Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Geoengineering, another rush for money?  (Read 143730 times)

morganism

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1793
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 221
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #450 on: February 07, 2024, 10:29:29 PM »
There is a thread further up about making this shade a fresnel lens, to diffract away rather than block.

But the science is being done for the Grav Telescope project, the one being conceived to use the sun as a gravity bending source for exo studies. That also needs a station keeping sun blocker inline but much closer to the solar system. The scope optics itself will be out beyond the Oort.

New paper out on using metamaterials for microscope lenses that can see smaller than visible wavelength as telescope lenses. They made a 10cm sized one, which is order of mag bigger than previous. Makes things simpler, and easier to keep everything aligned than the strain motors on the giant mirrors.

Bruce Steele

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2530
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 760
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #451 on: February 07, 2024, 11:12:12 PM »
Sig, Even if a shield might control temperature it will not stop the acidification of the oceans unless we stop producing so much CO2.

El Cid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2518
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 925
  • Likes Given: 227
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #452 on: February 08, 2024, 09:21:11 AM »
As Richard Rathbone wrote, it could also be one of the cheapest options.  Also, it could be funded by industries, businesses, and individuals, not just governments.  And would provide a platform for space and Earth science research and potential revenue.

What’s not to like?

He wrote that???

5 trn USD and that is just putting the cargo into space and not counting the materials cost, engineering, etc.  Not going to happen. Way too expensive. Sulphur aerosol addition into the stratosphere is much cheaper if we want to play around

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25927
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1160
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #453 on: February 08, 2024, 03:04:00 PM »
Sig, Even if a shield might control temperature it will not stop the acidification of the oceans unless we stop producing so much CO2.

Agreed!  As was noted in the article in my original post:
 
Quote
Proponents say a sunshade would not eliminate the need to stop burning coal, oil and gas. Even if emissions from fossil fuels were to immediately drop to zero, there's already excessive heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

I had to read that twice when I first saw the article; I rarely see such a statement attributed to “proponents” of a geoengineering solution.  :)


========

Sulphur aerosol addition into the stratosphere is much cheaper if we want to play around

We don’t want to “play around” and do any more damage to our Earth’s atmosphere.  That’s the whole point.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

morganism

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1793
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 221
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #454 on: February 13, 2024, 10:47:41 PM »
Someone is going to dim the sun, and it will be soon.

I’m going to lay out some fascinating facts, and let you decide whether we are likely to dim the sun within the next 10 years.

Firstly, it’s much easier to artificially dim the sun than most people imagine.

100 planes injecting sulfur particles into the stratosphere would dim the sun by about 1%, and cool the earth by about 1°C.

For context, our current sulfur dioxide emissions (from fossil fuels) are >10x bigger than the 1.2m tons shown above. The difference is the height of injection. We’d be putting sulfur into the stratosphere, which is higher up than our normal sulfur emissions in the troposphere.

Spraying a form of sulfur from a plane is incredibly cheap. A full programme would cost less than $20b per year. That’s much cheaper than carbon removal ($600b per year, to remove just 10% of annual emissions @ $100 / tCO2).

Modifying the earth like this is called geoengineering, and blocking out the sun with particles is called Solar Radiation Management (SRM).

SRM awoke in 2023

Interest in SRM spiked in 2023, after years of being too controversial to discuss. Here are a few reasons why.

#1 - We don’t know why 2023 was so hot

The climate data from 2023 is scary, because we do not understand why 2023 was so warm. El Niño and low-sulfur fuels had an impact, but their effects were anticipated, and don’t fully explain the temperatures that we saw.

The actual warming in 2023 fell far outside of scientists’ predictions. This is what hitting a climate feedback loop looks like.

#2 - Billionaires are getting interested

It only takes one person rich enough to start a geoengineering programme. In 2023, some powerful and wealthy people started talking publicly about geoengineering.
#3 - Institutions are awakening to geoengineering

    In 2023, both the US and EU commissioned research on solar geoengineering. In the past, state governments have refused to fund anything related.
    Climate scientists are starting to seriously talk about solar geoengineering. Traditionally, they’ve self-censored on this topic, but this is changing. I highly recommend Robinson Meyer’s fascinating account of this.

