Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
I really like the way the article seems to indicate that geo-engineering is the short term solution and conservation is the long term solution.. I've always seen it as exactly the opposite. If we were to stop all greenhouse gas producing industry *right now* there would still be a global warming problem. If the problem is real then the only solution is global engineering. Hiding in the dark will only buy us time, the world needs a plan to use that time to find a solution.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Nice to see they consulted Wyle E. Cyote.
Seriously, how about a chalk farm?
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
I make that 10,000 launches which over 30 years is nearly a launch a day. I was under the impression that rocket launches have a negative environmental impact not including the impact of actually building so many.
I would prefer a method that we can reverse if it turns out that we misunderstood a bit of the carboncycle.. so please not the millions of tiny mirrors?
News bulletin: We've already fucked with it. (Without understanding).
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Reminds me of Kim Stanley Robinson's terraforming conjectures in his trilogy beginning with Red Mars , where an orbital lens first used to provide more sunlight for Mars is ultimately sent to Venus, turned around, and used to shield that hot planet from sunlight.
Here's how the mirror plan would work. Nuclear fission plants (or solar arrays) would power an array of about 10 billion dollars worth of solid state lasers. (at current prices, available today). The lasers would probably use LEDs to pump doped fiber optics, producing very cheap laser energy.
The capsules containing the mirrors would be kicked into the air using a catapault and then the bottom of the capsule would be vaporized using the lasers to create thrust. The laser array alone would insert the mirror capsules into orbit...tehre would be minimal to no onboard thrusters needed.
That's how you'd launch one every minute (need several arrays) over a 30 year period.
Global warming is a scam.
http://tinyurl.com/globalwarmingisascam
That site is loaded with pseudo-scientific data & outright lies. A few examples:
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.
The belief, that we humans can 'engineer' the earth and bend it to our expectations is exactly, what got us into this mess in the first place. How about re-engineering ourselves instead for the better?
Royal Society Press Release:
http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=8734
Which links to a 98-page pdf:
http://royalsociety.org/geoengineeringclimate/
The planet's fine.The people are fucked.
the solution is ... one big tin foil hat for earth?
I mean, so much depends on sunlight that limiting it seems like there's no way it ca possibly end well. This isn't countering global warming, this is throwing another massive climate change into the mix that may on average even out temperature changes. It's like treating an infected wound by setting a person's arm on fire.
I mean climate and plant life depend on sunlight. So how can you not expect to get famines, mass ecological changes, large scale climate changes and so on.
Did you watch the video?
The laws of physics have not changed.
Contrails are ice crystals that dissipate within minutes.
Chemtrails are a proven fact.
http://tinyurl.com/aerosolcrimes
I suppose you don't mind breathing aluminum, barium and all the other goodies in the "clouds".
http://tinyurl.com/globalwarmingisascam
You caught me on the reference to "terraforming". Looks like we need to start by terraforming our own planet to sustain its suitability for human life. Not so funny.
My suggestion along these lines would be a network of large controllable mirrors in orbit. The individual sections could be aimed, essentially by rotating them with gyroscopes. Some region is too hot? Adjust more mirrors to give it more shade and reduce its temperature. Another area is too cold? Add the appropriate amount of reflected sunlight and warm it right up. Might as well send some extra sunlight to the polar regions and cultivate crops there, too. Surplus light for electricity generation on the side.
Expensive? Yes, but basically within the capabilities of existing technologies. I actually think the largest technical hurdle would be sufficiently accurate weather modeling. We'd essentially need to micromanage the weather all over the world. I don't think the launch capacity would be unsolvable. The early launches would focus on the power generation, and the power would be used to crack sea water for the hydrogen that would be used to boost more mirror satellites into orbit.
Okay, so it would also be potentially dangerous, but I'm hoping that the security problems could be solved, and all technology is morally neutral. Any power to do good is also a power to do harm. (Unfortunately, this is not a balanced relationship. There are some powers that can do nothing but harm... But that's getting off the focus--which can be risky with such large mirrors.)
