Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Geoengineering, another rush for money?  (Read 142120 times)

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #250 on: October 12, 2017, 02:42:49 PM »
Don't be surprised when the Paris goals are not achieved via negative emissions technology (BECCS); and after the WAIS begins to collapse when GMSTA reaches around 2.5C circa 2040, that policy makers will implement some ill-conceived and poorly executed form(s) of geoengineering, that may well make matters worse:

Title: "Geoengineering: Scientists in Berlin debate radical ways to reverse global warming"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/geoengineering-scientists-berlin-debate-radicaly-ways-reverse-global-warming

Extract: "Research scientists, policymakers and ethicists gathered in Berlin this week to discuss the emerging field of “climate engineering” and what it could mean for the planet.

“The Paris goals of 2C and 1.5C require CO2 removal and at the moment most of our future scenarios of the global energy system and land use assume it’s being delivered by biomass energy carbon capture and storage. But the feasibility of this BECCS is difficult to assess – especially at this scale – because it’s highly interconnected with existing social systems around food, energy, water and biodiversity.”"
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #251 on: October 16, 2017, 04:43:41 PM »
Of course, Trump will use geoengineering as an excuse not to reduce CO₂ emissions:

Title: "Geoengineering is not a quick fix for climate change, experts warn Trump"

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/14/geoengineering-is-not-a-quick-fix-for-climate-change-experts-warn-trump

Extract: "Leading researchers and campaigners express concern that geoengineering research could be used as an excuse not to reduce CO2 emissions"
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25759
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #252 on: October 22, 2017, 02:22:33 PM »
In response to the new movie, "Geostorm," the U.S. National Weather Service felt compelled to release a statement.

This has been a public service announcement from your National Weather Service.  :)
https://twitter.com/DRmetwatch/status/921539080705445889
Image below.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25759
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #253 on: October 22, 2017, 02:25:43 PM »
But it didn't take long before these replies appeared:   ::)

Interesting. Their (NOAA) statement is conspicuously lacking a renouncement of their DESIRE to do so
https://twitter.com/rtfallgatter/status/921589209609117696

That was my thought.
https://twitter.com/stevebloom55/status/921596124544167937
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #254 on: November 14, 2017, 05:41:53 PM »
The linked article (and associated linked open access study reference) makes it clear that if in some last minute desperation attempt by some local group of nations (say by economically developed NH nations, which would include China by 2049) to use 'stratospheric aerosol injection' to ease their suffering; they would make the climate situation worse for others (such as for the SH nations):

Title: "Unregulated solar geoengineering could spark droughts and hurricanes, study warns"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/unregulated-solar-geoengineering-could-spark-droughts-and-hurricanes-study-warns

Extract: "Artificially cooling the planet through solar geoengineering could have some dramatic side effects – including an increase in droughts and hurricanes in some regions – if it is carried out in an unregulated way, a new study warns.

The study focuses on one proposed type of geoengineering, known as a “stratospheric aerosol injection”, which involves sending up substances to the stratosphere that are known to have a cooling effect on the climate.

It finds that if only one country, region or hemisphere were to pursue this type of geoengineering, other parts of the world could face adverse consequences. For example, if only the northern hemisphere were to release aerosols, the Sahel in Africa and parts of India would have to cope with more droughts."

See also the associated open access research reference at:

http://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01606-0

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #255 on: November 15, 2017, 02:03:38 AM »
The linked article (and associated linked open access study reference) makes it clear that if in some last minute desperation attempt by some local group of nations (say by economically developed NH nations, which would include China by 2049) to use 'stratospheric aerosol injection' to ease their suffering; they would make the climate situation worse for others (such as for the SH nations):

Title: "Unregulated solar geoengineering could spark droughts and hurricanes, study warns"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/unregulated-solar-geoengineering-could-spark-droughts-and-hurricanes-study-warns

Extract: "Artificially cooling the planet through solar geoengineering could have some dramatic side effects – including an increase in droughts and hurricanes in some regions – if it is carried out in an unregulated way, a new study warns.
I'd think that even if regulated, (by whom), the results could prove disastrous.
Terry

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1455
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #256 on: November 15, 2017, 12:17:10 PM »
The linked article (and associated linked open access study reference) makes it clear that if in some last minute desperation attempt by some local group of nations (say by economically developed NH nations, which would include China by 2049) to use 'stratospheric aerosol injection' to ease their suffering; they would make the climate situation worse for others (such as for the SH nations):

Title: "Unregulated solar geoengineering could spark droughts and hurricanes, study warns"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/unregulated-solar-geoengineering-could-spark-droughts-and-hurricanes-study-warns

Extract: "Artificially cooling the planet through solar geoengineering could have some dramatic side effects – including an increase in droughts and hurricanes in some regions – if it is carried out in an unregulated way, a new study warns.
I'd think that even if regulated, (by whom), the results could prove disastrous.
Terry
Regulated or not, it does not mean we know how the hell the system will respond. Talking about unintended consequences!! The results _will_ be disastrous....

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #257 on: November 15, 2017, 03:19:57 PM »
Regulated or not, it does not mean we know how the hell the system will respond. Talking about unintended consequences!! The results _will_ be disastrous....

While I concur that collectively we will not likely know how to implement stratospheric aerosol injection by 2050 to avoid unintended consequences.  But I do not believe that that reality will stop future leaders in NH governments such as Russia, China, the EU and the USA from implementing a desperate action to try to stop the billions of climate refugees by targeting the SH.  To be clear, geoengineering can be weaponized by immoral government leaders.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #258 on: November 24, 2017, 05:47:51 PM »
Distrust over the potential weaponization of geoengineering will make it difficult to even run tests to study such technologies:

Title: "Could a rogue nation alter clouds to combat warming?"

