Slashdot Mirror


Can Geoengineering Drones Fight Global Warming? (technologyreview.com)

MIT Technology Review reports: David Mitchell, a lanky, soft-spoken atmospheric physicist, believes frigid clouds in the upper troposphere may offer one of our best fallback plans for combating climate change... Fleets of large drones would crisscross the upper latitudes of the globe during winter months, sprinkling the skies with tons of extremely fine dust-like materials every year. If Mitchell is right, this would produce larger ice crystals than normal, creating thinner cirrus clouds that dissipate faster. "That would allow more radiation into space, cooling the earth," Mitchell says...

Increasingly grim climate projections have convinced a growing number of scientists it's time to start conducting experiments to find out what might work. In addition, an impressive list of institutions including Harvard University, the Carnegie Council, and the University of California, Los Angeles, have recently established research initiatives... By this time next year, Harvard professors David Keith and Frank Keutsch hope to launch a high-altitude balloon from a site in Tucson, Arizona. This will mark the beginning of a research project to explore the feasibility and risks of an approach known as solar radiation management. The basic idea is that spraying materials into the stratosphere could help reflect more heat back into space, mimicking a natural cooling phenomenon that occurs after volcanoes blast tens of millions of tons of sulfur dioxide into the sky.

"I don't really know what the answer is," says a former associate director at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. "But I do believe we need to keep saying what the truth is, and the truth is, we might need it."

4 of 280 comments (clear)

  1. DRONE ON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The March for Science seems focused on earth's bleak environmental future. Fortunately, science has some sure fire answers:

    1. Nuclear energy

    2. Geo-engineering

    3. Carbon dioxide extraction

    4. Albedo modification

    5. Solar radiation management

    You get the idea.

    However, you probably won't hear much during the March about the world's population as the root cause of climate change. Nobody wants to face the obvious fact that we are having too many babies. If you suggest that population growth is the fundamental problem behind climate change, the science loving marchers will reply with their timeless response.

    Despite a flood of scientific data illustrating human overpopulation, people refuse to accept it. Where is the March for Birth Control? Boys and girls, if you want to stop climate change, get your tubes clipped/tied.

    So, can a March for Science change anything? Oh sure! Because it is backed by the democratic process, and Americans can always send a message at the ballot box. (ROTFL)

    Politics is a pay-to-play game, and Citizens United has etched that rule in granite around the Capital Rotunda. Which means the environmental crisis will not be addressed until Big Money finds it more profitable than the status quo.

    In the meantime, there is really nothing to worry about. Even the long term crisis caused by population growth will soon be a thing of the past.

    Science teaches us that if we don't solve our problems, mother nature will
    do it for us.

    1. Re:DRONE ON by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The problem is not over population. It's the pollution that comes from the energy they need. You can have 2 people and still produce too much CO2 for the earth to handle or 10 billion and not produce any above the natural norm. Same for waste and trash. It's not the number of people, it's the amount of output.

      You simply aren't going to have modern society without billions of people.

      And you simply aren't going to revert 7 billion people back to an agrarian economy.

      So working to reduce our waste volume is the only realistic plan.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    2. Re:DRONE ON by religionofpeas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The 3rd world babies aren't producing nearly as much CO2 as the 1st world babies, even though there are more of them.

  2. Unprofessional to start a summary by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    by describing a physicist as lanky and soft spoken. If the guy is skinny, what the hell does that have to do with anything? His brain is what's important. I can do it too: "Paralyzed old guy that talks with a computer is ironically good at physics." Sound familiar? -_- Almost sounds like a weird attempt to open up conservative readers by making fun with stereotyping and still talk about climate change.