    The internet noise is rising from a stutter to a low hum. In 2023/24, people are talking about SRM. Casey Handmer, Keep Cool, The Economist, and the BBC, to name just a few. I personally feel that 2023 was the year that SRM broke a critical threshold in the broader climate consciousness.

Ok, let’s rewind for a sec.
You’re telling me that sulfur reflects the sun?

If reflecting the sun with sulfur sounds far fetched - well, we’re already doing it.

The two best examples:

    In 1991, Mount Pinatubo erupted and ejected millions of tons of sulfur dioxide. It cooled the earth by around 0.5°C, and lasted for around two years.
    We already put sulfur into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. The sulfur that we’ve emitted so far is already reflecting sunlight, and is currently “masking” about 0.5°C of warming. Without these particles, we’d already be at 1.8°C warming, not 1.3°C.

In 2020, the International Maritime Organisation introduced limits on the sulfur content of shipping fuel. It reduced sulfur dioxide emissions by about 8 million tons in its first year - about 10% of the global total.
(more)

https://climate.benjames.io/someone-is-going-to-dim-the-sun/

morganism

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1793
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 221
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #455 on: February 18, 2024, 08:38:56 AM »
(gonna leave this here so can search for it. Author has developed terminal illness as noted in the Freezing 2023/24 thread)


Rowe, Mark & Kallio, Veli A.: “Can space mirrors save the planet? As it becomes ever clearer that simply cutting back on carbon emissions isn’t going to save the poles"

https://www.academia.edu/4302181/Rowe_Mark_and_Kallio_Veli_A_Can_space_mirrors_save_the_planet_As_it_becomes_ever_clearer_that_simply_cutting_back_on_carbon_emissions_isn_t_going_to_save_the_poles_

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25927
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1160
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #456 on: February 19, 2024, 04:21:10 PM »
(gonna leave this here so can search for it. Author has developed terminal illness as noted in the Freezing 2023/24 thread)


Rowe, Mark & Kallio, Veli A.: “Can space mirrors save the planet? As it becomes ever clearer that simply cutting back on carbon emissions isn’t going to save the poles"

https://www.academia.edu/4302181/Rowe_Mark_and_Kallio_Veli_A_Can_space_mirrors_save_the_planet_As_it_becomes_ever_clearer_that_simply_cutting_back_on_carbon_emissions_isn_t_going_to_save_the_poles_

Good article.  Reviews many types of geoengineering being considered, while stressing that we must reduce carbon emissions now.  There may come a point when geoengineering is vital, and it would be better if we had taken time to consider the effects of each before deciding on one.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

morganism

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1793
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 221
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #457 on: February 23, 2024, 12:46:21 AM »
(more pop from the popular press. Govts love it goes it's something to study, shows they are trying?)

 Switzerland calls on UN to explore possibility of solar geoengineering

Proposal focuses on technique that fills atmosphere with particles, reflecting part of sun’s heat and light back into space

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/22/switzerland-calls-on-un-to-explore-possibility-of-solar-geoengineering

(...)
Supporters of the proposal, including the United Nations environment programme (UNEP), argue that research is necessary to ensure multilateral oversight of emerging planet-altering technologies, which might otherwise be developed and tested in isolation by powerful governments or billionaire individuals.

Critics, however, argue that such a discussion would threaten the current de-facto ban on geoengineering, and lead down a “slippery slope” towards legitimisation, mainstreaming and eventual deployment.

Felix Wertli, the Swiss ambassador for the environment, said his country’s goal in submitting the proposal was to ensure all governments and relevant stakeholders “are informed about SRM technologies, in particular about possible risks and cross-border effects”. He said the intention was not to promote or enable solar geoengineering but to inform governments, especially those in developing countries, about what is happening.

The executive director of the UNEP, Inger Andersen, stressed the importance of “a global conversation on SRM” in her opening address to delegates at a preliminary gathering in Nairobi. She and her colleagues emphasised the move was a precautionary one rather than an endorsement of the technology.

