Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Geoengineering, another rush for money?  (Read 142183 times)

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2478
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 583
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #350 on: July 05, 2019, 05:13:33 PM »
For example, in this work  predicted is the peak of phosphorus mining around 2035.

Probably by 2100 most of the forests on the planet will be destroyed.

"Peak phosphate" is a valid concern.  However, there are advances that may permit wider use of phosphite instead of phosphate.   See, for example,

Phosphite: a novel P fertilizer for weed management and pathogen control
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5698055/

For a broad view on advances in agricultural productivity, see:

THE FUTURE OF AGRICULTURE
https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2016-06-09/factory-fresh

These both emphasize biotech innovations, which many may not be comfortable with.

A simpler way to promote needed changes in land use would be to include beef in a global carbon tax system.  This should reduce economic incentives that drive deforestation.


Tom_Mazanec

  • Guest
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #352 on: August 02, 2019, 01:49:02 AM »
Harvard advisory panel on Geoengineering:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02331-y

Tom_Mazanec

  • Guest
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #353 on: August 14, 2019, 03:36:10 AM »
Bill Gates in favor of blocking out the sun
https://news.yahoo.com/bill-gates-backing-plan-to-stop-climate-change-by-blocking-out-the-sun-183601437.html
A test of the technology is proposed for this year.

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1455
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #354 on: August 15, 2019, 01:10:03 AM »
I am sure nothing will go wrong... /sarc

petm

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 675
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 318
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #355 on: August 15, 2019, 01:31:52 AM »
Jeebus not the guy who ruined computers. We're doomed.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #356 on: August 15, 2019, 11:33:35 AM »
Jeebus not the guy who ruined computers. We're doomed.


Could we drape a silk nighty or two over our solar panels as a "proof of concept" before giving the aging boy genius free reign?


What's he done since licensing Quick and Dirty DOS (which he didn't own), to a very gullible representative of Big Blue? - I've always wondered whether the rep. was that gullible, or whether he founded a behind the spotlight dynasty based on under the table dealings?
Terry

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20384
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5289
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #357 on: August 15, 2019, 01:57:03 PM »
Bill Gates' addiction to technological solutions is becoming a menace.
With Trump in charge and a gopher as the new boss of NASA one must doubt that good sense will prevail.

Some of you may remember that the Russkies tried the big mirror in the sky a few years back.
But their idea was the opposite - to light up and warm up Siberia in winter.
The big mirror failed to unfurl, many in the world breathed a sigh of relief.


"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1455
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #358 on: August 15, 2019, 02:01:01 PM »
Bill Gates' addiction to technological solutions is becoming a menace.
With Trump in charge and a gopher as the new boss of NASA one must doubt that good sense will prevail.

Some of you may remember that the Russkies tried the big mirror in the sky a few years back.
But their idea was the opposite - to light up and warm up Siberia in winter.
The big mirror failed to unfurl, many in the world breathed a sigh of relief.

Like it needs more warming...

Some people pray to the altar of technology thinking it has no limits. We have marveled at the evolution  of electronics and the  revolution  it brought to other fields of science, and we think we are limitless in all fields. However nature has other ideas... 

morganism

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1691
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 215
  • Likes Given: 124
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #359 on: August 17, 2019, 11:43:16 PM »
Hadn't seen this one- reducing the number of trees in Siberia, to increase its albedo ?

https://elidourado.com/blog/dawn-of-geoengineering/

"The core idea is delightfully counterintuitive: Siberia has too many trees. In ages past, Siberia used to be grassland, and today it is mostly forest. Although trees can sequester carbon in their trunks and branches (at least until they burn or decompose), Siberian forests have significant drawbacks with respect to climate change.

First, forests don’t reflect a lot of solar radiation. A treeless, grassy Siberia would increase Earth’s albedo, reflecting more solar energy back into space. Forests absorb more solar radiation and put it into the ground as heat.

Second, forests are poor habitats for snow-trampling herd animals. In the winter, a thick layer of snow acts as an insulator on the permafrost, preventing frigid above-ground temperatures from reaching deep into the Earth’s crust, where they can shore up the frozenness of the permafrost. When large herds of grazing animals trample the snow, its insulating properties are reduced and the permafrost can hard freeze. Forests reduce these snow-trampling grazing populations."

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #360 on: August 18, 2019, 12:46:31 AM »
Hadn't seen this one- reducing the number of trees in Siberia, to increase its albedo ?

https://elidourado.com/blog/dawn-of-geoengineering/

"The core idea is delightfully counterintuitive: Siberia has too many trees. In ages past, Siberia used to be grassland, and today it is mostly forest. Although trees can sequester carbon in their trunks and branches (at least until they burn or decompose), Siberian forests have significant drawbacks with respect to climate change.

First, forests don’t reflect a lot of solar radiation. A treeless, grassy Siberia would increase Earth’s albedo, reflecting more solar energy back into space. Forests absorb more solar radiation and put it into the ground as heat.

Second, forests are poor habitats for snow-trampling herd animals. In the winter, a thick layer of snow acts as an insulator on the permafrost, preventing frigid above-ground temperatures from reaching deep into the Earth’s crust, where they can shore up the frozenness of the permafrost. When large herds of grazing animals trample the snow, its insulating properties are reduced and the permafrost can hard freeze. Forests reduce these snow-trampling grazing populations."
Damn Rooskies are trying to steal my Green Pellets for Green Washing project.
Terry >:(

vox_mundi

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 10165
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3510
  • Likes Given: 745
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #361 on: August 23, 2019, 03:01:15 PM »
Industry Guidance Pushes Untested Tech as Climate Fix
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-industry-guidance-touts-untested-tech.html

Draft guidelines for how industry fights climate change promote the widespread use of untested technologies that experts fear could undermine efforts to slash planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions, AFP can reveal

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO), a global industry-driven non-profit group comprising more than 160 member states, has produced new draft guidance on climate action for businesses.

