Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Geoengineering, another rush for money?  (Read 155279 times)

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2666
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #450 on: February 07, 2024, 10:29:29 PM »
There is a thread further up about making this shade a fresnel lens, to diffract away rather than block.

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

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

Bruce Steele

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2698
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 861
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #451 on: February 07, 2024, 11:12:12 PM »
Sig, Even if a shield might control temperature it will not stop the acidification of the oceans unless we stop producing so much CO2.

El Cid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2623
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1003
  • Likes Given: 234
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #452 on: February 08, 2024, 09:21:11 AM »
As Richard Rathbone wrote, it could also be one of the cheapest options.  Also, it could be funded by industries, businesses, and individuals, not just governments.  And would provide a platform for space and Earth science research and potential revenue.

What’s not to like?

He wrote that???

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

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 27243
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1456
  • Likes Given: 447
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #453 on: February 08, 2024, 03:04:00 PM »
Sig, Even if a shield might control temperature it will not stop the acidification of the oceans unless we stop producing so much CO2.

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

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


========

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

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

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2666
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #454 on: February 13, 2024, 10:47:41 PM »
Someone is going to dim the sun, and it will be soon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

SRM awoke in 2023

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

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

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

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

#2 - Billionaires are getting interested

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

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

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

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

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

The two best examples:

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

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

https://climate.benjames.io/someone-is-going-to-dim-the-sun/
Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2666
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #455 on: February 18, 2024, 08:38:56 AM »
(gonna leave this here so can search for it. Author has developed terminal illness as noted in the Freezing 2023/24 thread)


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

https://www.academia.edu/4302181/Rowe_Mark_and_Kallio_Veli_A_Can_space_mirrors_save_the_planet_As_it_becomes_ever_clearer_that_simply_cutting_back_on_carbon_emissions_isn_t_going_to_save_the_poles_
Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 27243
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1456
  • Likes Given: 447
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #456 on: February 19, 2024, 04:21:10 PM »
(gonna leave this here so can search for it. Author has developed terminal illness as noted in the Freezing 2023/24 thread)


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

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

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

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2666
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #457 on: February 23, 2024, 12:46:21 AM »
(more pop from the popular press. Govts love it goes it's something to study, shows they are trying?)

 Switzerland calls on UN to explore possibility of solar geoengineering

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2666
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #458 on: February 27, 2024, 08:00:16 PM »
Pumped up: will a Dutch startup’s plan to restore Arctic sea-ice work?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2666
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #459 on: February 28, 2024, 09:13:57 PM »
Clouds Vanish During a Solar Eclipse, And We Finally Know Why

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

vox_mundi

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 11020
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3628
  • Likes Given: 794
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #460 on: March 02, 2024, 03:39:33 PM »
Emergency Atmospheric Geoengineering Wouldn't Save the Oceans
https://phys.org/news/2024-02-emergency-atmospheric-geoengineering-wouldnt-oceans.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel Pflüger et al, Flawed Emergency Intervention: Slow Ocean Response to Abrupt Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, Geophysical Research Letters (2024).
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GL106132
There are 3 classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see

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

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2666
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #461 on: March 04, 2024, 10:24:11 PM »
Can volcanic super eruptions lead to major cooling? Study suggests no

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

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

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

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


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

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

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/37/4/JCLI-D-23-0116.1.xml
Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

neal

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 741
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 206
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #462 on: March 08, 2024, 04:12:01 PM »
all of the "inject SO2 into the troposphere" argument topics in one place

how much time does that gain us?


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

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2666
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #463 on: March 08, 2024, 09:55:01 PM »
Hope they will have some balloons up to see if the re-radiation increases when the solar eclipse happens.
Think i saw an article that NASA/NOAA are going to do just that.

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

Nationwide Eclipse Ballooning Project Objectives

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9010
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2186
  • Likes Given: 2031
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #464 on: March 09, 2024, 10:55:48 PM »
all of the "inject SO2 into the troposphere" argument topics in one place

how much time does that gain us?


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

Of course that argument is missing.

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

vox_mundi

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 11020
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3628
  • Likes Given: 794
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #465 on: March 12, 2024, 09:44:37 PM »
$500K Sand Dune Designed to Protect Coastal Homes Washes Away in Just 3 Days
https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/devastating-storm-battered-dunes-concern-coastal-salisbury-residents/3259243/
https://www.thedailybeast.com/dollar500k-dune-designed-to-protect-massachusetts-homes-last-just-3-days

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

There are 3 classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see

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

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus

Freegrass

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4507
  • Autodidacticism is a complicated word
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1460
  • Likes Given: 1373
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #466 on: March 15, 2024, 12:08:22 PM »
Sabine Hossenfelder on geoengineering.

When factual science is in conflict with our beliefs or traditions, we cuddle up in our own delusional fantasy where everything starts making sense again.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9010
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2186
  • Likes Given: 2031
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #467 on: March 15, 2024, 07:42:32 PM »
Moved some discussion to Places becoming less liveable in Consequences.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2666
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #468 on: March 27, 2024, 06:57:32 PM »
Why Tennessee lawmakers are pushing a bill to keep government from spraying the sky

The baseless ‘chemtrails’ accusation is going increasingly mainstream

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/03/27/chemtrails-conspiracy-geoengineering/
Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9010
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2186
  • Likes Given: 2031
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #469 on: April 08, 2024, 09:20:37 PM »
Injecting Sulfur Into The Atmosphere Could Pose Dangerous Risks


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2666
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #470 on: April 28, 2024, 07:30:10 PM »
Scientist Slams Politicians For Banning Geoengineering Experiments

"Such rules would halt or hinder scientific exploration of technologies that could save lives and ease suffering."

A scientist is warning against regulatory attempts to ban geoengineering, which seeks to alter the climate as global warming threatens to make the planet less habitable for us humans.

In an editorial for the MIT Tech Review, Cornell's Daniele Visioni wrote that even as researchers and governments begin studying — and sometimes conducting early-stage tests — various geoengineering prospects, which often "seed" the clouds to spur on rain, dry out the stratosphere, or reflect sunlight away from the ground below, some critics are calling to shut these experiments down.

"The growing interest in studying the potential of these tools... has triggered corresponding calls to shut down the research field, or at least to restrict it more tightly," wrote Visioni, an expert in the field. "But such rules would halt or hinder scientific exploration of technologies that could save lives and ease suffering as global warming accelerates."

As Visioni notes, politicians have already begun banning geoengineering experiments. Last year, Mexico banned geoengineering, and more recently, Tennessee's governor signed into law a bill that bars it under the pretense of so-called "chemtrails."

At the United Nations, meanwhile, a bloc of African nations called for a moratorium on geoengineering, though those talks stalled out after the United States pushed back against them.
Sky Against Sky

The researcher acknowledged that his status as an advocate for geoengineering makes him the opposite of a passive observer in this battle. But all the same, he's concerned with the precedent these kinds of bills and proposals set.