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060067137

Extract: "Plans for two experiments to potentially slow global warming by deploying tiny particles into the atmosphere have sparked an international debate over whether such tests should be allowed without some form of government scrutiny.

The experiments are being planned by scientists who worry that the U.S. government, and others, is not equipped to move fast enough to mitigate greenhouse gases before the world reaches dangerous "tipping points." Those stages of planetary change could accelerate the heating effect, perhaps to life-threatening levels, they say."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25759
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #259 on: November 25, 2017, 04:31:12 PM »
Apparently the solution to reducing global warming is to eat more fried potatoes. ;)

Deep fat fryers may help form cooling clouds
Quote
Researchers believe the fatty molecules arrange themselves into complex 3-D structures in atmospheric droplets.

These aerosols persist for longer than normal and can seed the formation of clouds which experts say can have a cooling effect on the climate.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42081892
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Susan Anderson

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 527
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 279
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #260 on: November 25, 2017, 10:27:30 PM »
This might have been mentioned already, but if not it's an interesting article: Can Carbon-Dioxide Removal Save the World? CO2 could soon reach levels that, it’s widely agreed, will lead to catastrophe. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/20/can-carbon-dioxide-removal-save-the-world

It contains some truly staggering numbers, which to me has been the obvious point to the problems with carbon removal schemes. Also, some interesting ways of looking at the problem from various good thinkers such as this:
Quote
Changing the paradigm, Lackner believes, will change the conversation. If CO2 is treated as just another form of waste, which has to be disposed of, then people can stop arguing about whether it’s a problem and finally start doing something.

[lots of discussion and detail]

As a technology of last resort, carbon removal is, almost by its nature, paradoxical. It has become vital without necessarily being viable. It may be impossible to manage and it may also be impossible to manage without.

« Last Edit: January 29, 2018, 07:13:44 AM by Susan Anderson »

Sebastian Jones

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 716
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 214
  • Likes Given: 158
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #261 on: November 26, 2017, 05:07:42 AM »
I assume that I'm missing something here, because it seems so obvious to me.
CO2 (and most other GHG gasses) result from the combustion of hydrocarbons which are really stable- they are mostly millions of years old. So we need something that can be stored for millions of years. CO2 does not cut it- it is a gas that tends to escape, so stuffing it underground is not a long term viable solution. Ideally, we need a machine that inhales CO2 and poops out pure carbon- like diamonds or graphite. It could include hydrogen and oxygen too, providing it is stable- like anthracite.
Perhaps you see where this is going now.
We take carbon, burn it, get energy and emit CO2. CCS means we take that CO2 and transform it back into carbon....kind of like perpetual motion....Kolbert's New Yorker article says we can do it if we use non-CO2 emitting energy, like PV. She says a solar farm the size of Nigeria would do it. This is a daunting prospect, but it pales in face of the real problem- we currently have no machine that will inhale CO2 and exhale carbon. She interviews a scientist working on the problem. He is an alumnus of the fusion project.....he gave up fusion because it is too hard.....Please, somebody, explain how I am wrong.

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6774
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #262 on: November 26, 2017, 07:05:44 AM »
Pure carbon requires stripping oxygen from CO2, this costs energy. Better is to use a substitution as in weathering olivine.

I believe there are discussions on this forum of various schemes. See for example, my reply #8 on this thread.

sidd
« Last Edit: November 26, 2017, 07:11:00 AM by sidd »

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #263 on: November 26, 2017, 07:16:47 AM »
Quote
so stuffing it underground is not a long term viable solution

If we could capture enough CO2 and store it underground where it would leak back out slowly we'd probably be OK.  If we could get ahead of the problem and put a lot underground then we could keep on doing that for a few centuries if that's what it took before the carbon was naturally sequestered.  (Or someone figured out a better solution.)

If we could get it underground into certain types of rock formations it would create a chemical bond and stay there. 

If we could get the carbon into a carbon solid form we could basically rebury it.  The reverse of open pit coal mining.

Creating machinery that could extract enormous amounts of CO2 from the air either as CO2 gas or as carbon without the oxygen seems almost undoable to me.  But we should try to invent that machine. 
----

In the meantime we need to be close to fossil fuel free in not much more than 30 years.  Hopefully within 20 years.

We should have a major global push to stop the use of coal.  Do that and the health care savings would likely finance the elimination of natural gas.

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #264 on: December 05, 2017, 09:50:11 PM »
Policy makers are creeping slowly towards the implementation of a solar radiation management (SRM) plan (that would likely cost hundreds of billions of dollars per year to operate):

Simon Nicholson, Sikina Jinnah& Alexander GillespieSolar radiation management: a proposal for immediate polycentric governance", Climate Policy, Pages 1-13, https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1400944

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2017.1400944?utm_content=buffer887b3&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Abstract: "The stringency of the 1.5 degree goal under the Paris Agreement, coupled with the mismatch between that goal and domestic mitigation pledges, inevitably directs attention onto the potential future role of solar radiation management (SRM) technologies. Such technologies, however, remain controversial, and analysis of their environmental, social and ethical implications is at an early stage. In this context, this paper distils four key governance objectives and proposes three specific policy interventions for the near-term governance of SRM technologies. Specifically, we build from existing literature to argue that SRM governance must simultaneously: guard against the risks of uncontrolled SRM development; enable potentially valuable research; build legitimacy for research and any future policy through broad public engagement and ensure that SRM is only considered as one part of a broader mitigation agenda. We propose three interventions to work towards those objectives in the near term by: developing a transparency mechanism for research; creating a global forum for public engagement and including consideration of SRM in the global stocktake under the Paris Agreement. Finally, we argue that carrying out these interventions requires a shared or ‘polycentric’ SRM governance structure that can build on the site-specific capabilities and preferences of existing international institutions."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #265 on: January 22, 2018, 10:40:01 PM »
The linked article indicates that both BECCS, and solar engineering, carry substantial risks for the natural world:

Title: "Geoengineering carries ‘large risks’ for the natural world, studies show"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/geoengineering-carries-large-risks-for-natural-world-studies-show

Extract: "Reducing the impacts of human-caused climate change through the use of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage – better known as BECCS – could have major consequences for wildlife, forests and water resources, a new study shows.