Rather than measuring climate action by the yardstick of emissions reduction, the draft, seen by AFP, concentrates on managing "radiative forcing", which is the amount of excess energy trapped in Earth's atmosphere.

Specifically, it looks at techniques for manipulating the climate through large-scale geoengineering, notably one called Solar Radiation Management (SRM).


SRM entails injecting heat-deflecting aerosols directly into Earth's stratosphere to bounce more of the Sun's heat back into space.

Studies have shown that SRM could be extremely effective—and relatively inexpensive—in stemming rising temperatures.

But there are fears that tinkering with Earth's atmosphere could unleash a tide of unintended consequences, potentially destabilising global weather patterns and undermining food security.

... "What is so significant about this process is that the ISO is a global standard-setting body. Companies tout their ISO compliance as a demonstration of the validity of what they are doing," he told AFP

Quote
... "There is a really profound risk when you take something as untested, controversial, politically volatile and morally risky as geoengineering and you make it the subject of industry-driven, market-oriented standards,"

- Carroll Muffett, president of the Centre for International Environmental Law

In March, discussions at the United Nations Environment Assembly in Nairobi were held up over a dispute centred on the future governance of geoengineering schemes such as SRM.

Sources close to the talks told AFP at the time that the US and Saudi delegations voiced "fierce opposition" to even the mention of international oversight.

"Our interpretation is that they want to avoid further regulation, governance, oversight over these technologies and it's definitely in the interest of the fossil fuel industry," said Linda Schneider, senior programme officer at the Heinrich Boll Institute.

Trade organisations funded by oil and gas majors have for several years advocated SRM, including the influential American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

One AEI policy paper from 2013 concluded: "The incentives for using SRM appear to be stronger than those for (greenhouse gas) control".
“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

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1455
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #362 on: August 23, 2019, 03:24:37 PM »
The biggest issue that I have is that there is no way to "de-risk" the scale-up other than global transport models that are not adequately quantitative there is no "mini earth system" physical model to understand what will happen. There is about 100% chance of an unexpected negative consequence. What they will focus is to try and convince us that the consequence is going to be less than doing nothing....

Richard Rathbone

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1730
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #363 on: August 23, 2019, 08:44:04 PM »
The biggest issue that I have is that there is no way to "de-risk" the scale-up other than global transport models that are not adequately quantitative there is no "mini earth system" physical model to understand what will happen. There is about 100% chance of an unexpected negative consequence. What they will focus is to try and convince us that the consequence is going to be less than doing nothing....

Who pays for the consequences?

A geoengineering scheme is going to get blamed for every weather disaster that happens after its launched. I don't think US backing would last past the next Harvey and if others keep it going after US approval vanishes, there's going to be some really nasty consequences to them after the next Katrina. Imagine a US public convinced that the Chinese and EU had deliberately caused a catastrophic flood of a major US population centre.

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #364 on: August 23, 2019, 09:40:15 PM »
vox quoting c. muffet: "There is a really profound risk when you take something as untested, controversial, politically volatile and morally risky as geoengineering and you make it the subject of industry-driven, market-oriented standards..."

Or as Lovelock once put it...it's like putting a goat in charge of a garden...
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #365 on: August 24, 2019, 12:04:37 AM »
vox quoting c. muffet: "There is a really profound risk when you take something as untested, controversial, politically volatile and morally risky as geoengineering and you make it the subject of industry-driven, market-oriented standards..."

Or as Lovelock once put it...it's like putting a goat in charge of a garden...
or - an old goat in charge of the Haram. ::)
Terry

vox_mundi

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 10165
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3510
  • Likes Given: 745
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #366 on: August 24, 2019, 12:16:35 AM »
Ramen!
“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

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #367 on: August 24, 2019, 01:28:01 AM »
Ramen!
May his Noodly Appendage rest lightly on your shoulders.
Ramen !


Terry

morganism

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1691
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 215
  • Likes Given: 124
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #368 on: August 25, 2019, 12:15:30 AM »
Enhanced (adsortive) Natural Gas Storage to Help Reduce Global Warming

" Of these 29 distinct chemical structures, COP-150 was particularly noteworthy as it achieved a high deliverable gravimetric methane working capacity when cycled between 5 and 100 bar at 273 K, which is 98% of the total uptake capacity. This result surpassed the target set by the United States Department of Energy (US DOE).

COP-150 is the first ever structure to fulfil both the gravimetric and volumetric requirements of the US DOE for successful vehicular use, and the total cost to produce the COP-150 adsorbent was only 1 USD per kilogram.

COP-150 can be produced using freely available and easily accessible plastic materials, and moreover, its synthesis takes place at room temperature, open to the air, and no previous purification of the chemicals is required. The pressure-triggered flexible structure of COP-150 is also advantageous in terms of the total working capacity of deliverable methane for real applications."

https://www.kaist.ac.kr/_prog/_board/?mode=V&no=100841&code=ed_news&site_dvs_cd=en&menu_dvs_cd=0601&list_typ=B&skey=&sval=&smonth=&site_dvs=&GotoPage=

This study, reported in Nature Energy on July 8, was supported by National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grants ( NRF-2016R1A2B4011027, NRF-2017M3A7B4042140, and NRF-2017M3A7B4042235

morganism

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1691
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 215
  • Likes Given: 124
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #369 on: August 28, 2019, 10:21:30 PM »
"tests confirmed that water microdroplets spontaneously form hydrogen peroxide, that smaller microdroplets produced higher concentrations of the molecule, and that hydrogen peroxide was not lost when the microdroplets recombined into bulk water.

The researchers ruled out a number of possible explanations before arriving at what they argue is the most likely explanation for hydrogen peroxide's presence. They suggest that a strong electric field near the surface of water microdroplets in air triggers hydroxyl molecules to bind into hydrogen peroxide."

https://phys.org/news/2019-08-chemists-microdroplets-spontaneously-hydrogen-peroxide.html

www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1911883116

Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 899
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #370 on: October 22, 2019, 01:48:47 PM »
We know that if we block solar radiation in the Arctic summer we reduce the melting. Easy peasy.