"This doesn’t mean I support unilateral efforts today, or forging ahead in this space without broader societal engagement and consent," Visioni wrote. "But some of these proposed restrictions on solar geoengineering leave vague what would constitute an acceptable, 'small' test as opposed to an unacceptable 'intervention.'"

"Such vagueness is problematic," he added, "and its potential consequences would have far more reach than the well-intentioned proponents of regulation might wish for."

Consider, for instance, a scholarly submission to amend the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration's rules to require "any group proposing to conduct outdoor research on weather modification anywhere in the world" to notify the agency in advance.

In short, these sorts of proposals feel like an overreach — and regardless of how "well-intentioned" their proponents are, it could nevertheless have a chilling effect on researchers.

While there may be unforeseen risks to solar engineering, climate change is destroying our planet rapidly enough that many scientists are screaming at anyone who will listen to throw anything at the wall and see what sticks.

"If there are possible interventions that could limit that death and destruction," Visioni emphasized, "we have an obligation to evaluate them carefully, and to weigh any trade-offs with open and informed minds. "

More on geoengineering: Government Denies Dubai Flooding Was Due to Cloud-Seeding Experiments

https://futurism.com/the-byte/scientist-slams-geoengineering-bans
Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

Freegrass

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4507
  • Autodidacticism is a complicated word
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1460
  • Likes Given: 1373
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #471 on: May 15, 2024, 06:21:21 PM »
Who can tell me why this can never work? The bottom of the nonrigid tube will collapse due to low pressure, right?

But still a cool idea... at first.

When factual science is in conflict with our beliefs or traditions, we cuddle up in our own delusional fantasy where everything starts making sense again.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9010
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2186
  • Likes Given: 2031
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #472 on: May 15, 2024, 09:08:40 PM »
Simple economics would be a good start.
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.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 27243
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1456
  • Likes Given: 447
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #473 on: May 15, 2024, 09:59:03 PM »
Who can tell me why this can never work? The bottom of the nonrigid tube will collapse due to low pressure, right?

But still a cool idea... at first.


Sounds like the perfect way to generate tornadoes and severe storms — if it worked.

But, the low pressure “strong enough to drive fans to generate electricity” would cause a fabric chimney to collapse, due to the higher pressure outside pushing against the chimney sides.  Hot air balloons stay inflated because the hot air is trapped inside.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

SteveMDFP

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2701
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 647
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #474 on: May 16, 2024, 01:22:55 AM »
Who can tell me why this can never work? The bottom of the nonrigid tube will collapse due to low pressure, right?

But still a cool idea... at first.


I believe this is the third time this concept has been brought up for discussion on ASIF.  Generally mostly shot down.  Here's from 2013:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?topic=568.0

Some much-missed names there.

EDIT:  The second iteration was 2017:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?topic=2133.0
« Last Edit: May 16, 2024, 01:40:46 AM by SteveMDFP »

Freegrass

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4507
  • Autodidacticism is a complicated word
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1460
  • Likes Given: 1373
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #475 on: May 16, 2024, 11:04:59 AM »
Who can tell me why this can never work? The bottom of the nonrigid tube will collapse due to low pressure, right?

But still a cool idea... at first.


I believe this is the third time this concept has been brought up for discussion on ASIF.  Generally mostly shot down.  Here's from 2013:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?topic=568.0

Some much-missed names there.

EDIT:  The second iteration was 2017:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?topic=2133.0
Thanks for the links! The first one was a lot of words to explain a stupid idea. But Neven posted this link to a project I remember too, from a very long time ago. And it seems like EnviroMission is still working on their Solar Tower. Their website is still up.

https://www.enviromission.com.au/site/content/


January 29, 2018
EnviroMission says ‘tower of power’ dream is still alive, 20 months into suspension

https://stockhead.com.au/tech/evm-determined-solar-tower-power-will-energy-source-future/

At a height of up to 800m — rivalling the world’s tallest tower, Dubai’s Burj Khalifa — EnviroMission’s tower of power will be a sight to see if it ever gets built.

For more than 15 years EnviroMission (ASX:EVM) has been hoping to construct a world-first large-scale solar thermal power station — but backing to make the dream a reality is still lacking.

EnviroMission had $125,000 in the bank at the end of October.

EnviroMission believes a single 200 megawatt solar tower power station could provide enough electricity to power 150,000 households and save 1 million tonnes of greenhouse gases from entering the environment each year.

However, its shares have been suspended since May 2016, after the ASX raised questions about a $15 million deal with Japanese fund Valentia Co.

Despite a series of promises that the funds were on their way, the company remained suspended until the deal was ultimately terminated and Enviromission has been searching for another partner ever since.

It is uncertain if the shares will ever trade again on the ASX.

“Moving forward and to reiterate, ‘nothing is off the table’ now means EnviroMission will enter negotiations with investors that may require privatisation or an alternative listing jurisdiction”, chief Roger Davey told shareholders in an address late last year.

“The race to development, particularly in an energy context, can be more likened to a slow courtship of the union of innovation, necessity and capital, with no business too large for the need for capital — case in point, the great innovator Tesla.

“EnviroMission believes Solar Tower renewable power station technology has its place in the global energy mix, what will be decided over the coming weeks and months is where and how that participation will occur.”
When factual science is in conflict with our beliefs or traditions, we cuddle up in our own delusional fantasy where everything starts making sense again.

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2666
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #476 on: May 29, 2024, 12:07:53 AM »
A trial of cloud-brightening technology sparks controversy in a California city

Alameda, California, has found itself thrust into a debate about whether and how to explore geoengineering projects to fight global warming

Scientists surprised the leaders of a Northern California city last month, when they unveiled a project to study technology that could one day be used to brighten clouds and mitigate global warming.

The experiment involved spraying saltwater along the deck of the USS Hornet — an aircraft carrier docked in Alameda that serves as a museum — to test devices that can create and measure plumes of aerosols. The team planned three sprays per day, four days a week for 20 weeks.

The actions themselves were harmless — and, indeed, environmental consultants the city hired to assess the project found no safety concerns, according to a report published Thursday. But the work represents a first step toward understanding whether this type of technology, at scale, could be used to make clouds reflect more sunlight back to space and slow some global warming effects.

This possibility has thrust the city into the center of a larger debate over whether and how the exploration of geoengineering technologies to fight climate change ought to be explored — and who should have a say.

The project, led by a team from the University of Washington, represents one of the first attempts to test marine cloud-brightening technology in the United States.

City officials and constituents in Alameda said they only learned the full details of it after The New York Times published a story in April. The Times said the researchers knew their testing might be controversial to some, so they had “kept the details tightly held.”

Following the article’s publication, city leaders ordered the scientists to halt the project, saying it was in violation of the lease with the USS Hornet. The Alameda city council will decide the project’s fate in a June 4 meeting.

The idea behind cloud brightening concepts is to increase the number of water droplets within low-level ocean clouds to boost their reflectivity and potentially make the clouds last longer. That process could lead clouds to reflect more sunlight to space. It wouldn’t help with other climate problems, like ocean acidification, and some researchers are concerned that, at scale, it could shift atmospheric circulation with unintended consequences.