And the introduction of solar geoengineering could also threaten wildlife, a second study shows. The new research finds that implementing – and then not sustaining – such a technology could cause global temperatures to rebound rapidly, leaving many species unable to cope with the sharp change in conditions.

Heck, V. et al. (2018) Biomass-based negative emissions difficult to reconcile with planetary boundaries, Nature Climate Change, http://nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/s41558-017-0064-y

Trisos, C. H. et al. (2018) Potentially dangerous consequences for biodiversity of solar geoengineering implementation and termination, Nature Ecology & Evolution, http://nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0431-0 "
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #266 on: January 27, 2018, 01:52:59 AM »
More limitations on the effectiveness of geoengineering concepts:

Irvine, P. J., Keith, D. W., and Moore, J.: Brief communication: Understanding solar geoengineering's potential to limit sea level rise requires attention from cryosphere experts, The Cryosphere Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2017-279, in review, 2018.

https://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/tc-2017-279/

Abstract. Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering, a form of solar geoengineering, is a proposal to add a reflective layer of aerosol to the stratosphere to reduce net radiative forcing and so to reduce the risks of climate change. Solar geoengineering could reduce temperatures and so slow melt, but the efficacy of solar geoengineering at offsetting changes to the cryosphere is uncertain. For example, shortwave forcing acts more strongly on the surface than longwave forcing so solar geoengineering would reduce surface melt more effectively but would also suppress the global hydrological cycle potentially reducing accumulation on glaciers. Regardless of how effective solar geoengineering would prove to be at offsetting surface mass balance changes, slow-acting changes below the surface of the ocean and ice-sheets may strongly limit its potential to reduce the retreat of marine glaciers and can’t be evaluated without high-quality process model studies. Here we review the literature on solar geoengineering and the cryosphere and identify the key uncertainties that research could address. Solar geoengineering is a contentious emerging issue in climate policy and it is critical that the potential, limits and risks of these proposals are made clear for policy makers.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Susan Anderson

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 527
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 279
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #267 on: January 29, 2018, 07:51:44 AM »
re: Susan Anderson «November 25, 2017, 10:27:30 PM »

This is late, but to clarify: when I cited that New Yorker article I didn't mean to endorse its content, only - as did Elizabeth Kolbert - to point out it had some new ways of looking at the problem, which is probably why it interested me, the reader, and Kolbert, the author.

Quote
Can Carbon-Dioxide Removal Save the World? CO2 could soon reach levels that, it’s widely agreed, will lead to catastrophe. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/20/can-carbon-dioxide-removal-save-the-world

It contains some truly staggering numbers, which to me has been the obvious point to the problems with carbon removal schemes. Also, some interesting ways of looking at the problem from various good thinkers ....

Quote
As a technology of last resort, carbon removal is, almost by its nature, paradoxical. It has become vital without necessarily being viable. It may be impossible to manage and it may also be impossible to manage without.

The costs and maintenance of such schemes seem to me prohibitive, and they don't address the disease, only the symptoms. But we will have them, willy nilly, because people are unwilling to give stuff up and think magic will solve their problems.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #268 on: January 29, 2018, 08:21:14 AM »
Quote
people are unwilling to give stuff up and think magic will solve their problems

People are unwilling to give stuff up.  Technology is letting them keep their stuff while taking away their carbon emissions.

But even after we reach zero CO2 emissions we need to somehow capture and sequester carbon that's in the system. 

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25759
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #269 on: February 08, 2018, 05:43:35 PM »
“Turns out we have been unwittingly geoengineering for decades, and just like in the movies, it’s gone off the rails.
The deadly paradox of aerosols on a rapidly warming world”
   https://twitter.com/ericholthaus/status/961634641827581953

Devil’s Bargain
We already have planet-cooling technology. The problem is, it’s killing us.
https://grist.org/article/geoengineering-climate-change-air-pollution-save-planet/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25759
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #270 on: February 08, 2018, 06:25:28 PM »
"'There’s documented evidence that thunderstorms in China vary on a weekly cycle, in tune with factory schedules."
https://twitter.com/ankitbhardy/status/961648053252866048


“Abstract

This study identified distinct weekly cycles in thunderstorm activities and convection-associated variables in two regions of China dominated by different types of aerosol during the summers of 1983–2005. In both regions, visibility has similar weekly cycle: lower on weekdays than on weekends. Barring any possible “natural” weekly cycles, the findings of the poorest and best visibility on Friday and Monday, respectively, point to the weekly variations in anthropogenic emissions. However, the phases of the thunderstorm cycles between the two regions were different. In central China, thunderstorms occurred more frequently from Saturday to Monday than on other days. The cycles were out of phase in southeast China. It is hypothesized that the phase difference is associated with aerosol type. In central China aerosol absorption is strong, which suppresses convection more on weekdays. In southeast China aerosols are less absorbing but more hygroscopic, which helps invigorate thunderstorms more on weekdays.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL070375/full
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20378
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5289
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #271 on: February 08, 2018, 07:08:31 PM »
Quote
people are unwilling to give stuff up and think magic will solve their problems

People are unwilling to give stuff up.  Technology is letting them keep their stuff while taking away their carbon emissions.