But how do we increase freezing during winter?

Large floating platforms (in the hundreds or thousands of KM^2 scale) that will lower albedo, gather snow and dampen waves. The idea is to simulate land fast ice in the middle of the ocean to "seed" sea ice. Once the sea ice is seeded the polar night takes care of the rest.

This will allow the open ocean to close as early as possible giving it as much time to thicken as possible.

Like all geoengineering solutions, this must be done at the same time as CO2 is reduced, forests are regrown and pollution is eliminated.

Time is running out, maximizing the life of the Arctic will buy us some time.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

morganism

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1691
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 215
  • Likes Given: 124
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #371 on: January 23, 2020, 10:23:07 AM »
TIo2 modified with broken rutile , is the most effective catalyst for direct conversion of CO2, to CO.

"For the efficient artificial photosynthesis for the conversion of CO2 into oxygen and pure CO, IBS researchers aimed to improve the performance of these nanoparticles by combining blue (Ao/Rd) TiO2 with other semiconductors and metals that can enhance water oxidation to oxygen, in parallel to CO2 reduction into CO only. The research team obtained the best results with hybrid nanoparticles made of blue titania, tungsten trioxide (WO3), and 1% silver (TiO2/WO3-Ag). WO3 was chosen because of the low valence band position with its narrow bandgap of 2.6 eV, high stability, and low cost. Silver was added because it enhances visible light absorption, by creating a collective oscillation of free electrons excited by light, and also gives high CO selectivity. The hybrid nanoparticles showed about 200 times higher performance than nanoparticles made of TiO2 alone and TiO2/WO3 without silver.

Starting from water and CO2, this novel hybrid catalyst produced O2 and pure CO, without any side products, such as hydrogen gas (H2) and metane (CH4). The apparent quantum yield that is the ratio of several reacted electrons to the number of incident photons was 34.8 %, and the rate of reacted electrons 2333.44 μmol g−1h−1. The same measurement was lower for nanoparticles without silver (2053.2 μmol g−1h−1), and for nanoparticles with only blue TiO2 (912.4 μmol g−1h−1)."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200121112930.htm

Highly efficient nanostructured metal-decorated hybrid semiconductors for solar conversion of CO2 with almost complete CO selectivity. Materials Today, 2020; DOI: 10.1016/j.mattod.2019.11.005

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #372 on: January 27, 2020, 09:06:40 PM »
We know that if we block solar radiation in the Arctic summer we reduce the melting. Easy peasy.

But how do we increase freezing during winter?

The biggest problem in the winter is the clouds that reflect back outgoing radiation, so in the winter actions should be taken to block cloud formation (allowing more radiation to escape out into space) while in the summer its aerosols to block incoming radiation.

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #373 on: January 27, 2020, 10:29:22 PM »
NOAA Gets Go-Ahead to Study Controversial Climate Plan B - Government climate scientists will study two geoengineering proposals to counteract global warming

Quote
The top climate change scientist for NOAA said he has received $4 million from Congress and permission from his agency to study two emergency—and controversial—methods to cool the Earth if the U.S. and other nations fail to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

David Fahey, director of the Chemical Sciences Division of NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory, told his staff yesterday that the federal government is ready to examine the science behind “geoengineering”—or what he dubbed a “Plan B” for climate change

Quote
“There could be more than $100 million attached to this, I’m told,” he explained.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/noaa-gets-go-ahead-to-study-controversial-climate-plan-b/

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8235
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2042
  • Likes Given: 1986
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #374 on: February 19, 2020, 02:56:24 PM »
One of the simpler tricks proposed was seeding the oceans with iron but this will not work:

Seeding oceans with iron may not impact climate change

...

A new MIT study suggests that iron fertilization may not have a significant impact on phytoplankton growth, at least on a global scale.

The researchers studied the interactions between phytoplankton, iron, and other nutrients in the ocean that help phytoplankton grow. Their simulations suggest that on a global scale, marine life has tuned ocean chemistry through these interactions, evolving to maintain a level of ocean iron that supports a delicate balance of nutrients in various regions of the world.

"According to our framework, iron fertilization cannot have a significant overall effect on the amount of carbon in the ocean because the total amount of iron that microbes need is already just right,'' says lead author Jonathan Lauderdale, a research scientist in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200217162348.htm
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.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Guest
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #375 on: February 22, 2020, 03:19:22 PM »
The March-April Analog has a fact article and a short story on geoengineering.

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2487
  • 0Kg CO₂, 37 KWh/wk,125L H₂O/wk, No offspring
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 273
  • Likes Given: 23170
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #376 on: February 22, 2020, 04:30:23 PM »
Thanks for that info kassy.
WIll the mad geo-engineering industry listen to this report? It would be great if the planned massive iron pollution would not go ahead.

I wrote "mad" because they still try to use human technology to control nature
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning
Why do you keep accumulating stuff?

blumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #377 on: February 22, 2020, 08:56:51 PM »
Call it madness, insanity, hybris, or just corporate greed. Everything is correct in this context.

