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.
Never a more apt tag in the whole of the internet.
To act like sunglasses... or moving the Earth back from the Sun a little bit.
Not driving alone in your own car everywhere you go is socialist COMMUNISM. We don't need that here in the real America.
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.
But what could possibly go wrong?
It seems that a lot of our problems are caused by the introduction of small particulates into the air and water. And once we figure out how to reflect 1% of the sunlight and eventually reduce our own greenhouse emissions I have to wonder one thing.
How do you turn it off when we are 'cooler'?
In actuality, I'm wondering a lot of things, but I'm fairly confident that dumping millions of barrels of reflective particles into the ocean is something that will not be high on a popularity poll.
Of course, I'm one of those evil people who isn't as concerned about global warming. Not because I don't believe it exists, but because a lot of the cure appears to be worse than the symptoms. How much will it cost to relocate costal communities over a 50-100 year timeframe, and how much will it cost so that we won't have to do that. Those are some of the answers I want addressed.
I could spend 3 million dollars to make my home hurricane proof, or I could move to Montana.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
This is a complete myth. Read this and be enlightened - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94
> 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
Or we could just pollute less? It's less risky than turning the Earth into a big science experiment.
There's another risk: That the same same people promoting "Clean Coal" (a big hello to you Australia) hop on this bandwagon as another reason not to do anything?
To be fair, we will have to address a myriad of issues before we are able to effect any real change in the US.
One of my biggest gripes is the lack of community planning since the 1950s. Everyone wanted to live in the suburbs, and now, thanks to the housing construction boom, local governments drunk on property tax revenue, and a complete lack of traffic planning we have broken the back of many of our communities.
I've seen so much of the countryside consumed in this glut of home building it sickens me. I'm not even 30 and I have seen some historical areas and homes purchased by development companies and turned into sales offices. 5000 sq ft homes on 1 acre plots are built while nothing is added to the existing communities. Watching people reward this blight by purchasing or renting these homes and commuting 30-50 miles boggles the mind.
It is a culture of the car. Shops are spaced out almost as much as the homes. The expectation is that you will drive to one business, get back in your car and drive to the next.
The design of our communities is so freaking wasteful it really marks the 'green' movement as a cute fad for people that really don't understand the problems that exist. 'greening' your less than 10 year old subdivision or condo is spending more money for less solution. Save the money and work to bring your community back to one where you don't have to get into your car to perform any sort of activity and you will see a much greater return.
(Now where's my coffee, thats too much of a rant for this early in the morning)
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
I don't think the OP was suggesting that even the people who truly need to drive should stop. But it's patently evident that among an enormous sector of the American population, cars are used when they aren't really necessary. I've watched healthy and hale people in my family drive to places that would only be an easy and pleasant five or ten minute walk away. I've seen posters here on Slashdot claim that reliable public transportation exists in their communities, but they'd rather drive in their own cars than be around poor people.
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 concern is that we won't cut back CO2 enough (and looking at the current state of things, this is quite likely), and we need a backup plan.
But gee, maybe you're right, that kind of thinking sure makes you deserving of nothing but death, doesn't it?
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
The company Planktos was showcased on modern marvels that claims they can have a tangible impact on global warming by mixing iron dust into ocean water then spreading it over plankton blooms.
The iron draws plankton to the surface to feed on the iron dust, and the plankton also absorbs the CO2 out of the air. They claimed 1ton of iron could take tens of thousands tons CO2 out of the atmosphere. Not directly related to the article, but its on topic.
You can watch the story on modern marvels
Overclockers
When I was born, the estimated human population of this planet was 2.5 billion, give or take a hundred million. Today, the estimated human population of this planet is 6.7 billion, give or take a hundred million.
Yes, the number of humans on this planet has more than doubled in my lifetime! And we wonder why we are affecting the global climate??
The solutions are obvious. Up to now no one, including me, has had the balls to seriously consider implementing them. Eventually somebody is going to seriously consider implementing them and probably sooner than we expect. Interesting times, indeed.
Boo hoo, it's the cry of the urban planner who wants everyone in urban ratholes. No thanks.
If you think living in a concrete jungle is the greatest thing, you live there
And that's why assumptions and jumping to conclusions is a bad thing. I live on a 40+ acres in upstate NY in a cedar log cabin. The first time I met my neighbor was when he drove up on his tractor so we could discuss hunting access routes.
Back on topic, I'm not advocating a concrete jungle, in fact, I'm advocating an increase to green space.