But even after we reach zero CO2 emissions we need to somehow capture and sequester carbon that's in the system.

Technology is letting them keep their stuff while taking away their carbon emissions.

There are more threats to the environment and us than just CO2.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,317.msg141347.html#msg141347
"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)

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #272 on: February 09, 2018, 08:57:26 AM »
Humanity better stop dreaming, you may wish to read this:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1102.msg141450.html#msg141450

Quote
Only one country comes even close to delivering the good life in a sustainable way: Vietnam succeeds on six social indicators — including a life expectancy above 65 years and providing sufficient nutrition — while staying within its limit on every environmental threshold except carbon emissions.
Bummer.

The other option is to wreck the living daylights out of this planet and try to be one of the lucky few who gets a ticket to Mars. At least we now have one dummy out there, in a Tesla.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25759
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #273 on: February 10, 2018, 07:17:30 PM »
Humanity better stop dreaming, you may wish to read this:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1102.msg141450.html#msg141450

Quote
Only one country comes even close to delivering the good life in a sustainable way: Vietnam succeeds on six social indicators — including a life expectancy above 65 years and providing sufficient nutrition — while staying within its limit on every environmental threshold except carbon emissions.
Bummer.

The other option is to wreck the living daylights out of this planet and try to be one of the lucky few who gets a ticket to Mars. At least we now have one dummy out there, in a Tesla.

The rocket that put that Tesla into space could put a big satellite into orbit that helps measure the environment in ways that help us save this planet.  SpaceX is planning cheap satellite internet that would be available everywhere in the world, allowing global cooperation in new ways.  The company is also building a bigger reusable rocket that could eliminate a good portion of the fossil fuels currently used for long distance airplane travel.  Present actions and current technology are not improving at the rate needed; we need progress in both, not one without the other.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20378
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5289
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #274 on: February 10, 2018, 07:35:28 PM »
Humanity better stop dreaming, you may wish to read this:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1102.msg141450.html#msg141450

Quote
Only one country comes even close to delivering the good life in a sustainable way: Vietnam succeeds on six social indicators — including a life expectancy above 65 years and providing sufficient nutrition — while staying within its limit on every environmental threshold except carbon emissions.

The other option is to wreck the living daylights out of this planet and try to be one of the lucky few who gets a ticket to Mars. At least we now have one dummy out there, in a Tesla.

The rocket that put that Tesla into space could put a big satellite into orbit that helps measure the environment in ways that help us save this planet.  SpaceX is planning cheap satellite internet that would be available everywhere in the world, allowing global cooperation in new ways.  The company is also building a bigger reusable rocket that could eliminate a good portion of the fossil fuels currently used for long distance airplane travel.  Present actions and current technology are not improving at the rate needed; we need progress in both, not one without the other.

Well said, Sigmetnow

Oftimes the new things invented are found to be most useful elsewhere from the the original purpose envisaged. I think the Mars thing is pure hubris, but if SpaceX and its competitors  means NOAA can send up more satellites despite Trump's budget cuts, go for it.

Isn't this off-topic ?
"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)

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25759
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #275 on: February 10, 2018, 08:46:40 PM »
Humanity better stop dreaming, you may wish to read this:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1102.msg141450.html#msg141450

Quote
Only one country comes even close to delivering the good life in a sustainable way: Vietnam succeeds on six social indicators — including a life expectancy above 65 years and providing sufficient nutrition — while staying within its limit on every environmental threshold except carbon emissions.

The other option is to wreck the living daylights out of this planet and try to be one of the lucky few who gets a ticket to Mars. At least we now have one dummy out there, in a Tesla.

The rocket that put that Tesla into space could put a big satellite into orbit that helps measure the environment in ways that help us save this planet.  SpaceX is planning cheap satellite internet that would be available everywhere in the world, allowing global cooperation in new ways.  The company is also building a bigger reusable rocket that could eliminate a good portion of the fossil fuels currently used for long distance airplane travel.  Present actions and current technology are not improving at the rate needed; we need progress in both, not one without the other.

Well said, Sigmetnow

Oftimes the new things invented are found to be most useful elsewhere from the the original purpose envisaged. I think the Mars thing is pure hubris, but if SpaceX and its competitors  means NOAA can send up more satellites despite Trump's budget cuts, go for it.

Isn't this off-topic ?

Well, rockets can also be used for geoengineering the atmosphere, or near-earth space.  But I have yet to see any such solution I would root for.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #276 on: February 11, 2018, 07:52:10 AM »
Humanity better stop dreaming, you may wish to read this:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1102.msg141450.html#msg141450

Quote
Only one country comes even close to delivering the good life in a sustainable way: Vietnam succeeds on six social indicators — including a life expectancy above 65 years and providing sufficient nutrition — while staying within its limit on every environmental threshold except carbon emissions.

The other option is to wreck the living daylights out of this planet and try to be one of the lucky few who gets a ticket to Mars. At least we now have one dummy out there, in a Tesla.

The rocket that put that Tesla into space could put a big satellite into orbit that helps measure the environment in ways that help us save this planet.  SpaceX is planning cheap satellite internet that would be available everywhere in the world, allowing global cooperation in new ways.  The company is also building a bigger reusable rocket that could eliminate a good portion of the fossil fuels currently used for long distance airplane travel.  Present actions and current technology are not improving at the rate needed; we need progress in both, not one without the other.

Well said, Sigmetnow

Oftimes the new things invented are found to be most useful elsewhere from the the original purpose envisaged. I think the Mars thing is pure hubris, but if SpaceX and its competitors  means NOAA can send up more satellites despite Trump's budget cuts, go for it.

Isn't this off-topic ?

No, start by reading the first page, here's the first post by ivica:

What is the plan for that not to happen?