But no matter how well intentioned the proposal might be, some environmental groups are alarmed at the direction of travel. “There’s a real risk that mandating UNEP to write a report and set up an expert group on SRM could undermine the existing de facto moratorium on geoengineering and inadvertently provide legitimacy for delaying actions to phase out fossil fuels,” said Mary Church of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). “There are some areas that the international community has rightly decided are simply off limits, like eugenics, human cloning and chemical weapons. Solar geoengineering belongs on that list and needs to join it fast, before seemingly harmless conversations on governance lead us down a very slippery slope towards deployment.”
(more)

morganism

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1793
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 221
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #458 on: February 27, 2024, 08:00:16 PM »
Pumped up: will a Dutch startup’s plan to restore Arctic sea-ice work?

As the Arctic warms, devastating the climate and ecosystems, an old idea used to create skating rinks could be deployed to restore melting ice caps, despite scepticism from some experts

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/27/climate-crisis-arctic-ecosystems-environment-startup-plan-pump-restore-melting-sea-ice-caps


Every winter when the temperatures drop, the IJsmeester (ice master) in villages around the Netherlands carefully starts to flood a field with water to form enough thin layers of ice to create a perfect outdoor skating rink.

Now a Dutch startup wants to use the same technique to help solve a major ecological problem: melting Arctic ice and its devastating effect on the climate.

“In cold weather, the IJsmeesters start a frantic race to be the first village that can organise an ice-skating marathon,” says Fonger Ypma, chief executive of Arctic Reflections. “They flood a meadow with a thin layer that becomes ice, and every night they apply more thin layers on top of it. And then, once it’s thick enough, they start skating. It’s our cultural heritage.”
(snip)

Arctic reflections is just one company looking to use a technique that is already being employed in several places for other purposes, such as creating ice roads in Canada and Finland and for oil exploration in the Arctic (typically using diesel pumps). In 2016, the physicist Steven Desch and colleagues from Arizona State University proposed building 10m wind-powered pumps over the Arctic ice cap to bring water to the surface in winter, potentially adding a metre of ice.

Ypma recently joined a separate Bangor University spinoff, Real Ice, which has a similar idea, for a series of field tests in Iqaluktuuttiaq (the Inuit name for Cambridge Bay), Nunavut, Canada, with a 600-watt, hydrogen fuel-cell-powered water pump. This not-for-profit company has drilled through the ice, pumped up seawater and let temperatures approaching -50C (-58F) refreeze it at the surface.
Graphic of sea ice drone

“At the moment the ice is about a metre thick,” says Real Ice’s co-chief executive, Andrea Ceccolini. “By refreezing the top layer, where there is snow, we will add 10-20cm. After that, the ice will grow thicker because we are removing the snow insulation, which is constraining further growth.”

Ceccolini hopes to develop an underwater drone that could navigate the -1.5C water, detect the thickness of the ice, pump up water as necessary, refuel and move on to the next spot. “If we demonstrate [this over] 100 sq km a day with 50 drones, then we can show that this can actually scale [up] to a much larger area,” says Ceccolini.

The goal is also local, to restore sea ice at a site whose Inuit name means a place of good fishing. “A large part of our success will be determined by how well we engage with the local community,” says the co-chief executive, Cian Sherwin, who envisages giving the technology to Indigenous landowners with some form of philanthropic part-funding.

morganism

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1793
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 221
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #459 on: February 28, 2024, 09:13:57 PM »
Clouds Vanish During a Solar Eclipse, And We Finally Know Why

When the Moon passes in front of the Sun in a solar eclipse, the jaw-dropping spectacle seems to change our world momentarily.

However, the effects on our planet are far more profound than a few moments of darkness during the daylight hours. And one effect that might surprise you? Clouds dissipate, and quickly – from the point at which just 15 percent of the Sun is obscured by the Moon.

It's not all types of clouds, obviously; otherwise, we'd never hear complaints about eclipses being spoiled by overcast weather.

A team led by Victor Trees of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute and Delft University of Technology has determined that, in particular, shallow cumulus clouds over land vamoose with alacrity.

The finding, Trees says, has implications for future attempts at climate engineering.