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4606
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 879
  • Likes Given: 826
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #378 on: February 28, 2020, 09:05:47 PM »
Soluble iron and global climate
Dr. Steve Drury – Earth-Logs – February 28, 2020
Quote

So, would deliberate iron-fertilisation of polar oceans help draw down greenhouse warming? When several small patches of the Southern Ocean were injected with a few tonnes of dissolved iron they did indeed respond with phytoplankton blooms. However, it is impossible to tell if that had any effect on the atmosphere. ‘Going for broke’ with a massive fertilisation of this kind has been proposed, but this ventures [deep] into the political swamp that currently surrounds global warming and the wider environment. It is becoming possible to model such a strategy by using the data from the experiments and from ice cores, and early results seem to confirm the role of iron and the biological pump in CO2 sequestration by suggesting that half the known draw-down during ice ages can be explained in this way.
Based on a review by: Heather Stoll in February 2020. (30 years of the iron hypothesis of ice ages. Nature, v. 578, p. 370-371; DOI: 10.1038/d41586-020-00393-x}
I can imagine some folks are convinced this type of geoengineering is the only way to mitigate our looming disasters as there won’t be enough Model 3s (etc.) and bicycles to do the job.
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things because "we cannot negotiate with the melting point of ice"

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2487
  • 0Kg CO₂, 37 KWh/wk,125L H₂O/wk, No offspring
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 273
  • Likes Given: 23170
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #379 on: February 29, 2020, 06:44:54 AM »
^^
In other words: Mitigation because richer people don't want to do adapt.
Mitigation because the rich countries' people don't want to change their luxury high-energy lifestyles. Massive FEAR of having to do with LESS.

If the rich countries would restrict their behaviour to the carbon footprint and energy use of poor countries, no mitigation of this kind is necessary.
From my perspective this is extremely addictive behaviour, fueled by temptation from commerce and lack of empathy.
The show must go on. Insanity.
Addicted to ease, comfort, lazyness and pushing buttons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins#Historical_and_modern_definitions,_views,_and_associations

"As defined outside Christian writings, greed is an inordinate desire to acquire or possess more than one needs, especially with respect to material wealth.[30] Like pride, it can lead to not just some, but all evil.[2]"


Geoengineering to cover for rich people's sins.
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning
Why do you keep accumulating stuff?

blumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #380 on: June 25, 2020, 11:17:07 AM »
Quote
@leafcrunch

my plan would involve hollowing out
west virginia and using the slag to fill in
lake ontario, completing a diagonal chain
of now saltwater lakes across turtle
island and linking the arctic & atlantic
seas. this would benefit no one & cause
untold damage. i will take no questions


gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20384
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5289
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #381 on: July 08, 2020, 06:40:17 PM »
This one might not do a lot of harm and might do farmland & farmers a bit of good...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/08/spreading-rock-dust-on-fields-could-remove-vast-amounts-of-co2-from-air
Spreading rock dust on fields could remove vast amounts of CO2 from air
It may be best near-term way to remove CO2, say scientists, but cutting fossil fuel use remains critical

Quote
Spreading rock dust on farmland could suck billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide from the air every year, according to the first detailed global analysis of the technique.

The chemical reactions that degrade the rock particles lock the greenhouse gas into carbonates within months, and some scientists say this approach may be the best near-term way of removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

The researchers are clear that cutting the fossil fuel burning that releases CO2 is the most important action needed to tackle the climate emergency. But climate scientists also agree that, in addition, massive amounts of CO2 need to be removed from the air to meet the Paris agreement goals of keeping global temperature rise below 2C.

The rock dust approach, called enhanced rock weathering (ERW), has several advantages, the researchers say. First, many farmers already add limestone dust to soils to reduce acidification, and adding other rock dust improves fertility and crop yields, meaning application could be routine and desirable.

Basalt is the best rock for capturing CO2, and many mines already produce dust as a byproduct, so stockpiles already exist. The researchers also found that the world’s biggest polluters, China, the US and India, have the greatest potential for ERW, as they have large areas of cropland and relatively warm weather, which speeds up the chemical reactions.

The analysis, published in the journal Nature, estimates that treating about half of farmland could capture 2bn tonnes of CO2 each year, equivalent to the combined emissions of Germany and Japan.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2448-9
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2487
  • 0Kg CO₂, 37 KWh/wk,125L H₂O/wk, No offspring
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 273
  • Likes Given: 23170
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #382 on: July 09, 2020, 05:06:17 AM »
^^
I haven't read the nature article, sorry, but here some (important?) side-notes from thinking about the concept:


Will the rock dust just appear on half the farm fields of the world by magic?

Where does the enormous amount rock dust come from? Only from mining? Only some types of rock can be used and they have to be crushed. How much FF used in the making of the rock dust?
How will the rock dust be transported to half of the farm fields all over the world? More FF?
How will the rock dust be put on half the farm fields all over the world? By aeroplane? Even more FF?
Rock dust is very heavy. Logistics and storage? More FF?

Is the rock dust effective if wet? Can the rock dust get saturated by other chemicals (pesticides, nitrogen/phosphor artificial manure)? Interactions with UV? Can the wind blow it away from the fields and concentrate it (or make it airborne as aerosols)? Do animals think it is food? Does it interact/stick with e.g. microplastic?
How will the saturated rock dust interact in water with biological functions of fish, amphibians, molluscs and other life? Will it pile up and block?

Applying this would be just enough (2bn) to offset the annual indirect-anthropogenic CO₂ emissions from the melting permafrost alone. It wouldn't cover anything from our anthropogenic annual emissions and perhaps not even the FF used in its application.

Unforeseen consequences for soil health (funghi & other microorganisms) and productivity in the future?

With this, the all-important soil biotopes of farmland get hammered with another human invention. Abused and degraded, but essential for our food. How many more harvests?

We must stop with geo-engineering (I include our GHG emissions, habitat destruction and mass extinction) before it is over for humanity. Why not start using less energy and consume less? That'll make a bigger difference than the effect of this proposal. And it will be good for you.

edit: disclaimer: I do not have much knowledge of chemistry and biology.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2020, 05:27:54 AM by nanning »
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning
Why do you keep accumulating stuff?

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8235
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2042
  • Likes Given: 1986
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #383 on: July 09, 2020, 01:30:19 PM »
The Nature article is paywalled. Of the three important citations this one is open access:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsbl.2016.0714
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.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Guest
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #384 on: July 09, 2020, 01:48:51 PM »
nanning:
Wish I could "double like" that comment.

vox_mundi

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 10165
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3510
  • Likes Given: 745
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #385 on: November 17, 2020, 11:31:35 PM »
Simulations Suggest Geoengineering Would Not Stop Global Warming If Greenhouse Gasses Continue to Increase
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-simulations-geoengineering-global-greenhouse-gasses.html

Researchers found that geoengineering could work, but only up to a certain point. If greenhouse gasses are not curbed, they will rise to levels that would have a negative impact on stratocumulus clouds, making them thin, and in some cases, eliminating them. Without this cloud cover, even the introduction of particles into the atmosphere would not be enough to prevent global warming. They suggest that geoengineering would not be a solution that some have proposed if levels of greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced.