Then read the link I provided above, a larger quote from that article:

Quote
So where do we go from here?

What does this all mean for humanity?

"It's a worrying finding," says O'Neill. But he cautions against concluding that there is simply no way for everyone to enjoy a decent life without destroying the planet. After all, these findings are based on how we are doing things now, he says.

"We certainly hope it's possible to do things better — to achieve a high level of human well-being at a much lower level of resource use."

And he adds that this study actually points to one way to do that. Specifically, O'Neill and his fellow researchers ran statistical tests to determine for each environmental measure how much damage it takes to produce a corresponding improvement on each of the social well-being indicators.

"And what we find is that it follows a curve of diminishing returns — as you use more resources you get less social bang for your buck," says O'Neill. "So there's a turning point after which additional resource use contributes very little to social performance." Wealthy industrialized nations such as the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada have reached that point, says O'Neill. "As we increase our resource use, we get almost no increase in human well-being from that."

And this means for these countries the strategy of growing the economy — basically trying to create new wealth — to boost the well-being of their underprivileged citizens is ineffective. A much better approach, argues O'Neill, would be to focus on redistributing their existing wealth more equitably.

And if high-income countries were to adopt such an approach, says O'Neill, they could reduce their use of resources. And that, he says, would "free up the ecological space" for poor nations, where using resources still does make a big impact in improving people's lives.

Humanity already know what plan to follow and how to mitigate, we're just not doing it.
We (the top 10%) are still aiming for the stars and another rush for money and geoengineering.

Edit; added some bold parts in that quote.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2018, 08:05:39 AM by Sleepy »
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20378
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5289
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #277 on: February 11, 2018, 09:26:01 AM »
Hullo Sleepy,

As JAXA is still on holiday and I have woken up far too early, I am posting some early Sunday ramblings.

I agree very much with most of what you say - I just think that the practical uses of the Falcon and Falcon Heavy outweigh the nonsense about Mars etc.

I was in the pub a few weeks ago and a woman friend was going on about her £800 (USD 1,000) iphone " It's got microsoft office - excel and everything on it ". "Have you ever used it ?" I asked. "No" she replied. But to survive, Apple, Samsung etc have to produce new versions every year and increase sales. Silly but it is where we are.

ps: I have done a post on what happens if Tesla goes bust:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,438.msg141691.html#msg141691
"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)

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #278 on: February 11, 2018, 11:37:18 AM »
Hi again gc. Of course there are practical uses for rockets. But all of Elon's futuristic dreams require growth. At present that growth is based on everything that put us were we are today. Fill in the last two sentences of my reply from the aerosols thread.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #279 on: February 20, 2018, 04:17:03 PM »
This looks like a practicable partial solution, if some entity pays for it:

Title: "Guest post: How ‘enhanced weathering’ could slow climate change and boost crop yields"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-enhanced-weathering-could-slow-climate-change-and-boost-crop-yields

Extract: "In a new paper for Nature Plants, we tackle an under-discussed technique of CO2 removal called “enhanced rock weathering”. Our research highlights the potential wider benefits for crop yields and soil health, and sets out a research agenda for the next steps."

See also:

David J. Beerling  et al. (2018), "Farming with crops and rocks to address global climate, food and soil security", Nature Plants, doi:10.1038/s41477-018-0108-y

http://www.nature.com/articles/s41477-018-0108-y

Abstract: "The magnitude of future climate change could be moderated by immediately reducing the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere as a result of energy generation and by adopting strategies that actively remove CO2 from it. Biogeochemical improvement of soils by adding crushed, fast-reacting silicate rocks to croplands is one such CO2-removal strategy. This approach has the potential to improve crop production, increase protection from pests and diseases, and restore soil fertility and structure. Managed croplands worldwide are already equipped for frequent rock dust additions to soils, making rapid adoption at scale feasible, and the potential benefits could generate financial incentives for widespread adoption in the agricultural sector. However, there are still obstacles to be surmounted. Audited field-scale assessments of the efficacy of CO2 capture are urgently required together with detailed environmental monitoring. A cost-effective way to meet the rock requirements for CO2 removal must be found, possibly involving the recycling of silicate waste materials. Finally, issues of public perception, trust and acceptance must also be addressed."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25759
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #280 on: March 07, 2018, 04:15:06 PM »
"Even if you have a way of restoring ice in the Arctic, it does not solve the CO2 problem, it doesn't solve acidification of the oceans, it doesn't fully decrease temperatures.  It helps, but it doesn't solve anything."

Can we refreeze the Arctic? Scientists are beginning to ask
Quote
Each summer, residents of the Swiss Alps make their way through the mountains to the edge of the famous Rhône Glacier. There, fleecy white blankets in hand, they cover up the ice. They're trying to reflect the sun and prevent the glacier from melting.

The Rhône is one of many glaciers around the world that have noticeably shrunk in recent decades. The blankets are a simple fix, but they seem to help — Swiss glaciologist David Volken has previously suggested to Agence France-Presse that they may reduce melting by up to 70 percent.

Similar protective coverings are used on other glaciers, as well, in places like Italy and Germany — and scientists have begun to propose higher-tech solutions for the future. One research group from Utrecht University hopes to save Switzerland's Morteratsch Glacier by blowing reflective artificial snow across its surface, a proposal it presented at the annual meeting of the European Geosciences Union last spring. It hopes to eventually secure funding from the Swiss government, after proving the technology in a smaller pilot demonstration.

In a steadily warming world, using technology to protect the planet's glaciers may only prove useful for so long — curbing greenhouse gases and stopping the warming itself is the only true solution. But some scientists hope that stopgap measures could buy a little time for the world's ice.
...