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
You don't need to be a scientist to realize which side is correct.
And you don't need to be a scientist to recognise that the biggest support for the GWisascam doctrine comes from the industries responsible for the heaviest CO2 emissions and buildup: the petroleum and coal industries, in combination with the forestry industry. You can hardly say they're impartial, and that they have no vested interest in keeping things exactly as they are.
If you insist on sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la-la-la-la" as you appear to, then sure you can be selective about your "experts", but you cannot possibly deny that the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is in agreement that climate change is the result of mankind's activities.
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 ?
I suppose stopping deforestation and planting more trees is beyond the top 1 issue.
"In the short term, the BFG hopes to offer an on-demand (i.e. dedicated launch) suborbital service..."
They couldn't have named their company better ! :p
From the point of view of Australia having water locked into glacier instead of raining down on our farmland is a crisis.
So if we all start geo-engineering rainfall on a global level what happens when one country wants water that other countries also want? What stops us geo-engineering our deserts to steal your rain? Who sets a quota describing how much rain we're allowed to have, and how will that be enforced?
There are some big technical problems with this plan, but there are also massive social and political problems to be overcome also.
1. Swindle?/Scam?/Fraud? Perpetrated by who? For what purpose? Who (which golem "them") gains exactly what from preventing this "global warming/climate change" that "they" say is happening and you insist is not? What is their payoff? And why are you so dead-set against it?
2. Are you seriously denying that humanity has, since the start of the Industrial Age, pumped trillions of tons of carbon (we'll ignore the sulfides, the chlorine, etc.) back into the atmosphere that have been locked away as coal and oil for hundreds of millions of years? Really? That just didn't happen? Really? It couldn't possibly have an effect? Really? And you're certain of this, how?
3. What's it to you? Why does it bother you so that people are worried about this and want to do something about it? Why are you so determined to stop them doing so?
Facepalm.
Increased ocean temperatures == releases of methane hydrate == more atmospheric methane == increased ocean temperatures.
Have you heard of the notion of "tipping points"? Runaway positive feedback?
Can you name THREE? Reputable environmental scientists, climatologists, even (real) meteorologists? You know, scientists with expertise in the field we're talking about? Do they have any, what's that word, evidence? Because the glaciologists and geologists and oceanologists are pretty convinced that something pretty wildly out-of-scale for the time frames involved, (in the absence of any other environmental factors: supervolcanos, large meteor strikes) is going on. Do these reputable environmental scientists really think that climate change isn't a real and worrisome threat, that mankind's stewardship of the planet hasn't been incredibly shocking irresponsible?
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
We could do with a "Global Warming Hero" like Saddam Hussain. He cut oil production, run his countries industry into the ground and drained marshlands creating deserts - which prevented methane emission. If all governments followed this model we could cut emissions drastically.
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...
Increased ocean temperatures == releases of methane hydrate == more atmospheric methane == increased ocean temperatures.
Who knows, maybe this is the reason for the Fermi paradox. Civilized race starts burning sequestered hydrocarbons and ends up broiling themselves when they accidentally turn their planet into something like Venus.
How about taking a SMALL NEO asteroid, carefully put it into L1 (earth-sun) and then slowly grind it into dust (spraying the dust to form a slowly dispersing cloud). If the particles are small enough, an asteroid perhaps 100m cubed could block out perhaps 1% of the sun for a few decades. Not only would it lessen our global warming predicament (temporarily until the cloud disperses through radiation pressure completely, but that's a good thing we don't want a permanent fix!) but it would teach us very valuable lessons on how to move celestial objects around; first for our protection and later for resources.
Needed: a (probably nuclear powered) mass mover/ion drive (a gravity tractor is probably too slow for anything but gentle nudges). Then some sort of grinding machine (celestial snow blower?) which will be powered by said nuclear reactor (the dust cloud will make solar panels ineffectual).