Scientists are far from even experimenting on that level. On the aircraft carrier’s deck, the researchers were simply using a machine that looks like a snowmaker to spray saltwater.

“The studies involve brief emissions of salt-water that evolves into a plume of tiny salt particles whose number, size and path are measured by instruments installed along the flight deck of the Hornet,” Rob Wood, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington and project leader, said in a statement.

The researchers had planned to study how different-sized particles affect the plume.

Wood said the studies are “basic science research” and not “designed to alter clouds or any aspect of the local weather or climate.”

The safety assessment released Thursday identified no potential harms from the work.

“We do not see this operation as a health risk to the surrounding community,” consultant and engineer Andrew Romolo wrote in a letter to city leaders. In a separate letter, a biological consultant said the plumes of saltwater wouldn’t harm terns (a type of seabird) or any other sensitive species.

Laura Fies, the executive director of the USS Hornet Museum, said her initial conversations with the research team centered mostly on immediate plans for the work, rather than its long-term implications. So the resulting controversy was a surprise. 

“We were like — we’re making some seafoam breeze, that’s cute, that’s fun,” Fies said. “And you know, I fully admit, that the exciting, controversial portion is like the most newsworthy. It’s also years away from what they’re doing right now.”

Fies said the aircraft carrier has hosted events with pyrotechnics and Jeeps driving around on deck.

“We do wilder things on the flight deck all the time,” Fies said. “What’s being sprayed across the deck is saltwater, very clean saltwater. It didn’t occur to us that the city would want to come inspect with a Hazmat team.”

Most geoengineering ideas are theoretical and untested. Atmospheric scientists say there is no evidence of any large-scale programs, but scientists are taking baby steps to understand the basic physics and feasibility of some possibilities.

The broad implications of this research frighten some people, since certain kinds of geoengineering concepts have the potential to disrupt weather patterns, cause pollution or change the appearance of the sky. Proponents argue that humanity is already geoengineering Earth’s atmosphere by pumping carbon emissions into the atmosphere, and that the risks of global warming could be worse.

When it comes to regulation, geoengineering is something of a Wild West. Tennessee became the first state to broadly ban the practice this year. But the lawmakers’ debates there were marked by outlandish conspiracy theories about so-called “chemtrails,” widespread confusion and inaccurate suggestions that large, federal geoengineering programs were already underway.

In Alameda, Sarah Henry, a city spokesperson, said, the city manager’s office had been notified that “the Hornet had a research partner doing work on the Hornet and what they described as misting down the flight deck.”

“We didn’t know the University of Washington was a partner and we didn’t know the details of the research being done and that’s why this has come to the point,” she said.

The research team also includes scientists with SRI International, a nonprofit research institute founded by Stanford University, and SilverLining, a Washington, D.C. nonprofit focused on climate interventions.

The scientists say they got an outside assessment of regulatory and permit requirements before launching the project.

Josh Horton, a senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School who studies solar geoengineering policy, said such projects tend to stir deeper concerns and force people to think about the darkest possibilities of climate change.

“The research that’s contemplated at the present is super small scale and involves zero physical environmental risk. It’s all about the political symbolism and the uncomfortable questions it raises,” he said.

Horton also questioned why the scientists chose to keep the project quiet until it was in action.

“It fuels conspiracy theories. It fuels concerns there’s a set of privileged actors doing this behind the scenes without public input,” he said.

Wood, however, said public outreach was part of the plan and that the project leaders had selected the Hornet in order “to support engagement with the community and a wide array of stakeholders in a tangible way, through direct access to the research.”

Fies said the museum had been working with the researchers on plans for live exhibits for students. She hopes the city council will approve that work.

“Who doesn’t want to be in the splash zone?” she said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/trial-cloud-brightening-controversy-california-rcna153092
Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

vox_mundi

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 11020
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3628
  • Likes Given: 794
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #477 on: May 30, 2024, 07:24:05 PM »
Reduced Sulfur Content In Shipping Fuel Associated With Increased Maritime Atmospheric Warming
https://phys.org/news/2024-05-sulfur-content-shipping-fuel-maritime.html

An 80% reduction in sulfur dioxide shipping emissions observed in early 2020 could be associated with substantial atmospheric warming over some ocean regions, according to a modeling study published in Communications Earth & Environment. The sudden decline in emissions was a result of the introduction of the International Maritime Organization's 2020 regulation (IMO 2020), which reduced the maximum sulfur content allowed in shipping fuel from 3.5% to 0.5% to help reduce air pollution.

... Tianle Yuan and colleagues calculated the effect of IMO 2020 on the atmospheric levels of sulfate aerosols over the ocean and how this affected cloud composition. They found substantial reductions in both the levels of atmospheric aerosols and the cloud droplet number density.

The greatest modeled aerosol reductions were in the North Atlantic, the Caribbean Sea, and the South China Sea—the regions with the busiest shipping lanes. The authors then estimated the effect of IMO 2020 on Earth's energy budget (the difference between the energy received from the sun and the energy radiated from the Earth) since 2020. They calculated that the estimated effect is equivalent to 80% of the observed increase in the heat energy retained on Earth over that period.

The authors suggest that the substantial modeled effect of IMO 2020 on Earth's energy budget demonstrates the potential effectiveness of marine cloud brightening as a strategy to temporarily cool the climate. However, they also warn that the intended reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions due to IMO 2020 potentially causing an inadvertent increase in marine atmospheric temperature is an example of a geoengineering termination shock, which could affect regional weather patterns.

Tianle Yuan, Abrupt reduction in shipping emission as an inadvertent geoengineering termination shock produces substantial radiative warming, Communications Earth & Environment (2024)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01442-3
There are 3 classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see

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

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2666
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #478 on: June 08, 2024, 03:53:50 AM »
Zany ideas to slow polar melting are gathering momentum

Giant curtains to keep warm water away from glaciers strike some as too risky

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2024/06/06/zany-ideas-to-slow-polar-melting-are-gathering-momentum
Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2666
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #479 on: June 19, 2024, 09:19:49 PM »
 Flubbed climate test won’t deter rich donors from altering the sky

They funded a failed experiment to block the sun. They plan to try again.
A surfer leaves the water as sunlight streaks through clouds.

Donors say they're committed to funding geoengineering research. (politico)

Wealthy philanthropists with ties to Wall Street and Silicon Valley are unbowed by a botched climate experiment to limit the amount of sunlight hitting the earth, vowing to continue bankrolling future solar geoengineering tests as temperatures catapult upward.

POLITICO contacted a dozen people or groups who funded a controversial program by the University of Washington to reflect sun rays by altering clouds. Those who responded indicated that it’s worth pushing through the public skepticism surrounding efforts to determine how to best deploy the last-ditch global warming fix — if at all.