The idea of geoengineering as a tool to fight climate change isn't new, although it's being raised more and more frequently by scientists and policymakers. Geoengineering can include any number of technological projects aimed at protecting or restoring the Earth's climate, but it most frequently refers to two specific proposals: the idea of sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to lower Earth's temperatures and the idea of spraying cooling aerosols into the atmosphere.

Both of these proposals would involve altering atmospheric conditions on a planetary scale — a feat that would require significant technological advancement to be feasible and much more research on the possible side effects. In the meantime, scientists are turning to more localized forms of geoengineering in their discussions of how to protect the Earth's most vulnerable areas. ...
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060075503
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25759
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #281 on: March 07, 2018, 04:25:00 PM »
Alex Steffen:

“Priorities during a potentially catastrophic planetary crisis:

1. Act quickly to limit the magnitude of the crisis;

2. Everything else.”

https://twitter.com/AlexSteffen/status/971097768906309632
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20378
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5289
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #282 on: March 07, 2018, 04:32:57 PM »
I recently posted on the Paris 2015 Thread an article from CarbonBrief. It seems that CO2 extraction from the atmosphere is now totally embedded in assumptions lying behind the Governmental policies to limit temperature rise. God save us from engineers and Governments with Hubris. I post it again below
___________________________________________

https://www.carbonbrief.org/new-scenarios-world-limit-warming-one-point-five-celsius-2100

It s a long read. The assumptions about -ve CO2 emissions through BECCS seem a bit heroic to me.

N.B. Accompanying the publication of the study is a newly updated SSP emissions and scenario database, which includes data for all SSP scenarios. (link in the article
https://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at/SspDb/dsd?Action=htmlpage&page=welcome )

Quote
GLOBAL TEMPERATURE 5 March 2018  16:55
New scenarios show how the world could limit warming to 1.5C in 2100[/b]

a paper in Nature Climate Change presents the results from a new modelling exercise using six different “integrated assessment models” (IAMs) to limit global temperatures in 2100 to below 1.5C.

Emissions must peak quickly
To limit warming to below 1.5C, all the models that the researchers examined require that global emissions peak by 2020 and decline precipitously thereafter. After 2050, the world must reduce net CO2 emissions to zero and emissions must be increasingly negative throughout the second half of the 21st century.

Emissions must go negative
Negative emissions are needed in the latter half of the century to pull the extra CO2 out of the atmosphere. This is because emissions cannot fall fast enough in the models to avoid exceeding the allowable carbon budget to avoid 1.5C warming.

Most of the models emit roughly 50-200% more CO2 than the allowable carbon budget over the course of the century, before pulling the extra CO2 back out.

The models assume widespread adoption of BECCS ( Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage) starting between 2030 and 2040 and then rapidly scaling up. By 2050, many models have BECCS producing more than 100 exajoules (EJ), roughly the same amount of energy globally as coal provides today. By 2100, BECCS will be around 200EJ compared to 300EJ for all non-biomass renewable energy.
"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)

Martin Gisser

  • Guest
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #283 on: March 07, 2018, 06:48:07 PM »
I recently posted on the Paris 2015 Thread an article from CarbonBrief. It seems that CO2 extraction from the atmosphere is now totally embedded in assumptions lying behind the Governmental policies to limit temperature rise.
Kevin Anderson is telling this since many years.
BECCS as currently envisioned is nonsense. I call for "BECCP": Bio energy with char coal production. But that's soo stone age! I can do that at the fireplace in the garden, without any rocket science whatsoever (cf. pre-Columbian Amazon forest agriculture: Terra Preta).

Meanwhile (Marrakesh COP22 2016) it has dawned that an agricultural revolution can be the necessary Negative Emissions Technology. Regenerate soil, add char coal. Sequestering 2 GtC/y is doable, imho.
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Bite/2016/1108/UN-calls-for-drastic-changes-in-agriculture-at-COP22-in-Morocco

Changing agriculture from destructive to soil-regenerative has many beneficial side effects. E.g. one project in South Africa is sponsored by Coca Cola. Guess why.
http://www.commonland.com/en/projects/186/baviaanskloof

One nation has already gone carbon negative: Bhutan.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/destinations/asia/bhutan/carbon-negative-country-sustainability/


gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20378
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5289
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #284 on: March 12, 2018, 12:53:22 PM »

https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-geoengineering-risk-termination-shock-overplayed-study

The geo-engineering industry has moved up a notch. Still at the blah-blah stage (though several countries are doing cloud-seeding for rain), but some country is going to give it a whirl sometime.

GEOENGINEERING 12 March 2018  0:01
Solar geoengineering: Risk of ‘termination shock’ overplayed, study says

Quote
A commonly voiced objection to the technique is the risk of “termination shock” – the rapid rebounding of global temperatures if SRM is deployed and then suddenly stopped.

But a new research article, published in Earth’s Future, argues that this risk has been “significantly overestimated”. There are numerous ways to prevent termination shock occurring, the researchers say, and also to ensure that an SRM programme is resilient to physical, political or economic interruptions in the first place.

For example, one gap in the paper is what happens if one group goes ahead with SRM without international agreement, notes Dr Anthony Jones, an associate research fellow at the University of Exeter, who led a recent study on the regional impacts of SRM. He tells Carbon Brief:

“One issue the paper doesn’t cover is the consequences of a group of countries or a single country deciding to implement solar geoengineering without global consent and participation, which would increase the risk of early termination. Although international opposition would make unilateral deployment unlikely, it is still a scenario worth discussing.”

The policy options put forward in the paper do not require decision-makers to “behave with perfect rationality”, the authors note, but that they “must just avoid wanton irrationality”.

Although this may seem reasonable, says Prof Alan Robock of Rutgers University, “unreasonable policy decisions are made all the time”. He asks: “Can we count on future political actors to be reasonable?