Tapio Schneider et al. Solar geoengineering may not prevent strong warming from direct effects of CO2 on stratocumulus cloud cover, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2020)
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/11/10/2003730117
“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

Tom_Mazanec

  • Guest
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #386 on: April 13, 2021, 12:54:56 AM »
Ecological impacts of solar geoengineering are highly uncertain
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/04/unknowns-linger-for-idea-of-scattering-sunlight-to-cool-the-earth/
Quote
Without condoning or condemning the poorly understood tactic, recent reports suggest we should try to understand one proposed strategy to cool the planet: altering the atmosphere to reflect sunlight. Called solar radiation modification (SRM), this strategy is a type of geoengineering that involves scattering particles into the sky to reflect sunlight back out into space so it can't warm the Earth's atmosphere.
In theory, SRM could cool off the planet and help limit global warming to 1.5ºC compared to preindustrial levels. But it's viewed as something of a last-resort tool to tackle climate change. Two new analyses explore what deploying this tactic could mean for the environment and the flora, fauna, and people living in it. In all, the authors of both reports suggest that more work needs to be done to understand SRM.

morganism

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1691
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 215
  • Likes Given: 124
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #387 on: June 14, 2021, 07:25:02 PM »
Announcing Termination Shock

From the #1 New York Times bestselling author of Seveneves, Anathem, Reamde, and Cryptonomicon comes an astonishingly visionary new thriller.

 Termination Shock takes readers on a thrilling, chilling visit to our not-too-distant future – a world in which the greenhouse effect has inexorably resulted in a whirling-dervish troposphere of superstorms, rising sea levels, global flooding, merciless heat waves, and virulent, deadly pandemics.

 One man has a Big Idea for reversing global warming, a master plan perhaps best described as “elemental.” But will it work? And just as important, what are the consequences for the planet – and all of humanity – should it be applied?

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8235
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2042
  • Likes Given: 1986
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #388 on: June 14, 2021, 07:48:23 PM »
That is a book, fiction too so how is that relevant here?
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.

Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 899
  • Likes Given: 206
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8235
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2042
  • Likes Given: 1986
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #390 on: August 12, 2021, 07:35:43 PM »
The headline is a bit misleading since in this example you can not make it without local ice.
It is discussing building Ice Stupas to provide water in the hot season.
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.

Sebastian Jones

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 716
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 214
  • Likes Given: 158
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #391 on: August 14, 2021, 08:28:35 PM »
I've liked this idea for several years, I'm happy to read that it is viable.
Using renewable energy- preferably PV- to make snow and ice could be a good way to not only produce water in dry seasons, but as an alternative to pumped storage, in certain environments.
But honestly, it would be so wonderful to build new glaciers!
One regular poster here was always looking for the inception of a new glaciation with its inception in the Torngat mountains of Labrador/Quebec.
This tech could be a way to make those dreams a reality...

morganism

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1691
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 215
  • Likes Given: 124
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #392 on: October 31, 2021, 10:47:27 PM »
Seeding oceans with volcanic ash could be new tool to tackle climate change

"For microscopic marine algae, the deposition of erupted volcanic material, or tephra, can be a nutrient-rich boon. Blooms of phytoplankton, for example, occurred after the 2008 eruption off the Aleutian island of Kasatochi and the explosion of the Pacific Island of Anatahan in 2003.

According to geochemist Jack Longman of the University of Oldenburg, Germany and colleagues, these events increased the rate at which carbon dioxide was taken up by algae to help create their calcium carbonate exoskeletons – many of which ultimately sink to the seafloor and are buried. Tephra, they said, can also become physically associated with plankton debris, increasing sinking rates. It also inhibits the oxidisation of carbon back to carbon dioxide at the seafloor by absorbing dissolved oxygen from water in pores in the sediments, and locking carbon up as carbonates, as well as iron-, aluminium- and manganese-based colloids.

An image showing

Source: © Tom Gernon/University of Southampton

Tephra is a cheap and abundant resource around the world

Using the coast of Peru as a case study, the team calculate that depositing 50,000 tonnes of tephra – a bulk carrier vessel’s worth – offshore could sequester 2750 tonnes of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This, they said, equates to a cost of around £43 per tonne of carbon dioxide sequestered – ‘an order of magnitude cheaper than many proposed greenhouse gas removal technologies’. The process could work anywhere where plankton grow in abundance but have low natural burial rates, as tephra deposits are available almost globally"

https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/seeding-oceans-with-volcanic-ash-could-be-new-tool-to-tackle-climate-change/4012523.article

J Longman et al, Anthropocene, 2020, DOI: 10.1016/j.ancene.2020.100264

morganism

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1691
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 215
  • Likes Given: 124
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #393 on: November 08, 2021, 09:54:27 PM »
a different take on seeding the ocean with iron

The Enormous Hole That Whaling Left Behind

"Surely, then, the mass slaughter of whales must have created a paradise for their prey? After industrial-era whalers killed off these giants, about 380 million metric tons of krill would have gone uneaten every year. In the 1970s, many scientists assumed that the former whaling grounds would become a krilltopia, but instead, later studies showed that krill numbers had plummeted by more than 80 percent.

The explanation for this paradox involves iron, a mineral that all living things need in small amounts. The north Atlantic Ocean gets iron from dust that blows over from the Sahara. But in the Southern Ocean, where ice cloaks the land, iron is scarcer. Much of it is locked inside the bodies of krill and other animals. Whales unlock that iron when they eat, and release it when they poop. The defecated iron then stimulates the growth of tiny phytoplankton, which in turn feed the krill, which in turn feed the whales, and so on.