“The Pritzker Innovation Fund believes in the importance of research that helps improve climate models and enables policymakers and the public to better understand whether climate interventions like marine cloud brightening are feasible and advisable,” Rachel Pritzker, the fund’s founder and president, said in a statement. “We will only get answers to these questions through open research that can inform science-based, democratic decision-making.”

The funders’ comments came after two high-profile experiments were shutdown following public backlash, pointing to the challenges of conducting controversial research that could result in weather disruptions or other unintended consequences. The latest experiment was derailed earlier this month when local officials in Alameda, California, rejected a request by Washington researchers to restart a test to brighten clouds from the deck of a decommissioned aircraft carrier in San Francisco Bay.

The move followed the March cancellation of another solar geoengineering project in Sweden.

Most funders of the Alameda experiment didn’t respond to inquiries, but the assertions of those who did suggest there’s a strong base of philanthropic support for solar geoengineering research, which can also include spraying reflective particles miles about the earth’s surface.

“Our goal is to support the basic science needed to assess the role of aerosols in the atmosphere, particularly the stratosphere,” said David Spergel, president of the Simons Foundation. “We want to have the basic science in place so that society can evaluate the possible benefits and costs of stratospheric aerosol injection or marine cloud brightening.”

The foundation — started in 1994 by former hedge fund manager Jim Simons and his wife, Marilyn Simons — has long supported a wide variety of University of Washington research.

The group did not provide money for the Alameda experiment, but Spergel noted in an email that “our funding is not going to be affected by their difficulties there.”

Since the abrupt termination of the Alameda study, which researchers hoped would last for months but only operated for a total of 20 minutes, the Environmental Defense Fund has signaled its intention to begin funding other solar geoengingeering research. The group’s backing provided a mainstream endorsement of the controversial field, which critics say could dampen efforts to reduce climate pollution.

Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt Hotels fortune, praised the university and SilverLining, a nonprofit that has spearheaded efforts to advance geoengineering research, for seeking to conduct their experiment atop the USS Hornet. The World War II-era ship is now a Smithsonian-affiliated museum.

That approach is “a fantastic model for educating the public on this important type of research and we hope there are more such opportunities in the future,” she said.
More money on the way

The Quadrature Climate Foundation, a philanthropy associated with the hedge fund Quadrature Capital, said most of its grants are dedicated to reducing carbon emissions and removing them from the atmosphere, rather than blocking sunlight. But it will continue to support geoengineering, which accounts for less than 5 percent of its $930 million funding portfolio.

“We remain firmly committed to advancing transparent, equitable, and science-based approaches to understand and potentially mitigate climate risks,” Greg De Temmerman, the foundation’s chief science and programs officer, said in a statement.

Quadrature recently told MIT Technology Review that it plans to provide $40 million for work in the field over the next three years, double what all foundations and wealthy donors provided from 2008 to 2018.

SilverLining and SRI International, another nonprofit that helped guide the Alameda experiment, did not respond to requests for comment. But SilverLining Executive Director Kelly Wanser said in May that her group provided about 10 percent of the funding for the Alameda project.

“There’s no money from any kind of fossil interests or anything like that,” Wanser told POLITICO. “It’s climate-related philanthropic funding.”

The University of Washington declined to answer questions about its relationships with SilverLining and other donors. Instead, the university sent a statement attributed to Wanser and professors Sarah Doherty and Rob Wood noting that the team is “already exploring alternative paths forward” for the experiment.

Longtime Google executive Alan Eustace, who helped fund the University of Washington’s marine cloud brightening program, declined to comment on whether he would continue to support its solar geoengeering tests. Other people or groups backing the program did not respond to requests for comment.

They include the Larsen Lam Climate Change Foundation, which was established by cryptocurrency billionaire Chris Larsen and his wife, Lyna Lam; the Kissick Family Foundation launched by the late investor John Kissick; and the Cohler Charitable Fund of former Facebook executive Matt Cohler.

The program’s other supporters are inventor Armand Neukermans, venture capitalists Chris and Crystal Sacca, and software engineer Dan Scales.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/19/flubbed-climate-test-rich-donors-altering-sky-00164011
Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2666
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #480 on: June 21, 2024, 10:24:17 PM »
Climate engineering off US coast could increase heatwaves in Europe, study finds

Scientists call for regulation to stop regional use of marine cloud brightening having negative impact elsewhere

A geoengineering technique designed to reduce high temperatures in California could inadvertently intensify heatwaves in Europe, according to a study that models the unintended consequences of regional tinkering with a changing climate.

The paper shows that targeted interventions to lower temperature in one area for one season might bring temporary benefits to some populations, but this has to be set against potentially negative side-effects in other parts of the world and shifting degrees of effectiveness over time.

The authors of the study said the findings were “scary” because the world has few or no regulations in place to prevent regional applications of the technique, marine cloud brightening, which involves spraying reflective aerosols (usually in the form of sea salt or sea spray) into stratocumulus clouds over the ocean to reflect more solar radiation back into space.

Experts have said the paucity of controls means there is little to prevent individual countries, cities, companies or even wealthy individuals from trying to modify their local climates, even if it is to the detriment of people living elsewhere, potentially leading to competition and conflict over interventions.

The recent sharp rise in global temperatures has prompted some research institutions and private organisations to engage in geoengineering research that used to be virtually taboo.

In Australia, scientists have been trialling marine cloud brightening strategies for at least four years to try to cool the Great Barrier Reef and slow its bleaching.

Earlier this year, scientists at the University of Washington sprayed sea-salt particles across the flight deck of a decommissioned aircraft carrier, the USS Hornet, docked in Alameda in San Francisco Bay. This experiment was halted by the local government to allow it to evaluate whether the spray contains chemicals that might pose a health risk to people or animals in the Bay area.

The new paper suggests the consequences could be much further reaching and harder to predict. Published on Friday in Nature Climate Change, the authors claim to be the first to demonstrate that cloud brightening effects can diminish or reverse as climate conditions change due to the already dramatic human impacts of burning fossil fuels and forests.

Using Earth system computer models of the climate in 2010 and 2050, they simulated the impacts of two cloud brightening operations carried out over different regions of the north-eastern Pacific Ocean, one in the subtropics near California and one in the mid-latitudes near Alaska. Both were designed to reduce the risk of extreme heat on the target region, the US west coast.

Counterintuitively, the more distant operation had the greater impact because it tapped into “teleconnections”, links in the climate system between geographically remote parts of the world.

The 2010 simulation suggested the operation near Alaska would lower the risk of dangerous heat exposure in the target region by 55% – equivalent to 22 million people-days per summer – while the closer subtropical test would cause smaller but still significant gains of 16%.

In simulations of the more disrupted climate of 2050, however, the same two operations produced very different results because there were fewer clouds, higher base temperatures and a slowing of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (Amoc). Under these mid-century conditions, the operation near Alaska would have a drastically reduced effect on relieving heat stress in the western US, while the subtropical operation would push temperatures higher – the opposite of the desired result.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/21/climate-engineering-off-us-coast-could-increase-heatwaves-in-europe-study-finds

....

