UK Royal Society Claims Geo-Engineering Feasible 316
krou writes "The BBC is reporting that a UK Royal Society report claims that geo-engineering proposals to combat the effects of climate change are 'technically possible.' Three of the plans considered showed the most promise: 'CO2 capture from ambient air'; enhancing 'natural reactions of CO2 from the air with rocks and minerals'; and 'Land use and afforestation'. They also noted that solar radiation management, while some climate models showed them to be ineffective, should not be ignored. Possible suggestions included: 'a giant mirror on the Moon; a space parasol made of superfine aluminum mesh; and a swarm of 10 trillion small mirrors launched into space one million at a time every minute for the next 30 years.'"
Reducing emissions does nothing (Score:4, Interesting)
I really like the way the article seems to indicate that geo-engineering is the short term solution and conservation is the long term solution.. I've always seen it as exactly the opposite. If we were to stop all greenhouse gas producing industry *right now* there would still be a global warming problem. If the problem is real then the only solution is global engineering. Hiding in the dark will only buy us time, the world needs a plan to use that time to find a solution.
Re:stupid (Score:2, Interesting)
and while you're complaining about the dumb scientists screwing up the world, someone else is complaining about the dumb scientists not doing anything to fix global warming. If the problem is real, something has to be done about it. As everyone has decided the problem is real (and anyone who suggests it isn't is treated like a heretic) then this is the next logical step.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Neat (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's how the mirror plan would work. Nuclear fission plants (or solar arrays) would power an array of about 10 billion dollars worth of solid state lasers. (at current prices, available today). The lasers would probably use LEDs to pump doped fiber optics, producing very cheap laser energy.
The capsules containing the mirrors would be kicked into the air using a catapault and then the bottom of the capsule would be vaporized using the lasers to create thrust. The laser array alone would insert the mirror capsules into orbit...tehre would be minimal to no onboard thrusters needed.
That's how you'd launch one every minute (need several arrays) over a 30 year period.
Wouldn't mirrors make it worse... (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, so much depends on sunlight that limiting it seems like there's no way it ca possibly end well. This isn't countering global warming, this is throwing another massive climate change into the mix that may on average even out temperature changes. It's like treating an infected wound by setting a person's arm on fire.
I mean climate and plant life depend on sunlight. So how can you not expect to get famines, mass ecological changes, large scale climate changes and so on.
Terraforming begins at home (Score:3, Interesting)
You caught me on the reference to "terraforming". Looks like we need to start by terraforming our own planet to sustain its suitability for human life. Not so funny.
My suggestion along these lines would be a network of large controllable mirrors in orbit. The individual sections could be aimed, essentially by rotating them with gyroscopes. Some region is too hot? Adjust more mirrors to give it more shade and reduce its temperature. Another area is too cold? Add the appropriate amount of reflected sunlight and warm it right up. Might as well send some extra sunlight to the polar regions and cultivate crops there, too. Surplus light for electricity generation on the side.
Expensive? Yes, but basically within the capabilities of existing technologies. I actually think the largest technical hurdle would be sufficiently accurate weather modeling. We'd essentially need to micromanage the weather all over the world. I don't think the launch capacity would be unsolvable. The early launches would focus on the power generation, and the power would be used to crack sea water for the hydrogen that would be used to boost more mirror satellites into orbit.
Okay, so it would also be potentially dangerous, but I'm hoping that the security problems could be solved, and all technology is morally neutral. Any power to do good is also a power to do harm. (Unfortunately, this is not a balanced relationship. There are some powers that can do nothing but harm... But that's getting off the focus--which can be risky with such large mirrors.)
Re:Terraforming begins at home (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh yeah. I forgot one more obvious thing that may not be obvious enough. The obvious mirror technology would just be large wire loops with thin coated plastic films stretched across them. You want them very light so that they will be responsive to the rotating gyroscopes (located at the center of mass of each mirror), and of course you want them to be cheap since you'll need a lot of them. Actually, I think you would only have one gyroscope per mirror, but it has to be on gimbals so you can rotate in arbitrary directions.
Re:Global warming is a scam. (Score:4, Interesting)
Increased ocean temperatures == releases of methane hydrate == more atmospheric methane == increased ocean temperatures.
Who knows, maybe this is the reason for the Fermi paradox. Civilized race starts burning sequestered hydrocarbons and ends up broiling themselves when they accidentally turn their planet into something like Venus.
Slowly convert an Asteroid to dust shade (Score:3, Interesting)
How about taking a SMALL NEO asteroid, carefully put it into L1 (earth-sun) and then slowly grind it into dust (spraying the dust to form a slowly dispersing cloud). If the particles are small enough, an asteroid perhaps 100m cubed could block out perhaps 1% of the sun for a few decades. Not only would it lessen our global warming predicament (temporarily until the cloud disperses through radiation pressure completely, but that's a good thing we don't want a permanent fix!) but it would teach us very valuable lessons on how to move celestial objects around; first for our protection and later for resources.
Needed: a (probably nuclear powered) mass mover/ion drive (a gravity tractor is probably too slow for anything but gentle nudges). Then some sort of grinding machine (celestial snow blower?) which will be powered by said nuclear reactor (the dust cloud will make solar panels ineffectual).