"If we eclipse the Sun in the future with technological solutions, it may affect the clouds," he explains. "Fewer clouds could partly oppose the intended effect of climate engineering, because clouds reflect sunlight and thus actually help to cool down the Earth."

From our vantage point here on Earth's surface, figuring out how clouds behave during an eclipse is not easy.

But, Trees says, it's important: one of the solutions proposed to mitigate climate change is blocking some of the Sun's rays from reaching Earth's lower atmosphere. While modeling suggests this could effectively lower temperatures, we don't know what other effects it might have.

Because cloud layers can be quite complex, and cloud configurations are constantly in motion, counting clouds from Earth is not really a viable method of determining how solar dimming affects clouds.

Another option is to study them from above using satellites, but previously these have not taken the Moon's shadow during the eclipse into account in calculations of cloudtop reflectivity, resulting in a bias in measurements of cloud cover and thickness.

Trees and his colleagues figured out a way of correcting for the lunar shadow by taking into account the proportion of the Sun that is being obscured by any given time, from each location on Earth's surface.

"By far most of the solar eclipse consists of a partial eclipse, where there is still plenty of light outside," Trees says. "In this partial eclipse satellites receive enough reflected sunlight, after correcting for the obscuration, to reliably measure clouds."

The researchers applied their methods to data collected during three previous solar eclipses over the African continent, between 2005 and 2016. To their surprise, cumulus clouds start disappearing in large numbers when just 15 percent of the Sun is covered, and they disappear until the eclipse has ended.

Exactly why this was happening was unclear, so the team conducted simulations using cloud modeling software called DALES. These simulations showed that when the sunlight is blocked, the surface cools, which reduces the updrafts of warm air from the surface.

Warm updrafts are instrumental in forming cumulus clouds; they carry water vapor that condenses into droplets as it rises into cooler altitudes, forming clouds.

So, when the ground cools, and these updrafts cease, cumulus clouds can't be sustained, recommencing only when the Sun re-emerges and starts warming the ground again. This effect occurs only over land, since the ocean doesn't cool quickly enough for the effect to kick in.

Cumulus clouds are not rain clouds themselves, but they can transform into rain clouds. The team's finding suggests climate geoengineering that involves blocking sunlight could have a pretty detrimental effect on weather patterns.

Since this is sort of the opposite of what scientists want to happen, the phenomenon warrants further investigation, the researchers say.




Clouds dissipate quickly during solar eclipses as the land surface cools  (open pdf avail)

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01213-0?error=cookies_not_supported&code=709a8360-ac20-4fb4-9f78-8c8862e5c24d

Clouds affected by solar eclipses could influence the reflection of sunlight back into space and might change local precipitation patterns. Satellite cloud retrievals have so far not taken into account the lunar shadow, hindering a reliable spaceborne assessment of the eclipse-induced cloud evolution. Here we use satellite cloud measurements during three solar eclipses between 2005 and 2016 that have been corrected for the partial lunar shadow together with large-eddy simulations to analyze the eclipse-induced cloud evolution. Our corrected data reveal that, over cooling land surfaces, shallow cumulus clouds start to disappear at very small solar obscurations (~15%). Our simulations explain that the cloud response was delayed and was initiated at even smaller solar obscurations. We demonstrate that neglecting the disappearance of clouds during a solar eclipse could lead to a considerable overestimation of the eclipse-related reduction of net incoming solar radiation. These findings should spur cloud model simulations of the direct consequences of sunlight-intercepting geoengineering proposals, for which our results serve as a unique benchmark.

vox_mundi

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 10249
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3520
  • Likes Given: 756
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #460 on: March 02, 2024, 03:39:33 PM »
Emergency Atmospheric Geoengineering Wouldn't Save the Oceans
https://phys.org/news/2024-02-emergency-atmospheric-geoengineering-wouldnt-oceans.html

... Employing "emergency" atmospheric geoengineering later this century in the face of continuous high carbon emissions would not be able to reverse changes to ocean currents, a new study finds. This would critically curtail the intervention's potential effectiveness on human-relevant timescales.

