Solar Geoengineering Could Lead To Whiter, Brighter Skies

cylonlover writes "We've heard reports that placing small, reflective particles into the upper atmosphere could actually improve crop yields, but would also significantly reduce the amount of electricity generated by solar power plants and do little to arrest the acidification of the world's oceans. Now another potential side effect has been theorized by Californian researchers, who say that solar geoengineering could lead to brighter, whiter skies, and sunsets with an afterglow (abstract)."

Comments

Add a tag to the story

[Nidi62]

Whatcouldpossiblygowrong?

The haze is white in the city, violet from afar

[sandytaru]

The effect they describe can be seen in Atlanta on particularly bad days (although it also sometimes has a greenish yellow tinge in the spring when the pollen counts get insanely high.) What really hit me in the gut, though, was seeing the city from atop a mountain a hundred miles away. The Blue Ridge mountains around us were all surrounded by clear blue skies, but Atlanta to the south was shrouded in what looked like a gray-violet miasma. The same smog that turned the skies white inside the city was gray from a distance.

I think we need to be more concerned with pulling crap out of the atmosphere than putting more stuff in it.

Re:The haze is white in the city, violet from afar

[MozeeToby]

Yes, the difference is the forest fire eventually goes out. The smog from Atlanta is being produced 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Re:The haze is white in the city, violet from afar

[tbannist]

I don't think you understand what you're talking about:

It seems like you are make a reference to the Urban Heat Island effect, but "the Greenies" are aware of it, however, according to the Koch-funded BEST project, areas under the Urban Heat Island effect actually show a slightly lower global warming trend than other areas. See the important thing to now is that when the Urban Heat Island effect raises the temperature in an area by 2 degrees it does so continuously. So both the urban area and the rural area around it will show a very similar global warming trend.

It's not that "the Greenies" don't know about the effect, it's that it's probably not important in context. Frankly, I've never heard of an environmentalist denying that humans can change the local environment, maybe this is something you're projecting?

Re:Sounds like the cons outweigh the pro's.

[RaceProUK]

All ideas should be considered, no matter how ridiculous. Not all should be practised though.

Humans F-up everytime they toy with nature

[cpu6502]

Well almost every time. Like the damming of rivers which kills fish and blocks the natural flow of sediment. Or levees that make rivers flow faster and, when the flood happens, is far worse than a natural un-leveed flood. Or putting-out forest fires such that, when a fire happens now there's massive overgrowth that turns a small blaze into an inferno that makes the ground into glass.

Isn't it about time we learn to LIVE with nature, instead of trying to engineer it and screwing up? Over millions-of-years nature has reached a natural balance with its flow-of-rivers, floods, and the occasional fire (trees developed fire-retardant bark). All we humans manage to do is frak it up.

Re:Sounds like the cons outweigh the pro's.

[Nidi62]

Between solar, wind, and nuclear it's not hard to do, it's just not very popular with the big oil interests that control our politics.

It's also not popular with the people that protest against oil and oil interests. They won't let us invest in new nuclear reactor technology or build new plants, then complain when all the nuclear plants we have are old and outdated.

Re:Sounds like the cons outweigh the pro's.

[LoyalOpposition]

Clearly the correct (and most feasible) approach to us putting too much CO2 into the atmosphere is to put less CO2 into the atmosphere

Yep. That's why I never exercise. Clearly the correct and most feasible approach to putting too much food into my mouth is to put less food into my mouth.

~Loyal

Re:Night lights.

[Electricity Likes Me]

Usually people do this for the indirect lighting though. You probably don't want the light on in the room with the TV, but you don't want the house to be completely dark either.

Another stupid nonreversible geo-engineering idea

[gestalt_n_pepper]

... rife with unintended consequences. If you're going to turn UP the lights, you'd damn well better have a way to turn them back DOWN again. Large repositionable mirrors in space would do this. Throwing crap into the atmosphere because it's cheaper would not.

Re:Night lights.

[geekoid]

Because people don't like feeling they live in a cave.

Re:If you dump al that light on crops,

[rufty_tufty]

RTFA
Photosynthesis is more effective in diffuse light.

Easy to imagine that with light coming in from many angles the particles in plant cells that have the chlorophyll are illuminated from more sides therefore more efficient.Also leaves that aren't perfectly lined up with the sun get more light than they otherwise would.

Re:Posting to undo moderation

[Joce640k]

56 minutes of every day of your life to pay for light? You think that's better than, say, I dunno, pressing a button when you go in a room?

I was right. You *are* weird.