Slashdot Mirror
Group Seeks Test For Geoengineering Tool To Fight Climate Change
An anonymous reader writes: A group of retired engineers and scientists has been meeting for several years to develop techniques to fight climate change. They've now reached the point where they want to actively test a machine that shoots water droplets into the sky in order to supplement existing clouds and increase the planet's albedo. The group is not aiming for full deployment — in fact, it's not even unanimous in support for prevailing theories in climate science. But they all agree that it's important to learn about such technologies before the situation becomes a crisis. "We need to understand whether this approach is even possible and what the risks are, in the event that we find ourselves looking for ways to extend time and mitigate warming damage."
If we're eventually forced to deploy large-scale geoengineering projects to combat climate change, it's not a good idea to grab whatever technology is cheapest or most readily available without knowing how well it works. The group is aware of the ethical concerns surrounding such research, but its director notes, "The fact is humanity is already engaged in unplanned climate engineering. We're doing it through coal plant and shipping emissions every day without understanding it very well."
If we're eventually forced to deploy large-scale geoengineering projects to combat climate change, it's not a good idea to grab whatever technology is cheapest or most readily available without knowing how well it works. The group is aware of the ethical concerns surrounding such research, but its director notes, "The fact is humanity is already engaged in unplanned climate engineering. We're doing it through coal plant and shipping emissions every day without understanding it very well."
Nobody is asking for governmental control... they're asking to perform an experiment. Geez.
In all seriousness, I like that they're just looking at the technology, and studiously avoiding any attempt to take a political side in any of this. There are practical applications for this in the macro sense that have approximately bupkis to do with the whole debate, after all.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Plants... they consume CO2, which seems to be the big issue in climate change.
How about projects to plant more plants in cities globally? Like forcing coal-powered power plants to surround their plant with plants? Plan to plant more plants in your plants.
* Does absolutely nothing to prevent ocean acidification
* Provides only masking - if they ever stop (lack of funding, discovery of profound negative consequences, or whatever), all the warming that they've been hiding comes rushing back
* They're just as likely to increase temperatures by increasing IR reflectance as they are to decrease it by increasing albedo. The least well understood aspect of the planet's climate, by a large margin, is clouds; they make up the vast majority of the error bars in the IPCC projections.
* There's a whole raft of staggeringly huge potential downstream disruptions, many of which could increase the problem - for example, reduction of photosynthesis.
I'm actually a moderate to slightly pro-geoengineering. But this is one of the dumbest geoengineering ideas out there. No, I don't think it's worth even wasting the money to try, that money should go to other more worthwhile projects.
Stale pastry is hollow succor to one who is bereft of ostrich.
The debate has now officially moved on. Please do not rehash the past, or find an excuse to parrot your SJW whinings.
Hear that, everyone? The debate has now officially moved on: Tokolosh hath spoken. None of your "SJW whinings"!
Man, you can practically hear the Fedora and the neckbeard...
Kind of hearing hipster bs coming off of you.
climate change is the manifestation of the global use of fossil fuels at an unprecedented rate, releasing millions of tons of greenhouse gasses. in Cloud Reflectivity Modification, these devices being proposed would also contribute to global warming in that they are, in models, driven by plane and ships. I support the science. we need to learn more about how this affects or impacts a controlled environment. but to insinuate its somehow going to solve a problem of this magnitude is sophomoric on a number of levels, not the least of which economic.
Easier more practical solutions like alternative energy and curbing emissions in the first place are a better application of the finite resources we have to address climate change. To expound upon the articles premise, If we're eventually forced to deploy large-scale geoengineering projects to combat climate change, its already too late.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Again, we see false solutions emerging to solve this problem. The single most important contributing factor to global warming through greenhouse gas emission is animal agriculture, at 18% (vs. the entire transportation sector at 13%).The United Nations knows this (http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0612sp1.htm) since 2006. If you add the loss of rain forest due to yet again animal agriculture, it gets even worst. Some estimates are putting the contribution to global warming by the animal agriculture sector between 31 and 50% (http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294). Yet, we North Americans keep avoiding to talk about changing the food choices being made in the developed world because, God forbid, we should have to change something as "personal" as our diet to save the planet. Newsflash: without this change, the planet is already doomed. Some projections estimate that by year 2050, we will see an increase of the ocean's water level of 18 feet. That means we have to relocate 600 million humans. That'll be fun. Imagine now 3 billion extra mouths to feed. Animal agriculture is already occupying 45% of Earth's total land (https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/10601/IssueBrief3.pdf), and we can barely manage to feed the 7 billions we have. Do the math, it is already unsustainable. And it will get worst as the developing countries want to eat "just like Americans". I get depressed when I think about this stuff. Since we all have personal diet "freedom" until the fit hits the shan, I guess the only thing I can do is apply the change myself (which I did a year ago), transmit these values to my kids and hope for the best while I wish them luck for the next 25 years ...
Seriously though, for all we know, historically Earth has seen higher temperatures and much higher CO2 levels, and life on the planet was flourishing, much bigger and much more diverse than it is today.
And we also know that when the planet has rapidly transitioned between climactic periods, it's been associated with mass extinctions. So I'm not really sure what your point is.
To reiterate, the issue is not that the planet is changing, but how fast the planet is changing. Life takes time to adapt.
Boron is also needed by all complex life, but that doesn't mean we should be digging up huge amounts of it and dumping it into our air, either.
Stale pastry is hollow succor to one who is bereft of ostrich.
is silence the deluded gasbags spewing lies on behalf of dirty energy, and move ahead on alternatives on a wartime basis. between coal spew and the denial industry's hot air, that's half the problem solved.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Seriously, if we can do this off the western coast or in the mexican gulf, we can increase the humidity and then once over mountains, simply seed it to snow.
Or, if we know that a cold front is incoming in one direction, simply increase the humidity in another area, so as to drop plenty of snow/rain.
With this approach, we could increase the snowpack in the western mountains and save it in the numerous reservoirs.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
So long as they stick to technology that can't run away, I don't see a problem. Aerosols to increase the Earth's albedo, ocean algal growth that is tied to a nutrient we have to supply, many approaches have been suggested. What they are trying to do is characterize early attempts at sequestration before the carbon problem becomes acute. Because the climate models we have now do a poor job of predicting weather, we don't know yet how big the carbon problem is. Prudence dictates that we prepare for a "major impact" outcome in case of need.
Unfortunately, one thing I know for sure is the very carbon hawks who believe we're all about to die really quick are the ones who will resist any potential solution and try to kill off any experimentation before it gets started. A viable sequestration or cooling program wouldn't fit in with their agenda of human extinction.
Actually I think there is a very strong argument for developing the capability to geo-engineer the climate which goes beyond any man-made climate change. There is overwhelming evidence that the Earth's climate changes radically over time, and possibly quite short times. Ignoring the debate over how much of the current climate change is man-made vs. natural it seems a very good idea to develop technology which will let us control the Earth's climate either to undo any damage we have caused ourselves or, if nothing else, to prevent the next ice age...with 6+ billions mouths to feed any significant climate change regardless of type or cause will be bad.
I've seen Highlander 2. I know how this will end.
Fortunately, I have still not seen Highlander 2. There should have been only one!
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Because the climate models we have now do a poor job of predicting weather, we don't know yet how big the carbon problem is.
It takes a special brand of ignorance to put down climate models for doing a poor job of predicting weather when that is something they were never intended to do in the first place.