Oceans, especially the deep oceans, absorb and lose heat more slowly than the atmosphere, so an intervention that cools the air would not be able to cool the deep ocean on the same timescale, the authors found.

Previous research hints that a steady trickle of aerosol injections would help cool the surface of the planet. But the new study suggests that while an abrupt aerosol injection later this century could provide some ocean cooling, it wouldn't be enough to nudge "stubborn" ocean patterns such as Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, which some research finds is already weakening.

In that case, preexisting problems resulting from a warmed deep ocean, such as altered weather patterns, regional sea level rise and weakened currents, would remain in place even as the atmosphere and surface ocean cooled.

... "We cannot kick the can down the road forever," he said.

Relying on geoengineering is "in a way, madness," Pflüger said. "But the situation is already quite mad."

Daniel Pflüger et al, Flawed Emergency Intervention: Slow Ocean Response to Abrupt Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, Geophysical Research Letters (2024).
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GL106132
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― anonymous

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

morganism

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1793
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 221
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #461 on: March 04, 2024, 10:24:11 PM »
Can volcanic super eruptions lead to major cooling? Study suggests no

(...)
In a new study published in the Journal of Climate, a team from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and Columbia University in New York used advanced computer modeling to simulate super-eruptions like the Toba event. They found that post-eruption cooling would probably not exceed 2.7°F (1.5°C) for even the most powerful blasts.

"The relatively modest temperature changes we found most compatible with the evidence could explain why no single super-eruption has produced firm evidence of global-scale catastrophe for humans or ecosystems,"
(snip)
he researchers showed to what extent the diameter of the volcanic aerosol particles influenced post-eruption temperatures. The smaller and denser the particles, the greater their ability to block sunlight. But estimating the size of particles is challenging because previous super eruptions have not left reliable physical evidence. In the atmosphere, the size of the particles changes as they coagulate and condense. Even when particles fall back to Earth and are preserved in ice cores, they don't leave a clear-cut physical record because of mixing and compaction.

By simulating super-eruptions over a range of particle sizes, the researchers found that super-eruptions may be incapable of altering global temperatures dramatically more than the largest eruptions of modern times. For instance, the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines caused about a half-degree drop in global temperatures for two years.

Given the ongoing uncertainties, Millán added, "To me, this is another example of why geoengineering via stratospheric aerosol injection is a long, long way from being a viable option.


Severe Global Cooling After Volcanic Super-Eruptions? The Answer Hinges on Unknown Aerosol Size

Volcanic super-eruptions have been theorized to cause severe global cooling, with the 74 kya Toba eruption purported to have driven humanity to near-extinction. However, this eruption left little physical evidence of its severity and models diverge greatly on the magnitude of post-eruption cooling. A key factor controlling the super-eruption climate response is the size of volcanic sulfate aerosol, a quantity that left no physical record and is poorly constrained by models. Here we show that this knowledge gap severely limits confidence in model-based estimates of super-volcanic cooling, and accounts for much of the disagreement among prior studies. By simulating super-eruptions over a range of aerosol sizes, we obtain global mean responses varying from extreme cooling all the way to the previously unexplored scenario of widespread warming. We also use an interactive aerosol model to evaluate the scaling between injected sulfur mass and aerosol size. Combining our model results with the available paleoclimate constraints applicable to large eruptions, we estimate that global volcanic cooling is unlikely to exceed 1.5°C no matter how massive the stratospheric injection. Super-eruptions, we conclude, may be incapable of altering global temperatures substantially more than the largest Common Era eruptions. This lack of exceptional cooling could explain why no single super-eruption event has resulted in firm evidence of widespread catastrophe for humans or ecosystems.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/37/4/JCLI-D-23-0116.1.xml

neal

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 723
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 204
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #462 on: March 08, 2024, 04:12:01 PM »
all of the "inject SO2 into the troposphere" argument topics in one place

how much time does that gain us?


https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/so2-injection

morganism

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1793
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 221
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #463 on: March 08, 2024, 09:55:01 PM »
Hope they will have some balloons up to see if the re-radiation increases when the solar eclipse happens.
Think i saw an article that NASA/NOAA are going to do just that.