* I really liked the idea of iron fertilization of the ocean "deserts" but I guess it was not proven effective and the possibility of creating huge amounts of jellyfish rather than tuna was not a good thing.
Re:not again (Score:4, Interesting)
The belief, that we humans can 'engineer' the earth and bend it to our expectations is exactly, what got us into this mess in the first place. How about re-engineering ourselves instead for the better?
What, are you saying we tried to "engineer the earth" with the industrial revolution? Are you trying to "engineer the earth" when you drive your car? No, before now I don't think anyone (of consequence) has been trying to "engineer the earth" in the sence of the entire globe we live on.
Now, quite obviously, we have the capability to "engineer the earth" (in relatively minor ways) even though any such project would be huge (maybe Terra$'s). The problem is that we only have one system to test on and no Live CD with which to fix a misstake. But at some point we may very well find our selves in a situation where an option seems "safe enough" relative the consequences of inaction. Not researching these "options" because you're afraid of the consequences is just stupid.
"Engineering ourselves" on the other hand is something we have been doing since, well, I don't know - who first said "think what kind of children these two would have?"? And recently we are doing it more concretely to win basketball games. But in a larger sence than that no one has a clue what the heck "for the better" would be. Though I have my theories.
Re:Global warming is a scam. (Score:1, Interesting)
Or maybe it's the other way around.
Civilized race becomes so afraid of anything that might harm the planet that it becomes impossible to make any technological progress that isn't "green". Eventually, the civilisation discovers that it is not industry which pollutes, but the population itself, and begins a programme of genocide as the only way of "saving the planet".
Other religions have done worse to appease their God. And this religion has the backing of scientists, so it must be true.
Re:Reducing emissions does nothing (Score:2, Interesting)
You didnt listen to the GP.
There are countless instances where someone's bright geo-engineering idea has created disaster.
One quick example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_Reef
Re:Reducing emissions does nothing (Score:4, Interesting)
Instead of a quick example, how about you make a real argument.
There's only two possibilities:
1. we're fucked and only geo-engineering will save us
2. the problem is being vastly overblown and mere conservation will serfice.
For some reason everyone is saying that it is the first and yet also saying that geo-engineer is bad, m'kay.
Choose.
Then quit banning harvesting trees (Score:3, Interesting)
because as soon we started restrictions on importation of certain types of wood the places where they grow chopped them down to never replant and instead turned the forested areas into farms.
Recently a large tract in my area was clear cut but is already being prepped for its next batch of trees. I fully agree that planting more trees is helpful but don't forget that they are a renewable resource and when managed properly and encouragement is given for their use we actually end up with more trees.
Its the restrictive trade in certain types of wood that have doomed more acres of forest land than anything.
Re:Reducing emissions does nothing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Global warming is a scam. (Score:1, Interesting)
Cmon no need to answer stupidity with more stupidity in the form of blunt aggression.
We definitely fucked up our planet since the beginning of the industrial revolution which is not that far back.
The problem we face today is that we have been on an exponential model of growth and now face problems in terms of natural ressources and the effect our "pollution" has on the planet. We have not been able to adapt and change our growth model.
Global warming is a very bad term used for all our problems in this effect. We live in the UK and my grilfriend thinks global warming will be nice and bring better climate, so there is a lot of misconceptions about global warming. Many companies, democratic goverments and even scientists use global warming to manipulate people by creating false beliefs in order to fulfill their interests.
Here is a list of problems which everyone referrs to as global warming
- expected water shortage, as in drinkable water for everyone, this is by far the worst of our problems and is often totally neglected since people maybe think you can just drink from the ocean
- energy problems due to shortage in petrol
- CO2 emissions creating a greenhouse effect
- destruction of the O3
- rising of the sea levels (not at all due to ice caps melting like my girlfriend also thinks)
- floodings/hurricanes/earthquakes increasing
- population migrations from all the above problems
- war for drinkable water ressources and the last few gallons of petrol
- people getting dumber from reading slashdot (yes me as well)
- deforresting and stuff
Ok so now there are possible solutions for all these problems and thats why we want to do the geo-engineering magic to try and solve some of this shit.
Re:Reducing emissions does nothing (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
There's plenty of carbon already stored below earth... we keep digging it up!!!
Plants are pretty good at storing carbon.. we keep cutting them down....
There is a cycle to warm and cold spells in the earth. Right now recorded history only tracks about 4,000 years in the East. Even 1500 years ago Europe was several degrees warmer allowing agrarian societies to flourish in middle Norway and Sweden and Russia, more north than would be habitable by "bronze age" peoples today. That was when Romans were building cities all the way to Britain and Vikings were traveling the North Atlantic in open air boats. Then it got colder and drove everybody south to Britian and France... (and pushed them to sac Rome)
The history of the early middle ages is one of drastic environmental change crushing civilization in on itself for a thousand years, they didn't write about it, they just moved on when they couldn't grow food to live on..until the plague wiped enough people out (living on top of each other in crowded cities, with cyclical famine cycles) to balance what the environment could provide. Africa is in the middle of something similar right now and the humans are in chaos.