Diminished efficacy of regional marine cloud brightening in a warmer world

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-024-02046-7

Marine cloud brightening (MCB) is a geoengineering proposal to cool atmospheric temperatures and reduce climate change impacts. As large-scale approaches to stabilize global mean temperatures pose governance challenges, regional interventions may be more attractive near term. Here we investigate the efficacy of regional MCB in the North Pacific to mitigate extreme heat in the Western United States. Under present-day conditions, we find MCB in the remote mid-latitudes or proximate subtropics reduces the relative risk of dangerous summer heat exposure by 55% and 16%, respectively. However, the same interventions under mid-century warming minimally reduce or even increase heat stress in the Western United States and across the world. This loss of efficacy may arise from a state-dependent response of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation to both anthropogenic warming and regional MCB. Our result demonstrates a risk in assuming that interventions effective under certain conditions will remain effective as the climate continues to change.

Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9010
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2186
  • Likes Given: 2031
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #481 on: June 21, 2024, 11:05:49 PM »
Quote
However, the same interventions under mid-century warming minimally reduce or even increase heat stress in the Western United States

That probably helps.  ;)
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: 4507
  • Autodidacticism is a complicated word
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1460
  • Likes Given: 1373
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #482 on: July 01, 2024, 12:58:05 PM »
“Things Are Moving So Quickly” as Scientists Study This “Very Scary” Climate Strategy

The controversial field of solar geoengineering is hitting its stride.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/06/university-chicago-solar-geoengineering-david-keith-bill-gates/

It's a very long article, so click the link to read it.
When factual science is in conflict with our beliefs or traditions, we cuddle up in our own delusional fantasy where everything starts making sense again.

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2666
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #483 on: July 14, 2024, 09:29:39 PM »
To avoid sea level rise, some researchers want to build barriers around the world’s most vulnerable glaciers
Call to study glacial geoengineering stirs up “civil war” among polar scientists.

Over the past few decades, earth scientists have grappled with the concept of solar geoengineering: cooling the rapidly warming planet by injecting particles high into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight, for example. Now, researchers are proposing a new way to battle the effects of climate change that could prove even more costly and controversial: glacial geoengineering, designed to slow sea level rise.

A white paper, released on 11 July by glaciologists who conducted a series of workshops and town halls over the course of 10 months, calls for boosting research into daring plans that would protect vulnerable ice sheets by building flexible barriers around them or drilling deep into them to slow their slippage into the sea.

But these untested ideas are stirring up a backlash among glaciologists, some of whom view them not only as outlandishly expensive and logistically flawed but also as a distraction from the problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. “I honestly feel like this is ultimately going to be a civil war in the community,” says Jeremy Bassis, a glaciologist at the University of Michigan. “I don’t see an awful lot of room for compromise.”

At current rates, global warming will force coastal cities to contend with about 1 meter of sea level rise by 2100, according to a 2021 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But some researchers predict worse, warning that the ice sheets on top of Greenland and Antarctica, which collectively store enough water to cause many more meters of global sea level rise, are already past tipping points. Even if humanity curbs emissions and warming slows, they say, these ice sheets may still collapse in the coming centuries. Geoengineering proponents say it would be better to begin research now on how to staunch sea level rise at its source, rather than spending billions and billions of dollars to wall off coastal cities. “At some point you have to think, ‘Well, is there anything else we can do?’” asks glaciologist John Moore of the University of Lapland, an author on the white paper, which was sponsored by the University of Chicago (UC).

One idea researched by Moore and covered in the report is to build buoyant “curtains,” moored to the sea floor beyond the edge of ice shelves and glaciers, to block natural currents of warm water that erode ice sheets from below. (Especially in Antarctica, warming ocean water is a bigger threat to glaciers than warming air.) Early designs called for plastic, but natural fibers such as canvas and sisal are now being considered to avoid pollution concerns. According to the white paper, initial modeling studies show that curtain heights stretching only partway up from the sea floor off the coast of western Antarctica could reduce glacial melting by a factor of 10 in some locations. Another intervention some scientists are contemplating would slow the slippage of ice sheets by drilling holes to their bases and pumping out water or heat.

Such massive engineering efforts would surely be some of the most expensive ever undertaken by humanity. At a workshop at UC in October 2023, researchers suggested it might cost $88 billion to build 80 kilometers of curtains around Antarctic glaciers. Interventions would also require international political support, which some glaciologists view as an even bigger hurdle than the price tag.

Twila Moon, a glaciologist at the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center, says such projects would require fleets of icebreakers, extensive shipping and supply chain needs, and significant personnel to construct, maintain, and guard the final structures—in ocean conditions she calls “eye-poppingly difficult.” The projects could also incur unintended consequences, potentially disrupting ocean circulation patterns or endangering wildlife. Furthermore, it would take decades to find out whether the interventions were working.

Even if the engineering and logistics were possible, that “does not answer the question of whether it should be pursued,” says Moon, who opposes even preliminary studies on the concepts.

When the ideas were presented to researchers over the past year, the discussions were at times contentious. At a workshop at Stanford University in December 2023, attendees were asked to wear lanyards representing their viewpoints on glacial geoengineering research: red for opposed, blue for supportive, and purple for undecided. Leigh Stearns, a glaciologist at the University of Kansas, says she was initially one of the only participants wearing red. By the end of the workshop, more people had switched lanyards to join her.

The white paper acknowledges some of the common arguments against glacial geoengineering, including that it might disincentivize reducing carbon emissions. The report, which also stresses the importance of emissions reductions, takes pains to say it “does not advocate for intervention; rather, it advocates for research into whether any interventions may be viable.”

But some glaciologists aren’t convinced by the distinction between supporting geoengineering and supporting its research. “I think the reality is that most people who will end up engaging in geoengineering research will do so because it increases the likelihood that geoengineering will actually happen,” says Alex Robel, a glaciologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

But David Keith, director of UC’s Climate Systems Engineering initiative and a leading voice on solar geoengineering, calls the distinction “completely crucial.” Just as more researchers are tiptoeing into solar geoengineering research, if not its implementation, Keith believes fewer and fewer scientists will come to oppose pure glacial geoengineering research.

Robel says it would be “silly” not to accept research funding from geoengineering initiatives to work on purely theoretical questions, such as modeling ice sheet slippage. But others, such as Moon and Stearns, say they will not engage with glacial geoengineering on any level, including accepting research funding or attending future workshops.

“There’s a fixed 10% at each end that won’t change their mind,” Moore says. “But the 80% in the middle, I think they are amenable to the evidence.”

https://www.science.org/content/article/avoid-sea-level-rise-some-researchers-want-build-barriers-around-world-s-most

....

https://news.uchicago.edu/story/scientists-call-major-initiative-study-whether-geoengineering-should-be-used-glaciers

https://climateengineering.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Glacial-Climate-Intervention_A-Research-Vision.pdf


Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2666
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #484 on: August 01, 2024, 07:07:13 PM »
This Scientist Wants to Block the Sun to Cool the Earth

(...)
If there were a global referendum tomorrow on whether to begin solar geoengineering, he said he would vote in favor.