Article further up thread talks about the loss of lower level clouds when ground cools during eclipses. It was very quick cloud reaction. )

Nationwide Eclipse Ballooning Project Objectives

Building on previous results and developed in consultation with NASA SMEs, the core scientific and engineering questions to be addressed in concert with and as a result of the education activities in this proposed work are:

    Can eclipse-induced atmospheric gravity waves be definitively detected in data across all sites?
    What is the magnitude of the temperature drop at the surface, in the planetary boundary layer (PBL), troposphere, and stratosphere?
    How much time lag is there between the temperature minimum, and minimum in solar flux?
    At which altitude(s) is the temperature variation the largest?
    How do boundary layer heights vary during an eclipse?
    Is the kinematic response of the surface wind field within the path of totality instantaneous or time-lagged to the thermal response?
    How do the findings for the 2023 and 2024 eclipses compare to those for prior events?
    Can current high-resolution weather-forecasting models simulate the observed responses and improve the model physics and forecasting?
    How far can reliable streaming video be transmitted?
    Can a lower-cost scientific payload with sophisticated capabilities be developed and replicated?


https://eclipse.montana.edu/ebp-objectives.html

Don't panic if you see balloons hovering during America's two upcoming solar eclipses

https://www.space.com/national-eclipse-ballooning-project-solar-eclipse-research-october-april

During the morning on Saturday, Oct. 14 over 1,000 balloons will float 20 miles (32 kilometers) up in the stratosphere over Oregon, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico and Texas just as a solar eclipse sweeps across the U.S Southwest.

Not to be confused with the 200-foot balloon shot down off the coast of the US in February — an alleged spying attempt by China — these small helium balloons carrying 12 lbs/5.4kg payload will all have clearance from the FAA.

The Nationwide Eclipse Ballooning Project is an attempt to take advantage of both the October 14, 2023 annular solar eclipse and April 8, 2024 total solar eclipse. Some balloons will livestream video from the stratosphere — 100,000 feet up — to the NASA eclipse website using Insta360 (and other) cameras while others will monitor for changes in the atmosphere at 115,000 feet.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8356
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2053
  • Likes Given: 1991
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #464 on: March 09, 2024, 10:55:48 PM »
all of the "inject SO2 into the troposphere" argument topics in one place

how much time does that gain us?


https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/so2-injection

Of course that argument is missing.

If we manage a 0,2C decline today we would go from 1,51 to 1,31C. It would push back hitting 2C over global by some years but it still adds lots of heat to the system every year and it does not change the amount of carbon added so it needs to be done together with a sharp decline in FF emissions.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

vox_mundi

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 10249
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3520
  • Likes Given: 756
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #465 on: March 12, 2024, 09:44:37 PM »
$500K Sand Dune Designed to Protect Coastal Homes Washes Away in Just 3 Days
https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/devastating-storm-battered-dunes-concern-coastal-salisbury-residents/3259243/
https://www.thedailybeast.com/dollar500k-dune-designed-to-protect-massachusetts-homes-last-just-3-days

In a drastic attempt to protect their beachfront homes, residents in Salisbury, Massachusetts, invested $500,000 in a sand dune to defend against encroaching tides. After being completed last week, the barrier made from 14,000 tons of sand lasted just 72 hours before it was completely washed away, according to WCVB. “We got hit with three storms—two in January, one now—at the highest astronomical tides possible,” Rick Rigoli, who oversaw the dune project, told the station. Ron Guilmette, whose tennis court was destroyed in previous storms along the beach, added that he now doesn’t know how much his property is worth or if he will stay in the area. He calls the situation on Salisbury Beach “catastrophic.” “I don’t know what the solution is,” Guilmette said. Beachfront homes in the area started being damaged by strong winds and high tides after a winter storm in December 2022 removed previous protective dunes, according to WBTS-CD.

“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― anonymous

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

Freegrass

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3884
  • Autodidacticism is a complicated word
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 962
  • Likes Given: 1264
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #466 on: March 15, 2024, 12:08:22 PM »
Sabine Hossenfelder on geoengineering.

