We Could Brighten Clouds to Cool the Earth
spectrum.ieee.org
spectrum.ieee.org
Our ecosystem is very complex and I worry about things being viewed as a "quick fix" possibly digging a deeper hole for us.
I think underestimate the carbon cost of this infrastructure and the amount of energy needed to send this water into the air. Chances are it's not going to be doing a whole lot and pales in comparison to the amount of water evaporating and going up due to global warming.
Seems like a high risk play, only to use as a last resort to me.
I wonder how well the experimentation approach will work in this case though, as:
1. Effects might be subtle and outside of the expected impact area.
2. Timescale might be really important (effects over a time much longer than we anticipate. Or even a timescale that makes it impossible to run many experiments in reasonable time)
Anyway, the idea is to have an ace in the hole in case we run out of other options to reduce climate change--at that point, the question is "which is less risky, geo-engineering or runaway climate change?".
We'd really need to invest in really detailed computer models to make sure we're not overlooking something and shooting ourselves in the foot, IMO.
A) go carbon negative B) other geo engineering C) adapt to the new climate
By itself, option C is baked in to be a generation defining disaster; so we really want some help from options A and B
What does "too late" mean here? Certainly it's too late to recover species which have already gone extinct, and it would be too late to avoid some increase in drought, wild fires, floods, etc that we're already seeing, but there's a pretty big delta between the climate that we'll leave our grandchildren if we zero our emissions by 2050 versus the climate we'll leave our grandchildren if we continue polluting.
As for (A), I'm sure we're all ears.
> but there's a pretty big delta between the climate that we'll leave our grandchildren if we zero our emissions by 2050 versus the climate we'll leave our grandchildren if we continue polluting.
That is not the distinction being discussed. What is being discussed is net-zero vs net-zero plus active countermeasures.
> As for (A), I'm sure we're all ears.
Several ideas are being researched, but at the moment I have not seen any that inspire confidence to become fully viable. Combined with the hardship associated with (C), this is why (B) seems necessary.
We don't exactly have a great history of messing with ecosystems. Like bringing rabbits to Australia :)
It took us decades to acknowledge global warming while the signs were all there and even now some countries and industry groups are still trying to undermine efforts. Can we really be trusted to do something like this and honestly evaluate the effects?
The particles that serve as nuclei for condensation themselves are actually seasalt. It works like this: there are tiny droplets created by spraying seawater into the air. The water then evaporates, leaving salt particles as nuclei for droplet formation again. The salt content of the proposed measures would increase the naturally occuring levels by just 5-10% from what I know.
I've often wondered about using an offshore wind turbine to spray water and create precipitation in arid regions. Using the natural solar cycle seems like a cheaper and simpler alternative to costly and complex desalination. This is also a goal which has immediate tangible economic benefits in the form of increased arable land.
Snowpiercer itself arguably doesn't hold an opinion about stratospheric injection of aerosols because it's used as a setting for an allegory.
The bar is pretty clear: did experts in the field make the story, make the film with an intent of educating, and get the final word in the creative process? If all yes then it isn't to be lumped in with allegories about classism.
How about solving the actual actual root cause: humans are currently wired to seek dominance over any and all resources?
Barring that, our alternatives are:
1) Open the final frontier to the nearly unlimited mass and energy resources of the solar system (and then on to the stars).
2) Massively reduce the population via increased death or birth control.
3) Put everyone into Matrix-like virtual reality tubes where they use minimal real-world resources.
Would be worth revisiting and adding that as an alternative. Reshaping culture is not as bizarre as it seems (i.e. womens rights, democracy, egalitarianism, voting, an 8 hr workday, public education, all recent inventions/shifts)
Maybe so (I'm skeptical of that claim), but anyway it only takes one culture that does to take over. At some level, a specific group of humans controls each resource, regardless of whether they're generous with it.
Agreed on your second point; it's not an alternative, it's the root cause. If we're able to improve our wiring, that's great. I'm not knowledgeable or optimistic about that prospect, hence the alternatives.