Just as many large mammals are known to do on land, the whales engineer the same ecosystems upon which they depend. They don’t just eat krill; they also create the conditions that allow krill to thrive. They do this so well that even in the pre-whaling era their huge appetites barely dented the lush wonderlands that they seeded. Back then, krill used to swarm so densely that they reddened the surface of the Southern Ocean. Whales feasted so intensely that sailors would spot their water spouts punching upward in every direction, as far as the eye could see. With the advent of industrial whaling, those ecosystems imploded. Savoca’s team estimates that the deaths of a few million whales deprived the oceans of hundreds of millions of metric tons of poop, about 12,000 metric tons of iron, and a lot of plankton, krill, and fish."

In 1990, the oceanographer John Martin proposed that the Southern Ocean is starved of iron, and that deliberately seeding its waters with the nutrient would allow phytoplankton to grow. The blooming plankton would soak up carbon dioxide, Martin argued, and cool the planet and slow the pace of global warming. Researchers have since tested this idea in 13 experiments, adding iron to small stretches of the Southern and Pacific Oceans and showing that plankton do indeed flourish in response.

Such iron-fertilization experiments have typically been billed as acts of geoengineering—deliberate attempts to alter Earth’s climate. But Savoca and his colleagues think that the same approach could be used for conservation. Adding iron to waters where krill and whales still exist could push the sputtering food cycle into higher gear, making it possible for whales to rebound at numbers closer to their historical highs. “We’d be re-wilding a barren land by plowing in compost, and the whole system would recuperate,” says Victor Smetacek, an oceanographer at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, in Germany. (Smetacek was involved in three past iron-fertilization experiments and has been in talks with Savoca’s group.)

The team plans to propose a small and carefully controlled experiment to test the effects of iron fertilization on the whales’ food webs. The mere idea of that “is going to be shocking to some people,” Savoca admitted. Scientists and advocacy groups alike have fiercely opposed past iron-addition experiments, over concerns that for-profit companies would patent and commercialize the technology and that the extra iron would trigger blooms of toxic algae.

But with Savoca’s new estimates, “we now have a much better idea of exactly the quantity of iron that whales were recycling in the system and how much to add back so we don’t get bad effects,” he said. His goal isn’t to do something strange and unnatural but to effectively act as a surrogate defecator, briefly playing the role that whales did before they were hunted to near extinction. These creatures would still face many challenges—ship strikes, noise pollution, entangling fishing gear, pollutants—but at least food supplies would tilt in their favor.

Whaling almost destroyed a thriving food web, “but in the sliver we have left, I see a lot of hope,” Savoca said. He’s not talking about restoring long-lost ecosystems, such as those that disappeared when mammoths and other land-based megafauna went extinct tens of thousands of years ago. “This is a system that was alive and well when our grandparents were alive,” he said. “And we want to bring it back.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/11/whaling-whales-food-krill-iron/620604/

Freegrass

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3825
  • Autodidacticism is a complicated word...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 951
  • Likes Given: 1251
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #394 on: November 09, 2021, 08:37:42 AM »
We've also caught 90% of all the fish in the ocean. They defecate as well. I would suggest to put a container on the back of all these ships metal whales. This box would then at regular intervals (every few kilometers) release an amount of nutrients in the water, spreading it out all over the oceans, imitating defecating whales and fish. Preferably not in busy shipping lanes! Maybe that way these ships could extract the carbon they release, and a little more? And at the same time feed the little fish? Because maybe the fish are gone because they don't have enough food anymore due to overfishing and a lack of poo?

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en
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: 8235
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2042
  • Likes Given: 1986
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #395 on: November 09, 2021, 10:31:33 AM »
As you can in the article above they plan to a highly targeted campaign boosting the krill numbers in areas where whales and krill coexist. This would be done by dedicated ships.

Using it on all shipping evenly is not going to work.

The most efficient action we can take right now (at least theoretically) is to stop fishing for krill in the Southern Ocean.
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.

Freegrass

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3825
  • Autodidacticism is a complicated word...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 951
  • Likes Given: 1251
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #396 on: November 09, 2021, 11:59:41 AM »
As you can in the article above they plan to a highly targeted campaign boosting the krill numbers in areas where whales and krill coexist. This would be done by dedicated ships.

Using it on all shipping evenly is not going to work.

The most efficient action we can take right now (at least theoretically) is to stop fishing for krill in the Southern Ocean.
Why wouldn't it work? All these boxes would be connected to a central computer that controls them. This computer would be able to control the amount of nutrients that are being released, and maybe even the mixture that's being released. Because I can imagine different locations would need different nutrients. Like you said, whales don't swim everywhere... Some places need tuna shit...

A lot of research would be needed of course, and even that could be automated on these ships. They constantly take in water anyway, and that water could be tested in some of the ships.

Think big mate! To solve this crisis we'll need out of the box thinking...

And if they stop catching krill, they'll need to replace it with something else. My suggestion would be insects...
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?

morganism

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1691
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 215
  • Likes Given: 124
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #397 on: April 22, 2022, 10:06:32 PM »
Blocking the Sun Is a Risky Gambit for Fighting Climate Change. It May Also Be Our Best Option.

In the heart of Silicon Valley in Palo Alto, California, there’s a group of retired physicists and engineers working on a nozzle to save their grandchildrens’ lives. The team, affectionately dubbed “the Old Salts,” designed the nozzle to spray sea salt particles in a specific size and concentration into the air. Once finished, it’ll be used to inject the substance into the skies over certain regions of the world.

It’s all part of an experiment to see if this approach can “brighten” clouds so they’re capable of reflecting more sunlight away from the Earth. While the tests would be small, they will attempt to uncover whether a larger scale operation like this could cool down the planet—albeit temporarily. Then, maybe, the Old Salts’ grandchildren might have a fighting chance at surviving a dangerously warming world.