The problem is, a lot of people WANT a simple apartment where they can live less than 10 miles from work. Unfortunately that is not what is being built in the United States. You end up with suburban sprawl for nearly 100 miles in every direction from a major city. With more longterm thought placed into zoning we could see the suburban sprawl greatly reduced. Existing urban areas (I'm including small cities in this area) have been ignored because it was cheaper to buy up some farms, sub-divide them into 1 acre plots and build mass-produced homes that were riding on the housing bubble.
The problem is that we have been building the most profitable, but not the most sustainable communities. With even the slightest planning, we could help people like you and I who like our open space and trees, while still housing the people who want their short commutes.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
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
Come on, we're in 2008 and we still have weather?
Don't design my car to get optimal MPG at 55...target 65, because that is highway speed.
Due to the laws of physics, the only way to make a car have optimal MPG at 65 is to reduce the efficiency at lower speeds.
You ALWAYS need more energy to keep the car running at 65, because of the air drag. The power usage due to air drag is proportional to the CUBE of the speed, so it increases very fast.
Opinions expressed above are mine, and not my employees'.
Im a little skeptical of this solution. The percent of the earth that is parking lots and building tops is actually incredibly tiny. Once you start leaving the developed areas its nothing but nature and ocean.
Im sure you can reflect some light, but assuming that this little amount of light will translate into anything that affects global warming seems like a big assumption to me.
Not to mention the cost of digging up the earth and extracting all the white pigments and producing various amount of white paint. That could have real negative environment effects.
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 #!
In 1965 and through the 1970s and early 80s, virtually all scientists were Not discussing global warming. They were discussing Global Cooling.
I'm sorry, but the scientific literature disproves your claim. If you don't believe me, go look for yourself at the papers published back then. Web of Knowledge will find them for you. Or just read this paper, written by a group of scientists who got fed up with claim and did a full literature review from 1965-1979. See, in particular, Figure 1. During that period, there was only one year in which cooling papers than warming papers were published (1971), and more warming papers than cooling papers were published in every year after 1971.
In another comment you respond,
I read the article, but I was also ALIVE at that time.
That's nice. Did you read scientific journals back then? Or go to climate conferences? Somehow I doubt it.
The mainstream media isn't the scientific community, and neither was Carl Sagan. Yes, back then some scientists did think that cooling was going to win out. Most of them didn't. The fact is, throughout the 1970s and certainly into the 80s, the scientific community — as measured by the papers they published on the subject — was definitely projecting warming more than cooling.
Fuck you, you don't know me or my beliefs. The REAL problem with the world is people like you - people who lump broad groups of other people that they don't understand or are afraid of into narrow categories and focus all of their bitterness and hatred onto them
This could be the most ironic post evaaaaaar!
which is totally what she said
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.
Aerosol geoengineering has a fast response time. We already have a pretty good idea of how strong the cooling effect is, because volcanoes do it all the time. We can gradually dial it up or down, because the climate responds quickly to changes in aerosol optical depth. If the effect is too large, we can dial it down within a few years before anything lasting happens. Accidentally plunging ourselves into an ice age is not a serious risk.
That being said, it's still a bad idea for reasons discussed in TFA, most notably the scenario where we counterbalance the warming for some time and then fail to do it, leading to a large abrupt warming once the cancellation stops.
...this is much ado about nothing, and can be attributed simply to natural cycles in the weather system.
So which "natural cycle" is it? We've looked at the ones which have caused past climate change (e.g., solar variations, volcanoes, changes in ocean circulation), and ruled them out as the cause of the current warming.
People are so damn self-centered they think anything that happens is a direct result of something they did.
It's not self centered, it's physics. The fact is that we are ramping atmospheric CO2 up to levels not seen in millions of years, its effect on the climate is not negligible.
but seeing how I'm experiencing almost record cold temperatures now for this time of year in my area,
Global warming doesn't predict that every location on Earth gets monotonically hotter every year.
I personally don't like my neighbors. I live where I do because of it's proximity to work and my friends and family, not to mention cost.
Frankly, if they all moved away and I was the only person for a mile in any direction I'd be a lot happier. That's why they don't get a "hello".
I'm sure your first question is why don't I? I can only ask, why should I?
did anyone consider that the oceans may need sunlight, and to make it "reflective" would ultimately ruin this planet even faster ?
happy trials
This in from the future of an alternate timeline: The standard protocol for terraforming experiments such as these is to always have a backup planet, with complete infrastructure in place, in case something goes wrong.
I don't think we're going to meet that requirement for many decades to come. Experimenting with global systems is ill advised at best until we have somewhere else to go in the event of a failure.
--
Toro
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.