* I really liked the idea of iron fertilization of the ocean "deserts" but I guess it was not proven effective and the possibility of creating huge amounts of jellyfish rather than tuna was not a good thing.
That's how he knows.
Look, I don't want to get into an argument about whether anthropogenic global warming is 'really happening' or not, but your comments show little understanding of... maths.
CO2 does not, and never has, been a significant greenhouse gas. but suddenly it's responsible for our planets temp???!
It's not 'responsible for our planets temp???!'(sic). It's a contributing factor. Unless you thing CO2 isn't in any way a greenhouse gas you must admit that the increase from ~315 to ~385 ppm since 1960 will result in some increased heat retention which will be compounded every year until a new, higher, equilibrium is reached. CO2 concentration is only one factor in a complex equation which, yes, features insolation and water vapour prominently. Claiming that changing the CO2 concentration should have no effect on the climate only shows that you don't understand the mathematics of a basic climate model.
</rant>
.evom ton seod gis eht
When someone tells you the opposite, you stick your fingers in your ears and pretend not to listen. When facts are thrown in front of you, you close your eyes. Any religious fanatic would be proud.
However if you claim to be right and that is what you are doing now, the following term comes to mind: 'Citation needed'. With other words, back your story with science. Read papers, documents, articles. Don't go to some pseudo-scientific website full of video's with "Don't trust them!" or other scare tactic type of name. I don't like video's since anyone can manipulate that. Science papers that are reviewed by real institutions and universeties are less likely to be falsified and thus more trustworthy.
Don't go trolling by claiming you are right and the rest is wrong while backing it up with more foggy fabrications. Prove it!
Tell me, how's the weather on Venus at this time of year?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
We have been doing that for the last couple hundred years with horrible effect. You know the funny thing about each of these recommendations is that they say these projects are feasible but don't talk about what could go wrong, how to fix them, and the cost of both. Ridiculous. In my mind we should of course reduce production of CO2 but we should also prepare for the inevitable fact that governments will move too slowly and we are going to need to mitigate a lot of the damage. Some of these mitigation strategies are going to take a long time to plan and we should start now.
Any geoengineering solution that doesn't actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere is a waste of money because it fails to confront the totality of the problem. Though it garners the majority of the media attention, the biggest problem with increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is not climate change, rather that it leads directly to an increase in the acidity of the worlds oceans.
because as soon we started restrictions on importation of certain types of wood the places where they grow chopped them down to never replant and instead turned the forested areas into farms.
Recently a large tract in my area was clear cut but is already being prepped for its next batch of trees. I fully agree that planting more trees is helpful but don't forget that they are a renewable resource and when managed properly and encouragement is given for their use we actually end up with more trees.
Its the restrictive trade in certain types of wood that have doomed more acres of forest land than anything.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The article is about as noncommittal as you can get. Basically they say geo-engineering might work and/or it might be a bad idea. At least they had the sense to bash the idea they tested a while back to dump iron into the ocean to sequester carbon. Geo-engineering is a bad option made worse by inaction on the fundamental problem: excess CO2 emission. With China and India ramping up their CO2 emissions as fast as they can, the task might be worse than futile. Unforeseen consequences of geo-engineering schemes could make matters far, far worse than they already are. Additionally, the cost to produce whatever technology is utilized would be prohibitive when applied on a global scale - bad enough to crush the economies of the entire world if sufficient taxation to fund the plan is implemented.
Any scheme that does not put major CO2 reduction at the heart of the plan is doomed to failure. Worse, these cockamamie save-the-world schemes that give every moron the warm and fuzzies always fail to mention that we don't get a "do-over" if it goes wrong. Geo-engineering is a terrible idea. Grab-your-rifle-and-storm-the-capital terrible. Reduce CO2 first and do nothing else.
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
News bulletin: We've already fucked with it. (Without understanding).
