UK Royal Society Claims Geo-Engineering Feasible

krou writes "The BBC is reporting that a UK Royal Society report claims that geo-engineering proposals to combat the effects of climate change are 'technically possible.' Three of the plans considered showed the most promise: 'CO2 capture from ambient air'; enhancing 'natural reactions of CO2 from the air with rocks and minerals'; and 'Land use and afforestation'. They also noted that solar radiation management, while some climate models showed them to be ineffective, should not be ignored. Possible suggestions included: 'a giant mirror on the Moon; a space parasol made of superfine aluminum mesh; and a swarm of 10 trillion small mirrors launched into space one million at a time every minute for the next 30 years.'"

Comments

Re:Reducing emissions does nothing

[BuR4N]

Geo-engineering is a short term last resort solution when everything else fails. It has so many unknown factors that in worst case it can lead to an even worse disaster than the one its trying to prevent.

Reducing emissions is the best way in the long run. Part from reducing the Co2 emissions it drives technology development towards more efficient use of energy, new products, new companies, new jobs etc etc.

We have to face the facts, quick fixes does not exists to this problem, we have to clean up our mess and take the consequences.

Re:Global warming is a scam.

[nomad-9]

Global warming is a scam.

http://tinyurl.com/globalwarmingisascam

That site is loaded with pseudo-scientific data & outright lies. A few examples:

• It claims NASA studies have shown that the sun is responsible for GW. This is a lie. NASA said the opposite. Go the NASA Web site & verify by yourself (http://climate.nasa.gov/)
• The "founder of the Weather Channel" (John Coleman) is not a climate scientist. If you watch his YouTube series, you'll notice how he's confusing weather (short-term) with climate (long-term)
• The "GW swindle" documentary has been sued in court for misrepresenting the opinions of the scientists interviewed. ex: Sir David King, the Government's former chief scientist.
• The typical strawman of "CO2 is not a pollutant" has been addressed many times over. No scientist claimed CO2 was a pollutant. It is the excess of CO2 coming form industrial waste that is having heat trapping effects and causes ocean acidification: http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249
• The US senate is no authority on GW. The US Academy of Sciences is. The latter subscribes to man-made GW.
• etc..

There is a difference between the FACTS of GW, and the solutions proposed. The only thing that I agree with that site you mentioned, is that some of the policies & the utilization for political ends of GW are questionable.

Re:Reducing emissions does nothing

[BuR4N]

Worsening water crisis?

The water crisis is not about total amount of water, it is the displacement of water from one point to another.

Water in the form of glacier ice in the Himalayas (providing drinking water for millions and millions down stream), that instead becomes rain in Australia , is a water crisis.

Or else ...

[alexibu]

Or we could just have a brief and rather blunt conversation with our friends in the coal, oil and beef industries.
Which is what world leaders are tiptoeing around trying to avoid, pretending terrestrial biofuels were an option, pretending carbon sequestration is an option. All of this stuffing around to avoid some uncomfortable conversation about facts that both the politicians, the people and the companies know are true.

Must we be stupider as a species than our individual parts ?

Re:Global warming is a scam.

[nomad-9]

You believe what you want.

No, I believe the facts. My personal desires are irrelevant.

You don't need to be a scientist to realize which side is correct.

Yes, you do. AFAIK, climatology is a science.

The nasa article in the link speaks for itself.

Which essentially means you didn't even bother to verify it by going to the NASA site I mentioned. Looks like it is YOU who believe what YOU want.

I don't care who John Coleman is what he says makes sense.

He doesn't make sense. Weather is distinct from climate. He is not qualified .

The court case involving the gw swindle ended in a decision that the content was essentially true.

Ofcom, the UK media regulator has ruled that The Great Global Warming Swindle was unfair to the IPCC, David King, and Carl Wunsch and breached a requirement of impartiality about global warming policy.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/ofcom_rules_that_the_great_glo.php

Excess CO2 has nothing to do with global warming in fact rising CO2 is an effect of increased global temps not a cause. The US senate means nothing. The hundreds of scientists that disagree with the climate change fraud do. Think for yourself for a minute. CO2 is what we exhale and what plants inhale. A good case can be made for the good caused by a warming planet. The facts indicate that there has not been any warming. Studies have shown that incorrect measurements taken in hot heat island city environments can account for the change.

You're repeating the same old already disproved fallacies over. Go to the NASA site I mentioned earlier & try your best at looking at the facts.

Natural variation makes a lot more sense than the idiocy of the global warming "proof".

Natural variation has been disproved by NASA.

Go on and believe the few "experts" ignore the others and follow what Al Gore says.

I believe the facts, and that independently of what Al Gore might think. BTW, the "few experts " are the majority. That includes NASA who has the largest concentration of climate scientists, the academies of sciences of 27 countries, and all the major scientific institutions like National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, National Center for Atmospheric Research, American Meteorological Society, US Geological Survey etc...