Slashdot Mirror


What If We Lost the Sky?

HughPickens.com (3830033) writes "Anna North writes in the NYT that a report released last week by the National Research Council calls for research into reversing climate change through a process called albedo modification: reflecting sunlight away from earth by, for instance, spraying aerosols into the atmosphere. But such a process could, some say, change the appearance of the sky — and that in turn could affect everything from our physical health to the way we see ourselves. "You'd get whiter skies. People wouldn't have blue skies anymore." says Alan Robock. "Astronomers wouldn't be happy, because you'd have a cloud up there permanently. It'd be hard to see the Milky Way anymore."

According to Dacher Keltner, a psychology professor at the University of California, losing the night sky would have big consequences. "When you go outside, and you walk in a beautiful setting, and you just feel not only uplifted but you just feel stronger. There's clearly a neurophysiological basis for that," says Keltner, adding that looking up at a starry sky provides "almost a prototypical awe experience," an opportunity to feel "that you are small and modest and part of something vast." If we lose the night sky "we lose something precious and sacred." "We're finding in our lab that the experience of awe gets you to feel connected to something larger than yourself, see the humanity in other people," says Paul K. Piff. "In many ways it's kind of an antidote to narcissism." And the sky is one of the few sources of that experience that's available to almost everybody: "Not everyone has access to the ocean or giant trees, or the Grand Canyon, but we certainly all live beneath the night sky."

Alan Robock says one possible upside of adding aerosols could be beautiful red and yellow sunsets as "the yellow and red colors reflect off the bottom of this cloud." Robock recommends more research into albedo modification: "If people ever are tempted to do this, I want them to have a lot of information about what the potential benefits and risks would be so they can make an informed decision. Dr. Abdalati says deploying something like albedo modification is a last-ditch effort. "We've gotten ourselves into a climate mess. The fact that we're even talking about these kinds of things is indicative of that."

8 of 421 comments (clear)

  1. Highlander III did it already... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Possibly the worst movie ever, but everyone in their world hated their lives because they had no sky.

    1. Re:Highlander III did it already... by taiwanjohn · · Score: 4, Informative

      Those time-traveling immortals should have taken a detour via 2013 to hear Allan Savory's TED Talk: Allan Savory: How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change. The action is all in the soil, not up in the sky.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
  2. Changing for you maybe by cupantae · · Score: 5, Informative

    "You'd get whiter skies. People wouldn't have blue skies anymore."

    Living in Ireland, the sky is white or grey about half the time. You get over it.

    --
    --
    1. Re:Changing for you maybe by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah, a lot of people already live in the sort of environments that they're warning against. This line got me:

      And the sky is one of the few sources of that experience that's available to almost everybody

      Is that a joke? People's ability to see the night sky varies vastly depending on where they are. In big metro area, all you can see are the brightest of stars. There's little to no majesty to it. It's when you get out into the deep, deep countryside and look up at the uncountable multitude above you that you feel little and insignificant compared to the cosmos around you. There's nothing universal about ready access to a dark sky. And it's getting rarer and rarer.

      --
      We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
  3. Re:Don't fucking do it. by zm · · Score: 3, Informative

    Mother nature did this before. It wasn't pretty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y... Something tells me we shouldn't fucking do it.

    --
    Sig ?
  4. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” - IPCC

  5. Re:Don't fucking do it. by stjobe · · Score: 3, Informative

    Known around these parts as "eighteen-hundred-froze-to-death".

    As in "Wow, that's old. Haven't seen one of those since eighteen-hundred-froze-to-death".

    My friends usually look at me weird when I explain that the expression references 1816 and the effects of Mount Tambora exploding and putting lots and lots (and lots) of ash into the atmosphere.

    --
    "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
  6. Re:Wait a goddamn minute here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Comprehension failure on your part. "Solar forcing" refers to the planet warming up because the sun is putting out more heat. Well, the sun isn't putting out more heat; the Earth is warming because it's trapping the heat better due to the increased amount of CO2 in the upper atmosphere. That is indeed settled science.
    Now, reducing the amount of heat from the sun that reaches the surface will obviously cool down the planet. That's in no way in contradiction with the accepted science behind AGW models. I fail to see how you can misunderstand that, unless you desperately want to.