“There certainly are risks, and there certainly are uncertainties,” he said. “But there’s really a lot of evidence that the risks are quantitatively small compared to the benefits, and the uncertainties just aren’t that big.”

The only thing more dangerous than his solution, he suggested, may be not using it at all.


To understand just how contentious Dr. Keith’s work can be, consider what happened when he tried to perform an initial test in preparation for a solar geoengineering experiment known as Scopex.

Then a professor at Harvard, Dr. Keith wanted to release a few pounds of mineral dust at an altitude of roughly 20 kilometers and track how the dust behaved as it floated across the sky.

A test was planned in 2018, possibly over Arizona, but Dr. Keith couldn’t find a partner to launch a high-altitude balloon. When details of that plan became public, a group of Indigenous people objected and issued a manifesto against geoengineering.

Three years later, Harvard hired the Swedish space corporation to launch a balloon that would carry the equipment for the test. But before it took place, local groups once again rose up in protest.

The Saami Council, an organization representing Indigenous peoples, said it viewed solar geoengineering “to be the direct opposite of the respect we as Indigenous Peoples are taught to treat nature with.”

Greta Thunberg, the Swedish climate activist, joined the chorus. “Nature is doing everything it can,” she said. “It’s screaming at us to back off, to stop — and we are doing the exact opposite.”

Within months, the experiment was called off.

“A lesson I’ve learned from this is that if we do this again, we won’t be open in the same way,” Dr. Keith said.

Behind the scenes, the Harvard team and its advisory committee became mired in finger pointing over who was to blame for the collapse of the project. Ms. Talati, a member of the Scopex advisory board, said it was “the moment of peak chaos.”

It didn’t help that there were personality conflicts. Several committee members said Dr. Keith could be ornery and headstrong, correcting colleagues in casual conversation and belittling those with whom he disagreed.

“I can be abrasive and difficult,” Dr. Keith acknowledged. “I am sometimes inappropriately forceful in making my point. I’m intense.”


Opponents of solar geoengineering cite several main risks.

They say it could create a “moral hazard,” mistakenly giving people the impression that it is not necessary to rapidly reduce fossil fuel emissions.

“The fundamental problem is that we think we’re so smart that we don’t have to pay attention to nature’s boundaries,” Dr. Suzuki said. “But we haven’t dealt with the root cause of the problem, which is us.”

The second main concern has to do with unintended consequences.

“This is a really dangerous path to go down,” said Beatrice Rindevall, the chairwoman of the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, which opposed the experiment. “It could shock the climate system, could alter hydrological cycles and could exacerbate extreme weather and climate instability.”

And once solar geoengineering began to cool the planet, stopping the effort abruptly could result in a sudden rise in temperatures, a phenomenon known as “termination shock.” The planet could experience “potentially massive temperature rise in an unprepared world over a matter of five to 10 years, hitting the Earth’s climate with something that it probably hasn’t seen since the dinosaur-killing impactor,” Dr. Pierrehumbert said.

On top of all this, there are fears about rogue actors using solar geoengineering and concerns that the technology could be weaponized. Not to mention the fact that sulfur dioxide can harm human health.

Dr. Keith is adamant that those fears are overblown. And while there would be some additional air pollution, he claims the risk is negligible compared to the benefits.

“There’s plenty of uncertainty about climate responses,” he said. “But it’s pretty hard to imagine if you do a limited amount of hemispherically balanced solar geo that you don’t reduce temperatures everywhere.”

Last year, after the failure to launch the Scopex experiment in Sweden, Dr. Keith made a move that stunned his colleagues. He announced he was closing the door on 13 years at Harvard and taking his ambitions to the University of Chicago, where he would build a new program around climate interventions, including solar geoengineering.

“I don’t know whether that stuff will ever get used,” said Mr. Gates, a major investor in climate technology. “I do believe that doing the research and understanding it makes sense.”
(more)

https://dnyuz.com/2024/08/01/this-scientist-wants-to-block-the-sun-to-cool-the-earth/

....

Manifesto Against Geoengineering October 20181
Hands Off Mother Earth!

https://www.ienearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/EN-HOME-Manifesto-final-Oct2018.pdf
Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

Richard Rathbone

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1935
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 426
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #485 on: August 01, 2024, 09:55:36 PM »

“There’s plenty of uncertainty about climate responses,” he said. “But it’s pretty hard to imagine if you do a limited amount of hemispherically balanced solar geo that you don’t reduce temperatures everywhere.”


Its also not hard to imagine that rainfall gets moved around and floods and droughts happen.

If the US does geo engineering and the 3 Gorges Dam gets overtopped by an extreme rainfall event  in China, who are the Chinese going to blame?
If  China  does geoengineering and there's a catastrophic levee break on the Mississippi, who is the US going to blame?

What if they are actually right about the other side of  the Pacific being deliberately reckless with the consequences for their own weather?


morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2666
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #486 on: August 02, 2024, 09:04:09 PM »
« Last Edit: August 02, 2024, 09:13:34 PM by morganism »
Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2666
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #487 on: August 14, 2024, 01:31:08 AM »
A controversial experiment to artificially cool Earth was canceled — what we know about why
Harvard’s canceled solar geoengineering project shows what happens when you try to test controversial climate tech without consulting with communities.

(...)
The advisory committee ultimately recommended canceling the test flight in Sweden after receiving that letter. By 2023, Harvard had told the advisory committee that it had “suspended” the project and then canceled it altogether in March of this year. The project “struggled both with intense media attention and with how to address calls from the scientific advisory committee to broadly and formally engage with the public,” Nature reported at the time, citing one of its project leaders.

“I’m grateful for the SCoPEx Advisory Committee’s insights. Their thoughtful analysis is valuable to the scientific community as it considers important questions of governance,” Frank Keutsch, who was the principal investigator for SCoPEx, tells The Verge in an email. He didn’t elaborate more on why the project ended.

It’ll take more than an ad hoc committee to effectively oversee geoengineering research moving forward, according to the newly published policy analysis. “The time is ripe for governments to begin discussing coordination of research governance,” it says.

Those talks have already started at the European Commission and the United Nations Environment Assembly, although they haven’t led to any concrete new policies yet. There has been a moratorium on large-scale geoengineering since a United Nations biodiversity conference in 2010, but it excludes small-scale scientific research.

And small fly-by-night initiatives have become a bigger concern lately. Last year, the founders of one geoengineering startup grilled fungicide in a California parking lot to produce sulfur dioxide gas that they then attempted to launch into the atmosphere via weather balloons. That followed a similar balloon launch in Mexico that prompted the government there to bar solar geoengineering experiments. The policy analysis calls the startup’s efforts “irresponsible” and “not tied to any legitimate scientific pursuit.”