"Can we count on future political actors to be reasonable?" Hollow laughter.
"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)

Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 899
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #285 on: March 16, 2018, 09:19:19 PM »
Geoengineer polar glaciers to slow sea-level rise

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-03036-4

Quote
We think that geoengineering of glaciers on a similar scale could delay much of Greenland and Antarctica’s grounded ice from reaching the sea for centuries, buying time to address global warming. In our view, this is plausible because about 90% of ice flowing to the sea from the Antarctic ice sheet3,4, and about half of that lost from Greenland travels in narrow, fast ice streams. These streams measure tens of kilometres or less across. Fast glaciers slide on a film of water or wet sediment5. Stemming the largest flows would allow the ice sheets to thicken, slowing or even reversing their contribution to sea-level rise.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #286 on: March 17, 2018, 07:21:25 AM »
Thanks Archimid.

Jeez, Jakobshavn would need a berm 5 km across and 100 metres high and would be an enormous, but still feasible undertaking. But PIG is big daddy and his mother in frickin' Antarctica...
What about mitagation, let's say right now? That is easier, much more effective and we know how to do it.

Adding a high-res image from this one: https://www.csc.fi/-/tutkijat-ehdottavat-napajaatikoiden-sulamisen-hidastamista-geotekniikan-avulla
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6774
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #287 on: March 21, 2018, 01:39:12 AM »
Seitz still pushing seaborne microbubble albedo change:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013EF000151

sidd

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25759
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #288 on: March 24, 2018, 07:56:28 PM »
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20378
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5289
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #289 on: April 23, 2018, 02:28:34 PM »
The Geo-Engineers are getting into implementation stage. Ouch. The article has info about several experiments.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/23/sprinkling-sand-save-arctic-shrinking-sea-ice

Could sprinkling sand save the Arctic's shrinking sea ice?

Quote
While the North Meadow Lake near Utqiaġvik, formerly known as Barrow, may be relatively nondescript, it will be the staging ground this month for an ambitious attempt to safeguard the Arctic’s rapidly diminishing sea ice and stave off the most punishing effects of global warming.

Tiny spheres of reflective sand will be sprinkled upon the lake to see if this can prevent the lake ice from melting or slow the process down. Should testing prove successful, the project, called Ice911, has the grand vision of slathering around 19,000 sq miles of sea ice – equivalent to the size of Costa Rica – with trillions of sand grains in order to stem the loss of ice cover and prevent runaway climate change.

Ice911 isn’t the only direct environmental intervention, known as geoengineering, plotted for the Arctic.

A team of scientists at Arizona State University want to add an extra metre of sea ice to the Arctic’s current thickness by spending $500bn on a network of 10m wind-powered pumps that would be used to push seawater on to the surface of the ice where it would freeze.

There is the plan to use 16tn miniature robots to deflect the sun’s heat away from Earth; or the project to pump aerosols into clouds in order to “brighten” them and bolster their reflective power. Another scheme, devised by the scientist who developed Australia’s polymer bank notes, is trialling a thin “sun shield” to be placed over parts of the Great Barrier Reef, which has recently suffered from severe coral bleaching.

 separate project, led by the Harvard physicist David Keith, plans to head to Tuscon, Arizona, this year to launch the “StratoCruiser” – a high-altitude balloon equipped with sensors that will spray a mist of molecules such as sulfur dioxide or calcium carbonate into the atmosphere to deflect sunlight and spur cloud formation. Harvard’s solar geoengineering program has received funding from Bill Gates, among other sources.

Even if the silica proves benign to the Arctic environment, keeping a lid on warming in the region could backfire anyway, according to Julienne Stroeve, senior research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

“Weather patterns and ocean currents bring excess heat to the poles to balance out the planet, so you might invigorate those warming systems,” she said. “It might all be a bit futile.”

"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)

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9805
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3584
  • Likes Given: 3922
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #290 on: April 24, 2018, 01:38:24 PM »
Quote
Should testing prove successful, the project, called Ice911, has the grand vision of slathering around 19,000 sq miles of sea ice – equivalent to the size of Costa Rica – with trillions of sand grains in order to stem the loss of ice cover and prevent runaway climate change.
With such a grand vision, I am sure AGW will be stopped for sure.
I always wonder, isn't it more economical to accelerate the deployment of wind and solar power instead of all these crazy ideas?

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20378
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5289
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #291 on: April 24, 2018, 10:28:52 PM »
And another "mad scientist" scheme? Learning to live with sulphur.

https://earther.com/the-machines-that-could-darken-the-sun-to-stop-climate-1825452265

Robin George Andrews Yesterday 9:00am Filed to: WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG
Quote
...Once a fringe idea, there’s now a growing possibility we’ll build machines that will, in a manner of speaking, darken the Sun. ...using aerosols to blanket our atmosphere with reflective particles in order to quickly lower global temperatures. ..... ....The ingredients required to create a nebulous skyward mirror range from table salt and aluminum oxides to obliterated diamond dust. The one that receives the most attention, however, is sulfur. There are several reasons for this, but perhaps most importantly, we know with near-absolute certainty that this aerosol would work.

