"Once We Start Geoengineering, We Won't Be Able To Stop" Topic
6 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Remember that you can Stifle members so that you don't have to read their posts.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Science Plus Board
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Workbench ArticleTrying out the silver Sharpie...
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
|
Tango01 | 22 Jan 2018 3:49 p.m. PST |
"With each passing year that the world fails to get a grip on its carbon emissions, the threat of climate change increases. For some, that makes geoengineering—a technique to artificially cool the planet—an increasingly enticing opportunity. But while scientists have shown that blasting tiny particles into the stratosphere could reflect enough sunlight back into space to keep the planet habitable for humans, there's been little research on what it would mean for the world's wildlife. A new study published on Monday in Nature Ecology and Evolution gives us some our first clues. The study shows that while geoengineering could improve life for most plants and animals currently suffering the effects of climate change, it comes with two major catches. The first is that geoengineering itself would devastate the Amazon. The second, even more dire finding, is that once we start geoengineering the climate, we can't stop because if we did, everything would go to hell in a hand basket…" Main page link Amicalement Armand |
Parzival | 22 Jan 2018 6:47 p.m. PST |
Well, an atmospheric layer is a really bad idea, Much "easier" to remove a "parasol" satellite in a solar orbit at L1. It could also be designed to be a minimal level of precise screening which could be increased or decreased, making it easier to slowly walk back if needed. Solar output is cyclical anyway, so the Earth is "used to" varying amounts of energy being received. This is just another overly hyped warning about something that's not going to be done in the first place (or actually needed). |
Bowman | 22 Jan 2018 8:34 p.m. PST |
These guys, such as Rutger's Robock, are climate modellers and they are running these scenarios through their computers to see what happens. Nobody is seriously suggesting that this should be actually done. Solar output is cyclical anyway, so the Earth is "used to" varying amounts of energy being received. I doubt infrared radiation is much affected with solar cycles. Also, there is only a tenous correlation between solar activity and climate changes. link |
etotheipi | 23 Jan 2018 5:37 a.m. PST |
I doubt infrared radiation is much affected with solar cycles. The sun isn't cyclic, nor is the earth's orbit around it. Also, there is only a tenous correlation between solar activity and climate changes. This is because the models used don't have such a mechanism. This type of statement is the equivalent of saying Enfield rifles hit on a six and Springfield hit on a five or six, then analyzing game data to conclude that Springfields are twice as effective as Enfields. |
Bowman | 23 Jan 2018 5:55 a.m. PST |
The sun isn't cyclic, nor is the earth's orbit around it. No one is talking about orbits, and by the sun being cyclic, we mean the solar magnetic activity cycles. link This type of statement is the equivalent……. I doubt it. The link provided gives a good historical overview of the correlation. The current consensus is that the effects of green house gas accumulation far outweigh the impact of solar cycles and resultant increases in UV surface penetration. From the link: "The most advanced computer modeling groups did manage to reproduce the faint influence of the sunspot cycle on climate. Their calculations showed that since the 1970s that influence had been overtaken by the rising effects of greenhouse gases. The modelers got a good match to maps of the climate changes observed over the past century, but only if they included the effects of the gases, and not if they tried to attribute it all to the Sun." Tett et al. (1999); stratosphere: IPCC (2001a), p. 709. Benestad (2005) reports that "…comparison with the monthly sunspot number, cosmic galactic rays and 10.7 cm absolute radio flux since 1950 gives no indication of a systematic trend in the level of solar activity that can explain the most recent global warming." Similarly see Wang et al. (2005). "Over the past 20 years": Lockwood and Fröhlich (2007); another review: Bard and Frank (2006) |
Jlundberg | 23 Jan 2018 6:14 p.m. PST |
THe Sun's output varies – this is measurable and seems to vary with sunspot. The sunspot cycle averages 11 years, but can be longer or shorter. There seems to be other cycles based on our observations. Further back, all estimates are inferences based on available data. link THe Earth's orbit does have variations as well. The axial tilt varies from 21.5 to 24.5 degrees. The higher the tilt, the more extreme the seasons will be. THe eccentricity also varies from more circular to more elliptical and the earth precesses through the orbit. RIght now we are closer to the sun in December and further in July – this makes the seasons milder for the Northern Hemisphere – which has most of the land mass. All of these cycles will have a much greater effect on climate than any engineering we can do. link |
|