Since then, there have been calls to either lay down rules for how to regulate future experiments or to stop solar geoengineering altogether. But without broader policies in place, keeping up with new geoengineering efforts gets to be a bit like playing whack-a-mole around the world.
(fin)

https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/12/24216232/harvard-solar-geoengineering-policy-analysis-science

...

Do small outdoor geoengineering experiments require governance?
Standardized and/or centralized proactive research governance can lessen tensions

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adn2853


In March 2024, Harvard University publicly announced the cancellation of its proposed Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx), which would have been the world’s first outdoor stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) experiment. SAI, a type of solar geoengineering (SG), seeks to cool the planet by releasing aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight. The co-authors here are members of the independent advisory committee (AC) convened by Harvard in 2019 to develop a research governance framework for SCoPEx. We frame below the importance of SCoPEx and SG governance and summarize the governance framework developed by the AC. We then move beyond the report to reflect on the process of developing that framework, the challenges we encountered, and the sources of tension encountered in its implementation.
Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2666
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #488 on: August 23, 2024, 06:56:34 PM »
Scientists propose guidelines for solar geoengineering research

Scientists for several years have studied the theoretical effectiveness of injecting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to reflect heat from the sun and offset Earth's warming temperatures. But they also want to ensure that the solar geoengineering approaches being studied are evaluated for their technical feasibility, as well as their cooling potential and possible ecological and societal side effects.

To guide future work, an international team of scientists led by the U.S. National Science Foundation National Center for Atmospheric Research (NSF NCAR) has published a paper in Oxford Open Climate Change with specific recommendations for evaluating proposals to inject sulfur dioxide, which is known as stratospheric aerosol intervention (SAI).

The paper also suggests criteria for discontinuing those scenarios that are not feasible because of scientific, technical, or societal issues.

"The goal is to work toward an assessment that can be used to identify the most feasible and legitimate scenarios, based on both how much they reduce natural and societal risks as well as any unwanted side effects," said NSF NCAR scientist Simone Tilmes, the lead author.

"If society were to ever consider implementing SAI, it is imperative that we provide the best possible scientific understanding to policy makers and the public."
Mimicking volcanic eruptions

Once injected into the stratosphere, sulfur dioxide would form sunlight-reflecting sulfate aerosols. Previous studies, drawing on computer modeling and observations of large volcanic eruptions, have shown these aerosols would have a cooling effect similar to that of a major volcanic eruption.

The injections could continue to cool Earth for decades or even centuries, buying time until heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere return to lower levels.

The previous research, however, has also emphasized the potential risks of SAI, such as changing the stratospheric ozone layer and altering global precipitation patterns.

Since such injections cannot perfectly offset the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, Tilmes and her co-authors write that informed policy decisions require a comprehensive understanding of the benefits and risks of SAI. They emphasize the need for a research and governance structure, with fair representation from both the Global South and North, to oversee SAI research and technology developments.

"Research on various solar geoengineering methods has been going on for a few decades now, but there hasn't been a formal assessment collating all the information in one place suitable for policy makers and the public," said NOAA scientist Karen Rosenlof, a co-author of the new paper.

"It's time for such an assessment to occur, covering the criteria described in this paper, and repeated on a regular basis."

The paper proposes eight research criteria for assessing SAI developments. The criteria are:

    Technical and economic limitations
    Cooling potential
    Ability to meet climate objectives
    Infrastructure for monitoring, detection, and attribution
    Large-scale and regional climate response
    Impacts on human and natural systems
    Societal risks
    Mitigation of risks through governance

The paper recommends issuing assessment reports about SAI developments every few years with globally representative participation. The criteria can also be applicable to other solar radiation modification proposals, such as the brightening of marine clouds.

"The goal of these criteria is to promote optimal approaches from a climate perspective while carefully weighing the benefits and risks and making sure to include the perspectives of underrepresented groups and the Global South," Tilmes said.

https://phys.org/news/2024-08-scientists-guidelines-solar-geoengineering.html

.....

Research criteria towards an interdisciplinary Stratospheric Aerosol Intervention assessment,

https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfclm/kgae010



Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

Niall Dollard

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1278
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 549
  • Likes Given: 132
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #489 on: September 24, 2024, 11:04:23 PM »
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2448831-plan-to-refreeze-arctic-sea-ice-shows-promise-in-first-tests/#:~:text=A%20bold%20plan%20to%20pump,UK%20start%2Dup%20Real%20Ice.

"Field trials conducted this year in the Canadian Arctic to thicken sea ice using water from the ocean below have proved successful, says UK start-up Real Ice..............."

I havent read the article. Unlike the authors of the article. I struggle to see how much effect this would really have. Even if you could get up to pumping over an area of 100k, how often have we seen 100k arctic sea ice extent losses in one day, during the course of an average melt season? The infamous century breaks.

Perhaps strategic areas could help. For example could the Nares Strait (Kane Basin) be targeted as early in November to ensure that a strong arch is formed and thus at least ensuring that export through Nares does not continue through the winter.

Prior to this century Nares arches failing to form was alost unheard of. To quote Kent Moore (UNiv Toronto) :

"Moore notes that sea ice in the strait is generally becoming thinner. Thinner ice means less-stable arches. That could mean trouble for the older, thicker sea ice “upstream” of Nares Strait. Without an arch in place, this rarer type of multi-year ice north of Greenland and Ellesmere Island can more freely pass through the strait and leave the Arctic Ocean. In contrast, ice that leaves the Arctic Ocean via the Fram Strait east of Greenland is mostly younger and thinner.

“If the arches are less stable or don’t form, more multi-year ice leaves the Arctic,” Moore said. Indeed, Moore and colleagues reported that nearly double the volume of ice now passes through Nares Strait compared to the early 2000s."


kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9010
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2186
  • Likes Given: 2031
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #490 on: September 25, 2024, 05:42:31 PM »
Probably a better idea then some random chunk. To bad the link is paywalled. In case anyone can peek from how deep do they pump the water? Any short quote or paraphrase would be useful.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2666
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #491 on: September 25, 2024, 08:50:36 PM »
(pretty sure these are the solar powered pumps. They just bore thru a floe, drop in a pipe that is connected to a pump, and run it off battery power. It floods the surface, and freezes in place. Can't remember if they cover it with snow to insulate, or use batt power for a heating element.

 Really low tech is best. Posted a story on it in "arctic ice" somewhere last winter? maybe the curtain/barrier thread someone started, or the geo-engineering thread.)
Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

uniquorn

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5377
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2325
  • Likes Given: 393
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #492 on: September 25, 2024, 09:17:26 PM »
<>
Perhaps strategic areas could help. For example could the Nares Strait (Kane Basin) be targeted as early in November to ensure that a strong arch is formed and thus at least ensuring that export through Nares does not continue through the winter.