The quantity of aerosols they’ll deploy will be in the millions of tonnes. ...sulfur sifts out from the atmosphere in just a handful of years. Our SRM machines, then, would have to operate perhaps perpetually, continually refueling the shield.... “I believe delivery of the sulfide gas into the stratosphere is envisaged either by artillery shell, high-altitude weather balloon or aircraft,” Ian Stimpson, a senior lecturer on geophysics at Keele University, told Earther.....Using “naval rifles,” .. we’d need to fire roughly 8,000 shells skyward each day to achieve sufficient coverage, which would cost as much as $30 billion per year.
"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)

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #292 on: April 24, 2018, 10:39:55 PM »
And another "mad scientist" scheme? Learning to live with sulphur.

https://earther.com/the-machines-that-could-darken-the-sun-to-stop-climate-1825452265

Robin George Andrews Yesterday 9:00am Filed to: WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG
Quote
...Once a fringe idea, there’s now a growing possibility we’ll build machines that will, in a manner of speaking, darken the Sun. ...using aerosols to blanket our atmosphere with reflective particles in order to quickly lower global temperatures. ..... ....The ingredients required to create a nebulous skyward mirror range from table salt and aluminum oxides to obliterated diamond dust. The one that receives the most attention, however, is sulfur. There are several reasons for this, but perhaps most importantly, we know with near-absolute certainty that this aerosol would work.

The quantity of aerosols they’ll deploy will be in the millions of tonnes. ...sulfur sifts out from the atmosphere in just a handful of years. Our SRM machines, then, would have to operate perhaps perpetually, continually refueling the shield.... “I believe delivery of the sulfide gas into the stratosphere is envisaged either by artillery shell, high-altitude weather balloon or aircraft,” Ian Stimpson, a senior lecturer on geophysics at Keele University, told Earther.....Using “naval rifles,” .. we’d need to fire roughly 8,000 shells skyward each day to achieve sufficient coverage, which would cost as much as $30 billion per year.

Spewing sulfur or other substances into the atmosphere is a terrible idea. 

But if we aren't successful with cutting carbon emissions quickly we might have to resort to using a terrible idea to keep from roasting.  At least until we can reduce atmospheric GHG enough to let more heat escape.

Let's hope we never need lifeboats, but best we have some around if we have to have them.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #293 on: April 25, 2018, 12:37:51 AM »
If When we shade the world to lower solar insolation by 20%, what percentage of our photovoltaic energy will we have shaded?


If all of the world was within an artificial shadow, would lamps be turned on earlier, and turned off later?


What effect, if any, would this have on either polar region during that hemisphere's winter? If each pole alternates in having no effect, then a very enhanced effect, isn't this going to alter the world's weather patterns in ways that would be impossible to predict?


Will this "solution" be imposed of all of the world's inhabitants? Who will be held responsible if when errors occur?


Who will pay for implementing this system now, and in perpetuity?


So many questions.
Terry




Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #294 on: April 25, 2018, 12:50:28 AM »
Solar output would drop.  Wind strength might drop.  Food production might drop.

However with lower temperatures we should need less electricity for AC.  And we might be able to return to farming land we've had to abandon because it became too hot in that area.

Remember, this is a lifeboat idea.  Not a solution to global warming.  It might keep millions of us alive by keeping temperatures survivable.

We can add more solar panels in order to make up per panel losses.  We can't aircondition the planet.
--

I'd like to see more thinking about putting large reflective sheets in orbit.  Huge pieces of mylar or carbon fiber, for example.  With SpaceX greatly lowering the cost of lifting loads we might be able to put a summer sunshade over the polar regions and let them cool down.

That might restore jet stream behavior and cut back on our increasing floods, snow bombs, and droughts.  It might save the Atlantic circulation pattern and prevent Europe from getting a lot colder.

I'm expecting the planet to get close to zero human-caused GHG emissions within the next 30 years.  Then, IIRC, it would take about 100 years for nature to pull the extra carbon out of the atmosphere.

What we really want to avoid is large scale permafrost melting and heating the oceans to the point at which them become carbon emitters.

We may have to treat the symptoms even after we cut off the source.

Iceismylife

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 281
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #295 on: April 25, 2018, 03:35:31 AM »
 
...

Humanity already know what plan to follow and how to mitigate, we're just not doing it.
We (the top 10%) are still aiming for the stars and another rush for money and geoengineering.

...
Do we?

If you look at sort term (our life time and the lifetime of our great grandkids) comfort and convenience for us then we need to stop and reverse global warming.

If you look long term then you get a different answer.  The long term health of the biosphere depends on getting the methane out of the arctic permafrost as the permafrost sequesters it and enough could build up overtime to drive the planet to a state like Venus.

So it is in the long term, the health of the planet involves intentional AGW now.  Or some other way of dealing with the sequestered methane and how to convert it to solid carbon.

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6774
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #296 on: April 25, 2018, 03:58:52 AM »
"... enough could build up overtime to drive the planet to a state like Venus."

I dont think venus scenaro is possible, even with all known sources of CH4 dumping. I think Hansen once did analysis like that, but i could be wrong. If i find the reference i shall post.

sidd

Iceismylife

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 281
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #297 on: April 25, 2018, 04:11:31 AM »
"... enough could build up overtime to drive the planet to a state like Venus."

I dont think venus scenaro is possible, even with all known sources of CH4 dumping. I think Hansen once did analysis like that, but i could be wrong. If i find the reference i shall post.

sidd
Then we need to out gas the methane now.

Is it correct that methane builds over time as in geological time frames?  So in several million years enough mint build up?

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #298 on: April 25, 2018, 04:37:53 AM »
If you have a pipe to send the methane out to space, past the Earth's atmosphere, then we could take the methane out of the permafrost.

Since you probably don't we need to leave that methane sequestered.

Iceismylife

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 281
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #299 on: April 26, 2018, 04:27:16 AM »
If you have a pipe to send the methane out to space, past the Earth's atmosphere, then we could take the methane out of the permafrost.

Since you probably don't we need to leave that methane sequestered.
That is not a permanent solution.  Heat it up and it will come out. Eventually it will be heated up.  The longer it takes the more there is.  Too much and we do Venus.  Over heat it and melt the ice.  Out gas it maybe burn it, and no ice on earth.  End the age of ice.  that will stabilize the environment long term.