90% of the world is religious, but somehow "love thy neighbour" became "fuck thy neighbours", if they don't agree with your point of view.

WTF happened?

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8356
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2053
  • Likes Given: 1991
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #467 on: March 15, 2024, 07:42:32 PM »
Moved some discussion to Places becoming less liveable in Consequences.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

morganism

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1793
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 221
  • Likes Given: 129
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #468 on: March 27, 2024, 06:57:32 PM »
Why Tennessee lawmakers are pushing a bill to keep government from spraying the sky

The baseless ‘chemtrails’ accusation is going increasingly mainstream

Republican state lawmakers are going after a new threat they say could cause harm to the environment — and playing into a baseless claim at the same time.

In a Tennessee bill passed by the state Senate last week, lawmakers targeted geoengineering, an experimental — and controversial — practice not yet in use that could help cool the planet amid climate change.

But the text of the bill can also be seen as referring to “chemtrails,” plumes of toxic chemicals that believers of the unfounded claim say governments and corporations are spewing into the sky.

Now, the confusion between solar geoengineering and chemtrails threatens to muddy the waters around nascent geoengineering research, chilling potential studies, scientists say. It’s the latest example of how spreaders of disinformation can latch on to reality to pursue their agenda, confounding public opinion on the issue.

Also last week, Pennsylvania state Sen. Doug Mastriano (R) — who has posted on social media about the chemtrails accusation — announced in a memo his intention to propose legislation to mirror the Tennessee bill.
(more)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/03/27/chemtrails-conspiracy-geoengineering/

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8356
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2053
  • Likes Given: 1991
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #469 on: April 08, 2024, 09:20:37 PM »
Injecting Sulfur Into The Atmosphere Could Pose Dangerous Risks


New research warns that if we inject sulfate particles into the atmosphere to attempt to reflect sunlight and mimic the cooling effects of volcanic eruptions and they don't end up in the right position, they could cause further warming and even worse climate anomalies than burning greenhouse gases as usual.

"We found that some detrimental effects of this injection are of a similar magnitude to those from climate change itself in some regions," ETH Zürich atmospheric scientist Elia Wunderlin and colleagues write in their paper.

The team used aerosol-chemistry climate models and microphysics principles to simulate the behavior of sulfate aerosols if they were to be injected into the stratosphere above equatorial latitudes.

The equator was previously identified as a target site because aerosols would remain aloft there for the longest durations.

"We confirm that with increasing injection amounts, the cooling efficiency would decrease," the researchers write.

Their results reveal that once levels of sulfur particles in the atmosphere reach a new equilibrium two to three years after a proposed injection, planetary surface cooling of about 1 °C could be achieved.

However there will also be strong heating in the lower tropical stratosphere, thanks to the sulfate absorbing long wave heat that radiates from Earth's surface.

If greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase over this time too (we have no evidence we humans are slowing down with those), weather systems in the northern hemisphere will become more extreme through winter, changing how two entire atmospheric layers, the stratosphere and troposphere, interact.

"We show that this heating significantly affects the meridional temperature gradient in the stratosphere, thereby altering zonal winds, the ozone layer, [and] water vapor transport from the troposphere," Wunderlin and team explain, "even causing larger anomalies than unabated greenhouse gas emissions."

What's more, increasing aerosol concentrations in the stratosphere could push the movement of atmospheric chemicals (including the aerosols) into a biannual instead of annual cycle.

The models revealed that increasing the thickness of the stratosphere's aerosol layer leads to lower stratospheric winds, lengthening the duration of natural cycling.

"[This shows] the ability of aerosols to modulate their own stratospheric transport pathways and residence time," the researchers write.

The consequences of such a cycle change would have huge implications for weather patterns, including increased flooding risks in Europe.

The team suggests that other potential aerosols could be investigated to mitigate some of these problems, such as diamond because it won't absorb Earth's surface heat, or calcite which wouldn't interfere with the ozone layers.

"However, these could pose other (unknown) challenges, which need to be further investigated," they caution.

https://www.sciencealert.com/injecting-sulfur-into-the-atmosphere-could-pose-dangerous-risks

The paper:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GL107285
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.