...'.
Yes, just another instance of the onion-type repair model. Once a problem has become obvious, create another layer to fix the problem. Reminds me of a code-comment like 'hack to circumvent the bug created by the fix
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
Here's another good way to use trees to capture and store extra carbon, plus dramatically improve the soil and help with water issues. Biochar
Trying to reduce the solar irradiance hitting the planet just seems like a bad idea: you're basically effecting photosynthesis - the process by which CO2 can be reduced naturally.
Geo-engineer other things - like CO2 sequestration - but don't fuck with Sun.
If Gaia existed it would be the most capricious and brutal god imaginable. Only the strong survive, unless a rock falls on them, or a supernova goes off too close. Nature isn't the default state, the safe state, that we should try to cower in. Nature is the ravening maw of a stochastic greedy optimization technique with an arbitrary value function, that wants to test each individual of our species every moment of every day until we mess up and get squished. Nature is the enemy and we aren't safe until we subjugate it.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
The problem is he could name three and it wouldn't matter who they were as you would immediately dismiss them as it's become an emotional issue to you, so I hate to say it but your as bad as the parent.
You've invested in the theory emotionally as has he and so you neither of you can be counted on to be rational about it.
Not to mention appealing to consensus is a really shitty way to "win" a debate.
It wasn't long ago that the UK Royal Society were in consensus that tuberculosis outbreaks were caused by dirty air and motivated by egos and politics refused to accept solid evidence to the contrary while offering ridiculous (and expensive) solutions for years while thousands died.
Arguing consensus opens a whole can of worms on many of the "known and widely held consensus ideas" that turned out to be obviously and ridiculously wrong. So best not to do it.
And I'll answer this for him "3. What's it to you? Why does it bother you so that people are worried about this and want to do something about it? Why are you so determined to stop them doing so?"
Powerful people are trying to fundamentally change the way we live. Not to mention suggesting dangerous "solutions" like the one in the article. It's perfectly rational to be concerned and sceptical when a handful of people start telling everyone they have to accept a whole new way of thinking especially when many many of the loudest proponents of the new way of thinking come with quite a bit of political baggage.
And when the supporters of the "new way of thinking" are as emotionally attached to the idea as many tend to be you get a natural negative reaction from many as science is meant to be about facts and hard evidence, not emotion...
Not to mention that *most* of the CO2 hype is largely based on computer models... Models are useful tools, but while most scientists apparently agree that we have global warming, even more agree that you cannot accurately model climate yet. And some even suggest that it will likely never be possible.
Models are especially cool since climate is a 10-15 year deal, by the time you can measure the accuracy of your model, it's long forgotten and you already got your money and 15 minutes of media fame for saying the collective farting power of krill will cause the next ice age.
There is a lot of good climate science being done, don't get me wrong. But given how political the issue has become, there is also a giganormous load of bullshit being peddled as science too. And apparently, all you need is pictures of polar bears to disable most bullshit radars.
Mind the frickin' laser...
There's plenty of carbon already stored below earth... we keep digging it up!!!
Plants are pretty good at storing carbon.. we keep cutting them down....
There is a cycle to warm and cold spells in the earth. Right now recorded history only tracks about 4,000 years in the East. Even 1500 years ago Europe was several degrees warmer allowing agrarian societies to flourish in middle Norway and Sweden and Russia, more north than would be habitable by "bronze age" peoples today. That was when Romans were building cities all the way to Britain and Vikings were traveling the North Atlantic in open air boats. Then it got colder and drove everybody south to Britian and France... (and pushed them to sac Rome)
The history of the early middle ages is one of drastic environmental change crushing civilization in on itself for a thousand years, they didn't write about it, they just moved on when they couldn't grow food to live on..until the plague wiped enough people out (living on top of each other in crowded cities, with cyclical famine cycles) to balance what the environment could provide. Africa is in the middle of something similar right now and the humans are in chaos.