Geoengineering Y/N

[The Great Zaganza]

With the (mostly) undisputed threat of Global Warming causing temperatures to rise by at least 2° and the unwillingness of countries to make strong decisions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions ...
... would you support technological methods to reduce Global Warming without solving the CO2 emission issue?

Here are some of the proposed ideas which (according to current knowledge) would manage to reduce average global temperatures by 1°, greatly reducing the negative impact of AGW.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-six-ideas-to-limit-global-warming-with-solar-geoengineering

Do you think this is a good idea?
Or the stupidest thing ever?

Please vote and give us a reason (if you can be bothered).

 

[erwinl]

The examples given sound to me more like 'We put too much stuff in the air, so we're now going to put even more stuff into the air to combat the earlier stuff, while still putting the earlier stuff into the same air.'

Putting mirrors into space?
How many lauches do you need to remove 2% of the incoming light? (example given). What would all the exhaust gasses from those rocket launches do to the atmosphere?

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Reminds me a little of this clip from The Simpsons...

 

[erwinl]

Reminds me a little of this clip from The Simpsons...

Says it so much better.

 

[Roboramma]

Putting mirrors into space?
How many lauches do you need to remove 2% of the incoming light? (example given). What would all the exhaust gasses from those rocket launches do to the atmosphere?

I think before we get to the point of using mirrors in space, we'd need to be doing the mining and manufacturing of those mirrors in space as well. Let's also source the energy for doing all of this in space and the rocket fuel for moving stuff around as well.

It's going to be a while. Certainly not before we need to be finding solutions to global warming.

 

[smartcooky]

While I think the idea has merit, I prefer the idea of bioengineering.

https://www.inverse.com/article/262...modified-plants-geoengineering-climate-change

Biological systems are already many times more efficient than chemical systems at scrubbing CO2 from air, and there’s reason to believe they could get even better. A team of biochemists in Germany recently developed a new molecular transformation chain that, at least in the lab, is about 25 percent more efficient than the enzyme chain used in photosynthesis. A living system genetically engineered to use this pathway might metabolize carbon dioxide two or three times as fast as it otherwise would, the researchers predict, although this has not been tried and outcomes are uncertain.

But it’s theoretically possible that, if plants genetically modified in this way spread across the Earth, they would be not only enormously useful in pulling carbon from the air for biofuel, but also helpful for carbon capture and storage. Biomass produced by the plants might be sequestered long term either through extensive deep root systems, or through some sort of sequestration project.

 

[Roboramma]

The examples given sound to me more like 'We put too much stuff in the air, so we're now going to put even more stuff into the air to combat the earlier stuff, while still putting the earlier stuff into the same air.'

Yeah, and taking antibiotics for a waterborne illness is like "I put the wrong stuff into my body so I'm going to put even more stuff into my body to combat the earlier stuff".

Nothing about your summary suggests that geoengineering solutions won't work. On the other hand I do think it would be wise to try to lower CO2 emissions, so hopefully the last part of what you wrote won't be true.

 

[erwinl]

Yeah, and taking antibiotics for a waterborne illness is like "I put the wrong stuff into my body so I'm going to put even more stuff into my body to combat the earlier stuff".

Nothing about your summary suggests that geoengineering solutions won't work. On the other hand I do think it would be wise to try to lower CO2 emissions, so hopefully the last part of what you wrote won't be true.

That is true, concerning te antibiotics.

But I was more thinking about the consequences of all this 'putting other stuff in the air'.
How much CO2 and H2O will we put in the air extra in using these six solutions? How many biotopes will we destroy extra with these measurements? What will the balance be?

As I tried to show with the rockets and mirror example.

Or spraying salt waterdroplets from ships into the clouds. Those will be some mighty fountains to come that high. How many tons of waterdroplets would be needed? How many ships will you need for that?

It does contain information like “Approximately a 2% reduction in incoming sunlight [using a sunshade] is sufficient to offset the warming from a doubling of CO2 from the pre-industrial level of 280ppm to 560ppm. The current CO2 level is about 400ppm.”.
But it is very light on what is needed to do this.

I accept that the priciples in question would work. But there are practicle considerations to think of as well.

 

[ahhell]

I am not opposed to geoengineering but we really need to examine the possible consequences before implementing anything. Unintended consequences can be a bitch.

Edit to add: We will likely have to do something to actually reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere as we'll like go well beyond the point of no return before reducing emissions significantly.

 

[GlennB]

I chose don't know/don't care, but not because I don't care. As others have mentioned the energy cost of such engineering would be high (and forget off-planet mining/construction or whatever, that's going exactly nowhere in the timeframe involved). Meanwhile we're making precious little progress on restraining our excesses on the fossil-fuel scene.

There isn't time. I truly believe we're shafted, to the extent that I hope AGW theories are plain wrong, though I don't believe for a second that they are.