Facilitating this experiment is the Marine Cloud Brightening Project, a University of Washington nonprofit that’s researching technologies and strategies to intentionally and artificially cool the world’s climate patterns through new and emerging technologies—a process also known as “geoengineering.” The inspiration for the project came from the “observation of particulates—like those that waft up from various sources like ships, coal plants, and cars—mix into clouds” making them brighter, Kelly Wanser, co-founder and senior adviser of the MCB Project, told The Daily Beast. “They’re creating a little bit of an umbrella effect that’s reflecting a bit more sunlight, and it’s cooling the planet.”

The project is part of a growing number of scientists and climate experts out there researching and, sometimes, advocating for radical solutions to prevent the worst climate-related catastrophes that lay ahead.

It’s not a permanent fix, mind you. For example, the Old Salts’ nozzle’s droplets would brighten clouds only for a few days or weeks at the most before dissipating and allowing the global climate to revert to its previous state. Maintaining the effects would require regular spraying, which is currently unfeasible—partly because of limited resources and partly because it could result in unforeseen negative consequences like threatening wildlife species or diminishing crop growth.

Instead, it’s helpful to think of marine cloud brightening and similar solar geoengineering measures as a band-aid solution—a temporary fix that might help us buy time while we attempt to lower greenhouse gas emissions to a stable level.

“It’s almost more of a tourniquet at this point,” Doherty said. “Because even with significant emissions reductions, we're looking at major climate disruption. And so the question is whether removing some of the heat from the system is going to help with that.”

The researchers behind the MCB Project and similar efforts into radical climate intervention aren’t necessarily full-throated supporters of geoengineering, but they’re interested in seeing whether it could be a viable approach to sparing us from the worst climate disasters imaginable. “As a scientist, it’s my role to pull apart ideas and to be skeptical of ideas like this,” Robert Wood, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington and principal investigator for the MCB Project, told The Daily Beast. “And so [I am] approaching it with a very open mind to it potentially not working or working.”

It’s the environmental policy equivalent of health insurance—you might not need it now, but you’ll sure as hell be glad you have it with you when an emergency comes up. In the case of geoengineering, that emergency would come in the form of out-of-control global warming and carbon emissions. In the past few years, we’ve already seen extreme weather events—from hurricanes, to floods, to derechos—caused and exacerbated by anthropogenic climate changes. The steep rise in temperatures have created droughts and ecosystem depletion. There may be a time when these events become so frequent or so catastrophic that a temporary cool down in the climate could provide a much-needed reprieve in a pinch.

And current projections are only adding to the urgency to plan for a grim future. “The jury has reached a verdict, and it is damning,” António Guterres, the secretary general of the UN, told reporters on April 5 after the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its latest report. “We are on a fast track to climate disaster. This is not fiction or exaggeration, it is what science tells us will happen.” Many experts are skeptical that the world’s nations will do enough to limit the rise in global temperatures to less than 1.5 degrees Celsius."

Despite this, though, there are those out there who are understandably hesitant to embrace even research into geoengineering—believing it could result in nations endorsing and deploying measures like SRM without fully understanding its consequences.

“It’s dangerous to be supporting geoengineering research,” Jennie Stephens, a professor of sustainability science and policy at Northeastern University and director of the School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs, told The Daily Beast. “It’s a distraction from the transformative policies that we actually need.”

Stephens is one of more than 60 scholars and academics who initially co-signed an open letter published in January 2022 calling on world governments to agree not to fund or pursue solar geoengineering research. The letter—which has since garnered more than 320 signatures—was written by a group of scholars including Frank Biermann, a professor of global sustainability governance at Utrecht University in the Netherlands, and asserts that “proliferating calls for solar geoengineering research and development are cause for alarm.”

Biermann told The Daily Beast that efforts like SRM are unnecessary, and a distraction from focusing on more permanent fixes to climate change like eliminating fossil fuels and reducing carbon emissions. In fact, he said that there’s “clear evidence” from the IPCC that keeping global warming under 1.5 degrees is completely achievable.

So instead, Biermann believes that geoengineering could potentially be a mitigation deterrent—giving bad actors an opportunity to continue their work pumping greenhouse gasses and extracting fossil fuels because, hey, we can always just geoengineer the climate.

That doesn’t hold much water for Doherty though, who believes that SRM projects could actually encourage the world to put more work into limiting carbon emissions. “If you present it in a realistic way, which means there will be limits to marine cloud brightening and it won’t perfectly offset greenhouse gas impacts, then people can have higher incentive to reduce emissions,” she explained.

But there’s also the risks involved with geoengineering—what if things work too well? These risks could negatively affect the vulnerable communities geoengineering was deployed to help. In fact, some simulations and modeling have shown that while SRM can cool the climate, it can also cause unintended consequences like the spread of diseases and also the intensifying of catastrophic weather events. “This is one of the things that we're mainly concerned with,” Biermann said. “There are always risks with these technologies that are difficult to anticipate and they're difficult to foresee."

“Some country's rain and precipitation patterns changing drastically could result in drought and food insecurity and all kinds of disruptions that are unpredictable,” Stephens said. “It’s very complicated to minimize those risks.”

Biermann also argues that world governance structure just isn’t there to support solar geoengineering. In his open letter, he wrote that governments are “unfit to develop and implement far-reaching agreements needed to maintain fair, inclusive, and effective political control over solar geoengineering deployment.”

“One of the real risks there is that it’s really an ungovernable technology,” Stephens said. “If you think about global manipulation of the Earth's systems, the way it would actually be developed and deployed would be unilaterally by either a rich person, organization, or country. How would this ever be managed and governed in a way that is equitable?

“Who has control and who’s making decisions for others?” she added. “Who’s making decisions for everyone else that impacts everybody?”

