29 replies to this topic

[Stu_London]

Very interesting piece on Climate Change and Geo-engineering in the book Superfreakenomics which was a good read on the plane recently.

On Geo-engineering, most of the solutions on the table are very cheap comparatively. Some are completely clean. Book suggests any geoengineering will be used as a last resort if warming is at the top end of expectations.

On emmissions, C02 was much higher in the past, although climate has never probably had to react to changes in C02 levels as fast as we have seen recently which may be a driver of rapid climate change. Other gases present are far more dangerous, methane and water vapour to name two. GM grass for cattle being developed which will result in methane free emissions from them. Book argues that it is impossible to stop developing nations (China and India in particular) from having rising emmissions.

On climate change - temperature changes between 1958-1973 were enough to convince scientists that we had progressed 1/6th of the way towards the change we would need to tilt us into an ice age. Accepts that that fall has been reversed and passed by some significant way since. Notes that global temperatures havent really risen much since 1998 (book probably published before 2009 figure available). Does accept climate change seems to be warming us up and that greenhouse gases are likely to be part of the reason.

General - and this is the most important bit - both this book and it's predecessor (Freakenomics) have a common theme in that they examine human behaviour when presented with incentive. The results aren't always as you would expect but there is always a behavour change. The book critises the $300 million dollars that Al Gore has raised to heighten awareness of AGW and pay for research into it's cause and effect and argues that any conclusions drawn will inevitably be as a result of bad science.

[PersianPaladin]

This is interesting: -



The man behind the technique: -

http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham/

Edited by PersianPaladin, 21 September 2010 - 19:38 .

[BornFromTheVoid]

PersianPaladin, on 21 September 2010 - 19:26 , said:

This is interesting: -

The man behind the technique: -

http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham/

Agreed, very interesting. Sounds almost too easy to be true. It's hard to imagine generating enough power to spray the particles high enough to get into the clouds. Though if an atmospheric physicist and an engineer believe it will work, I'd trust them more than myself on that matter!

Edited by NaDamantaSam, 21 September 2010 - 20:00 .

[Weather Ship]

A team of marine scientists has found that toxin-producing algae once thought to be limited to coastal waters are also common in the open ocean, where the addition of iron from natural or artificial sources can stimulate rapid growth of the harmful algae. The new findings, reported this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, add to concerns about proposals to use iron fertilization of the oceans as a way to combat global warming.

http://news.ucsc.edu...omoic-acid.html

[richellemedina]

Geoengineering is the idea of applying engineering global warming. Several strategies have been proposed geoengineering. It is important for nations to get all the results in each of the following without success in any field-conservatives elsewhere. The protection of tropical forests is well covered in the media. Biodiversity can be best preserved through seed banks, parks and wildlife corridors.

[Alan Robinson]

All I can say is that ever since Socrates, people have been convinced in their beliefs, and yet science and technology has moved on, at least to the peak where we could wage world wars, since when it has been a race to find cheaper workers and automation.

At this particular stage of human affairs, we need to be particularly careful what we do. There are far too many of us for one thing, and for another, our lifestyle is totally dependent on finite resources that are rapidly ebbing away. Forget geoengineering, it really doesn't matter much, and we'd probably get it catastrophically wrong anyway. It is only a new idea for a few rich people to get even richer. Instead, start thinking of generations to come, that need to be far smaller than we, and that have some resources left to sustain just a reasonable lifestyle.

Edited by Alan Robinson, 20 January 2011 - 19:07 .

[Weather Ship]

What Impact Would Sun Dimming Have on Earth’s Weather?
Solar radiation management projects, also known as sun dimming, seek to reduce the amount of sunlight hitting the Earth to counteract the effects of climate change. Global dimming can occur as a side-effect of fossil fuels or as a result of volcanic eruptions, but the consequences of deliberate sun dimming as a geoengineering tool are unknown.

http://eu.wiley.com/...seId-90017.html

[sunny starry skies]

weather ship, on 24 January 2011 - 15:38 , said:

What Impact Would Sun Dimming Have on Earth’s Weather?
Solar radiation management projects, also known as sun dimming, seek to reduce the amount of sunlight hitting the Earth to counteract the effects of climate change. Global dimming can occur as a side-effect of fossil fuels or as a result of volcanic eruptions, but the consequences of deliberate sun dimming as a geoengineering tool are unknown.

http://eu.wiley.com/...seId-90017.html

I'd guess it might be pretty dangerous - getting people to agree on the level of dimming would be an awful challenge in itself. Add to that the problem that the energy imbalance caused by increased GHGs is not the same as the energy imbalance caused by a brighter Sun, namely that opposite effects occur for day versus nighttime temperature, winter versus summer, stratospheric temperature, and high latitude temperature, so your treatment is not most effective where the impacts of AGW are most dramatic. To me it wouold be an exercise in treating the symptoms, not the causes, and surely only a last resort if things got really bad...

[Weather Ship]

Probably another example.

Geoengineering schemes involving ocean fertilization to affect climate have a low chance of success, according to the first summary for policymakers on the issue.
http://unesdoc.unesc...906/190674e.pdf

[Weather Ship]

Geoengineering and global food supply

Washington, D.C. -- Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and gas have been increasing over the past decades, causing the Earth to get hotter and hotter. There are concerns that a continuation of these trends could have catastrophic effects, including crop failures in the heat-stressed tropics. This has led some to explore drastic ideas for combating global warming, including the idea of trying to counteract it by reflecting sunlight away from the Earth. However, it has been suggested that reflecting sunlight away from the Earth might itself threaten the food supply of billions of people. New research led by Carnegie's Julia Pongratz examines the potential effects that geoengineering the climate could have on global food production and concludes that sunshade geoengineering would be more likely to improve rather than threaten food security. Their work is published online by Nature Climate Change January 22..

http://www.eurekaler...i-gag012012.php