 

[Trebuchet]

I chose don't know/don't care, but not because I don't care. As others have mentioned the energy cost of such engineering would be high (and forget off-planet mining/construction or whatever, that's going exactly nowhere in the timeframe involved). Meanwhile we're making precious little progress on restraining our excesses on the fossil-fuel scene.

There isn't time. I truly believe we're shafted, to the extent that I hope AGW theories are plain wrong, though I don't believe for a second that they are.

Same here. The ideas in the article seem a bit far-fetched.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Actually, some methods like blasting sulphur into the atmosphere would be easy, quite cheap and temporary, since it would basically mimic a volcanic eruption.

 

[theprestige]

Actually, some methods like blasting sulphur into the atmosphere would be easy, quite cheap and temporary, since it would basically mimic a volcanic eruption.

I'm pretty sure that mimicking a major volcanic eruption would be neither cheap nor easy.

Like the idea of stopping a hurricane with an H-bomb. It turns out that the energy in a hurricane dwarfs the biggest bombs we have. Nuking one would be like farting in, well, a hurricane.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I'm pretty sure that mimicking a major volcanic eruption would be neither cheap nor easy.

Like the idea of stopping a hurricane with an H-bomb. It turns out that the energy in a hurricane dwarfs the biggest bombs we have. Nuking one would be like farting in, well, a hurricane.

actually you can either use planes or just a REALLY big chimney. Remember that you are only interested in the smoke, not the rocks.

 

[casebro]

While I think the idea has merit, I prefer the idea of bioengineering.

https://www.inverse.com/article/262...modified-plants-geoengineering-climate-change
Biological systems are already many times more efficient than chemical systems at scrubbing CO2 from air, and there’s reason to believe they could get even better. A team of biochemists in Germany recently developed a new molecular transformation chain that, at least in the lab, is about 25 percent more efficient than the enzyme chain used in photosynthesis. A living system genetically engineered to use this pathway might metabolize carbon dioxide two or three times as fast as it otherwise would, the researchers predict, although this has not been tried and outcomes are uncertain.

But it’s theoretically possible that, if plants genetically modified in this way spread across the Earth, ....

And Earth would have problems with "foreign species" like Australia does. "Cane toad algae" and "Jackrabbit fungus" anyone?

 

[GlennB]

Actually, some methods like blasting sulphur into the atmosphere would be easy, quite cheap and temporary, since it would basically mimic a volcanic eruption.

How would we blast it? And, if it's temporary, how often would we need to blast? It might take a century to mitigate AGW with this 'shading' concept. Plus, it sounds like an awful lot of sulphur. Mining and transport costs?

Man, we barely understand the whole 'weather' business, and we can fix it by flinging dust into the atmosphere?

"The energy released from the [Krakatoa] explosion has been estimated to be equal to about 200 megatons of TNT,[5] roughly four times as powerful as the Tsar Bomba, the most powerful thermonuclear weapon ever detonated"

 

[The Great Zaganza]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection_(climate_engineering)

 

[theprestige]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection_(climate_engineering)

That article seems entirely silent on the questions of cost and effort. Some hand waving at various delivery systems, and that's about it.

How many tons of sulfur are needed? Over what time period? How many tons can an artillery battery (for example) deliver in a single volley? How many batteries firing how many volleys would it take to deliver the required tonnage in the required time frame?

Or take the airliner fuel proposal. How does the math work out for that one?

And speaking of not having to move rocks: First, there's the literal rock moving involved in mining for sulfur to use for this project. Then there's all the rock moving energy equivalent involved in transporting mass quantities of sulfur around, to get it into position.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I voted yes, and of course there are several different options for geoengineering. Some are 100% beneficial restoration of biomes and ecosystems services type geoengineering strategies, while other involve major unknown risks.
I am not in favor of the later while fully in favor or the former.

Here is a good one just to give an example:


Of course there are as many different types of these geoengineering projects as there are different types of biomes. But the one common denominator is that all life on the planet is carbon based and any geoengineering project that restores lost ecosystem function by restoring them to life, will improve the carbon cycle dramatically.

I also advocate changing agriculture to organic based methods as well for the same reason.

"We try to grow things that want to die, and kill things that want to live. That is pretty much how (industrial) agriculture functions." Colin Seis

Carbon is the element of life and biotic systems outperform abiotic systems in producing food, while simultaneously also stabilizing the climate.

"Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony."-USDA

ETA Oh and BTW the 6 ideas from your link all fall into the category of "major unknown risks". So basically that means they would fit your "one of the stupidest things ever" type ideas.

 

[rjh01]

Most probably will not work and if they did would have only a marginal effect on temperatures. For example let us build a giant shade to stop sun from reaching the surface. That would reduce the amount of sunlight reaching plants so reducing their ability to get rid of CO2. Then it might reflect heat coming from the surface, thus warming the surface even more.