But therein lies the very uncomfortable elephant in the room. With carbon emissions running rampant and temperatures rising higher than they ever have in recorded history, we might not have much of a choice but to pursue a largely untested and experimental approach in order to stop the worst of climate catastrophe. Stephens remains optimistic that the world can meet goals like the UN’s 1.5-degree Celsius limit. But if it doesn’t, countries may start treating solar geoengineering with deadly seriousness.

“We have to zoom out and think more holistically,” Stephens said. “We don't want to have this narrow climate isolationist approach—that climate is a problem that we can solve with this narrow technological perspective. It’s just not the way the world works.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/solar-geoengineering-is-a-risky-gambit-for-fighting-climate-change-it-may-also-be-our-best-option?source=articles&via=rss

Tony Ho Tran is the deputy editor for science and innovation at The Daily Beast

morganism

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1691
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 215
  • Likes Given: 124
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #398 on: May 05, 2022, 09:07:38 PM »

Where Wisdom and Geoengineering Meet
(...)
In the Q&A, Dr Tao began by showing how the focus of the climate policy community on computer models can be a reassuring distraction from current observational data. He explained how the mainstream climate sector has been downplaying the significance of the loss of the shielding effects of pollutants when we decarbonise global energy systems (sometimes called ‘global dimming’). He uses data from the effects of pandemic lockdowns on pollution and correlates that with localised heating, to emphasise the significance and immediacy of this problem. He makes the case that pollutant-reduction from decarbonising energy will lead to heat spikes in major cities across the Global South. He also notes how the rapid burst of heating from pollutant-reduction will cause more extremes of weather in the Global South. In doing so, Dr Tao seeks to bring our attention to how the current situation cannot be approached merely with carbon emissions cuts, and that Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) needs to be part of the agenda.

Dr Tao points to an uncomfortable reality for Western environmentalists who sometimes reduce the focus to simple decarbonisation of societies through electrification and renewable energy sources. But if we environmentalists in the West ‘turn up our noses’ at dealing with the implications of what we are calling for, then we are leaving it to the capitalists to determine the future of geoengineering without much contest. That is problematic enough, but our mistake might be far worse. As Dr Tao’s presentation explains, the energy decarbonisation we seek will hurt the Global South immediately due to the localised damage from a jump in global heating as the dimming caused by dirty fossil fuels is reduced."

https://jembendell.com/2022/03/31/where-wisdom-and-geoengineering-meet/

Pretty controversial guy, known for Deep Adaptation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Adaptation

https://iflas.blogspot.com/2022/03/toward-radical-responses-to-polycrisis.html

https://mailchi.mp/deepadaptation/deep-adaptation-quarterly-april-2022#Editorial

(i thought that they hadn't found much change in atmo from Covid, but that the global dimming sci came from the plane flight halt of 9/11?)

vox_mundi

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 10165
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3510
  • Likes Given: 745
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #399 on: October 15, 2022, 04:36:02 PM »
White House Is Pushing Ahead Research to Cool Earth by Reflecting Back Sunlight
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/13/what-is-solar-geoengineering-sunlight-reflection-risks-and-benefits.html

The White House is coordinating a five-year research plan to study ways of modifying the amount of sunlight that reaches the earth to temper the effects of global warming, a process sometimes called solar geoengineering or sunlight reflection.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/legal/

The research plan will assess climate interventions, including spraying aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight back into space, and should include goals for research, what’s necessary to analyze the atmosphere, and what impact these kinds of climate interventions may have on Earth, according to the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy. Congress directed the research plan be produced in its spending plan for 2022, which President Joe Biden signed in March.

Stratospheric aerosol injection involves spraying an aerosol like sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, and because it has the potential to affect the entire globe, often gets the most attention.

While arguments of moral hazard have handicapped research efforts, the idea is getting more urgent attention in the worsening climate crisis.

Getting ready to research a topic is a very preliminary step, but it’s notable the White House is formally engaging with what has largely been seen as the stuff of dystopian fantasy. In Kim Stanley Robinson’s science fiction novel, “The Ministry for the Future,” a heat wave in India kills 20 million people and out of desperation, India decides to implement its own strategy of limiting the sunlight that gets to Earth.

https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/kim-stanley-robinson/the-ministry-for-the-future/9780316300162/

Harvard professor David Keith, who first worked on the topic in 1989, said it’s being taken much more seriously now. He points to formal statements of support for researching sunlight reflection from the Environmental Defense Fund, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the creation of a new group he advises called the Climate Overshoot Commission, an international group of scientists and lawmakers that’s evaluating climate interventions in preparation for a world that warms beyond what the Paris Climate Accord recommended.

https://www.overshootcommission.org/about

... The current estimate is that it would cost $10 billion per year to run a program that cools the Earth by 1 degree Celsius, said Edward A. Parson, a professor of environmental law at UCLA’s law school. But that figure is seen to be remarkably cheap compared to other climate change mitigation initiatives.

... There are significant and well-known risks to some of these techniques — sulfur dioxide aerosol injection, in particular.

First, spraying sulfur into the atmosphere will “mess with the ozone chemistry in a way that might delay the recovery of the ozone layer,” Parson told CNBC.

Also, sulfates injected into the atmosphere eventually come down as acid rain, which affects soil, water reservoirs, and local ecosystems.

Third, the sulfur in the atmosphere forms very fine particulates that can cause respiratory illness.

... Meanwhile, “the world is getting hotter, and there will be catastrophic impacts for many people in the world,” said Pasztor.

“There’s already too much carbon out there. And even if you stop all emissions today, the global temperature will still be high and will remain high for hundreds of years. So, that’s why scientists are saying maybe we need something else, in addition — not instead of — but maybe in addition to everything else that is being done,” he said. “The current action/nonaction of countries collectively — we are committing millions of people to death. That’s what we’re doing.”



https://matrix.fandom.com/wiki/Operation_Dark_Storm

“We don't know who struck first, us or them, but we know that it was us that scorched the sky. At the time, they were dependent on solar power and it was believed that they would be unable to survive without an energy source as abundant as the sun.”
― Morpheus
“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