The 'real ice' design is similar to the simb3 and should probably avoid locations with a high possibility of ridging unless it is very, very strong. Only 4 out of 9 simb3's have survived since mid May in the Lincoln Sea.
A few hours or days? Maybe they are going to be micro managed

https://www.realice.eco/science

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9010
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2186
  • Likes Given: 2031
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #493 on: September 26, 2024, 04:35:50 PM »
Thanks, that´s a helpful graph. So they replace snow with ice. Not sure how far they are on the techs mentioned in A. Plans are nice but we are running out of time.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2666
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #494 on: October 22, 2024, 10:53:10 PM »

Are diamonds Earth’s best friend? Gem dust could cool the planet
Idea would cost trillions, but could avoid issues with other “geoengineering” schemes

(...)
But artificial sulfur injections would also pose numerous climate risks. Sulfate aerosols include tiny sulfuric acid droplets, one of the primary components of acid rain. The aerosols can also deplete the ozone layer and fuel bouts of stratospheric warming that can disrupt weather and climate patterns lower in the atmosphere.

Sandro Vattioni, a climate scientist and postdoctoral researcher at ETH Zürich, and his colleagues wanted to see whether alternative particles carried less baggage.

They built a 3D climate model that incorporates the chemistry of aerosols, how they are transported around the atmosphere, and how they absorb or reflect heat. The model also accounted for two less studied microphysical properties of aerosols: sedimentation (how they settle out of the atmosphere over time) and coagulation (how they clump together). Ideal particles for solar geoengineering would settle slowly out of the atmosphere, providing longer-lasting cooling. They should also avoid clumping, as clumps tend to trap heat whereas individual, more spherical particles bounce it back to space.

The researchers modeled the effects of seven compounds, including sulfur dioxide, as well as particles of diamond, aluminum, and calcite, the primary ingredient in limestone. They evaluated the effects of each particle across 45 years in the model, where each trial took more than a week in real-time on a supercomputer. The results showed diamond particles were best at reflecting radiation while also staying aloft and avoiding clumping. Diamond is also thought to be chemically inert, meaning it would not react to form acid rain, like sulfur. To achieve 1.6ºC of cooling, Vattioni says, 5 million tons of diamond particles would need to be injected into the stratosphere each year. Such a large quantity would require a huge ramp up in synthetic diamond production before high-altitude aircraft could sprinkle the ground-up gems across the stratosphere.

Sulfur was the second-worst of the evaluated particles due to its tendency to absorb light at some wavelengths and trap heat. Such stratospheric warming not only offsets some of the desired cooling but can also perturb climate patterns at Earth’s surface, such as El Niño. Previous studies have underestimated this important side effect of sulfur, Vattioni says.

However, diamond dust isn’t ideal either, says Douglas MacMartin, an engineer at Cornell University who studies climate science. For one, the cost would be enormous. At roughly $500,000 per ton, synthetic diamond dust would be 2400 times more expensive than sulfur and cost $175 trillion if deployed from 2035 to 2100, one study estimates.

Sulfur is so widely available and so cheap, MacMartin says, that the material costs are “basically free.” Because it’s a gas, sulfur dioxide can also be pumped in large quantities and dispersed quickly through the stratosphere with a few aircraft, whereas solid particles such as diamond would need to be gradually delivered over many flights to prevent them from clumping. Additionally, sulfates are the only aerosols scientists can study in large, outdoor settings without much pushback, MacMartin says, because volcanic eruptions test the process for us.

“I do think that it’s interesting to explore these other materials,” MacMartin says. “But if you ask me today what’s going to get deployed, it’s gonna be sulfate.”

https://www.science.org/content/article/are-diamonds-earth-s-best-friend-gem-dust-could-cool-planet-and-cost-trillions



....
Spraying diamond dust to cool Earth: What a new study proposes, despite ‘geoengineering’ concerns

https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-climate/diamond-earth-warming-new-study-geoengineering-9633128/
Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2666
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #495 on: October 27, 2024, 07:38:40 PM »
(this is the cat that wrote up the Salton Sea desalination study further upthread)

We can Terraform the American West

The western US is a parched opportunity to create millions of acres of prime land for the next billion Americans to live on. Only one ingredient is missing – water.

“Cadillac Desert” (1986) by Marc Reisner correctly pointed out that within the limits of natural precipitation, we’ve expanded habitation in the West close to its maximal extent. Nearly 40 years after he wrote, however, the answer to shrinking flows of the Colorado and ever more demand for living space is not to stage some kind of retreat from land otherwise blessed with climate, solar power potential, mineral and human capital wealth. The answer is to flex our industrial might and finish what the irrigators began a century ago, and bring water in vast quantities to the high desert, to terraform a few select valleys in Nevada, and build a 21st century aesthetic vision.

The key to solving water scarcity at the scale necessary to terraform Nevada is not to build bigger dams or to resort to rain dances, but to make more water using solar powered desalination technology.

In this post two years ago I explained how cheap solar unlocks usefully cheap desalinated water, with current (2024) state-of-the-art plants producing at just $0.40/m^3 – and radical further improvements are within reach.
(snip)
In addition to cheaper desalination, terraforming of the Nevada high desert or similar landscapes will require pumping water uphill. Fortunately, once again solar PV can provide the necessary low cost energy. Pumping one million acre feet of water per year 1000 m uphill requires a 6 GW solar PV array plus the usual low cost, high efficiency water pumps. Pumping water doesn’t involve nasty thermodynamic transitions so is relatively easy to perform. Depending on desalination efficiency, pumping water 1000 m uphill roughly doubles the energy cost, with a lower incremental increase in price due to the relatively low cost of pumps vs desalination equipment.

Let’s Terraform Nevada
(snip)
How much would it cost? Baselining on the CAP and the earlier analysis of low cost desalination, I project:

    $4b for a 20 GW solar desal array
    $4b for a matched low cost desal plant
    $6b for canal construction, based on the CAP in Arizona and adjusting for scale.
    $2b total for pumps and solar arrays to power them

In all, ~$16b to restore a huge swath of the Pleistocene ecosystem, with over $1t of realizable value generation, in addition to ongoing revenue from development.
(more)

https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2024/10/26/we-can-terraform-the-american-west/
Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village

morganism

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2666
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« Reply #496 on: October 27, 2024, 09:52:40 PM »
 A how-to for ethical geoengineering research

The American Geophysical Union releases a framework for getting it right.

(...)
All of this has led many people to argue that some form of geoengineering is necessary. If we know the effects of that much warming will be catastrophic, why not try canceling some of it out? Unfortunately, the list of "why nots" includes the fact that we don't know how well some of these techniques work or fully understand their unintended consequences. This means more research is required before we put them into practice.

But how do we do that research if there's the risk of unintended consequences? To help guide the process, the American Geophysical Union (AGU) has just released guidelines to guide people toward ensuring that geoengineering research is conducted ethically.
(more)

https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/10/a-how-to-for-ethical-geoengineering-research/

....
Ethical Framework Principles for Climate Intervention Research

As interest in climate intervention, or geoengineering, rapidly grows in the urgency to address climate change, this Ethical Framework provides guidance for researchers, funders, and policymakers.

https://www.agu.org/ethicalframeworkprinciples


Kalingrad, the new permanent home of the Olympic Village