "wrong" so much as the difference in time scale. I think of it a bit like being on a train in one of those old-style cowboy movies. Sure, you're worried about the getting off the train before it goes over the cliff at the end of the rail line (the next Ice Age), but in the meantime it might be a really good idea to duck your head underneath that low bridge that's much closer (global warming). It's a more pressing matter that kind of makes the longer-term concern a moot point if you ignore it.
This is a complete myth.
Like the complete myth that all respectable climatologists are on board with man made global warming?
Like Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (ATOC) at the University of Colorado.
He has created a power point on climate change.
Read this and be enlightened
http://climatesci.org/2008/10/14/dr-richard-keens-global-warming-quiz/
I find it highly ironic that you take one stance regarding cause/effect when it comes to global warming/cooling ("let's not hastily jump to conclusions"), and then you take the exact opposite stance when it comes to thyroid problems and autism ("it's gotta be the fluorine!"). Let's hear it for consistency!
"The Coming Ice Age" 1978
A good summary highlighting Time and Newsweek articles on Ice Age fears in the 70s.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Boo hoo, it's the cry of the urban planner who wants everyone in urban ratholes. No thanks.
That is quite the false dichotomy isn't it? I want to design communities that don't force you into urban ratholes, and you respond with 'boo hoo'? I want to see us develop the urban areas we have, to make them livable to more people so that we don't require everyone to move 50 miles from their jobs just to find a decent place to live.
Trust me when I say this, the last place I want to live is in a city. But the last thing i want to see happen is all of our contryside turned into generic urban fill. The problem is that the planning that existed to date was not part of a long term sustainable strategy. It banked on increasing the home-count and thus increased property tax revenue for governments, and not for the eventual collapse that will occur in 20-30 years when the cost of living in such a manner results in stagnating economies.
If you don't plan for that, then an urban rathole is what you will get.
I grew up in a rust-belt town. When you rely on a single industry to drive your local economy its foolish.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
the island is almost entirely comprises human-made trash. It currently weighs approximately 3.5 million tons with a concentration of 3.34 million pieces of garbage per square kilometer, 80 per cent of which is plastic.
Due to the Patch's location in the North Pacific Gyre, its growth is guaranteed to continue as this Africa-sized section of ocean spins in a vortex that effectively traps flotsam.
you had me at #!
One of my biggest gripes is the lack of community planning since the 1950s.
Bingo. What a lot of the people responding to you are failing to recognize is that "community planning" doesn't necessarily mean that everyone has to live in completely urban areas.
For example, you could have suburbs that well planned, where you have commercial property and residential property well spaced out, and you have a yard *and* you can walk a couple blocks to your grocery store. You can have a garage and a car *and* have the option of living a complete life relying on public transportation, in the same area.
America just hasn't done a good job of civic planning or infrastructure development for a very long time.
It's very libertarian to expect you to pay for the harm you cause to others. If dumping excess CO2 into the atmosphere is a problem then it's reasonable to hand you a bill for your portion.
The problem is that of a government, who can arrest you if you refuse to pay, rather than voluntary trade organizations who could choose not to deal with you.
Of course the benefit to a government, for everyone else, is that they could make you stop/pay even if you didn't want to.
The reality of government though is that they'd take a bribe from you to allow it - far smaller than a fair amount and all going to the politicians instead of towards repair/cleanup.