I guess Brian didn't get the memo about acid rain not being a problem or bother 
to learn the difference between reflection and diffraction.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1916965,00.html

 



Tuesday, Aug. 18, 2009
Can Geoengineering Help Slow Global Warming?
By Bryan Walsh

As we pump billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we're doing 
more than warming the planet and scrambling the climate. We're also conducting 
what climatologist James Hansen has called a "vast uncontrolled experiment." In 
effect, we're on our way to engineering a world very different from the one we 
were handed. Belatedly, we're trying to turn off the carbon spigot, hoping that 
by incrementally reducing the emissions we've spent a couple of centuries 
pouring into the air we can stop the climate slide before it's too late. 

But what if we can't do that? What if it turns out that slashing carbon 
emissions enough to make a difference — and it seems that means cutting output 
at least in half by midcentury — is economically and politically impossible? Do 
we need a Plan B? (See the top 10 green ideas of 2008.) 

A small but growing number of researchers are beginning to say yes. If we 
geoengineered the earth into a mess with our uncontrolled appetite for fossil 
fuels, maybe we have to geoengineer our way out of it — in effect, directly 
cooling the planet via a controlled experiment to counteract our uncontrolled 
one. Indeed, according to a just-published paper for the Copenhagen Consensus 
on Climate — a think tank studying inexpensive solutions to climate change — 
geoengineering might not only be a good way to bring rising temperatures under 
short-term control while we wait for the longer-term fix of cutting carbon 
emissions to take hold, it might be the only way. 

"The potential benefits of geoengineering are really very large," says Lee 
Lane, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a co-author of the 
paper. 

There are a number of potential approaches to geoengineering, but the most 
popular ones focus on controlling the amount of solar radiation that reaches 
the earth's surface. Climate — in its simplest terms — is the rough 
relationship between the amount of solar energy that strikes the earth and the 
amount that is retained by the atmosphere, as opposed to being radiated or 
reflected back into space. In this sense, the greenhouse effect is not all bad. 
Without a little bit of it, the earth would be a cold, dead place, with an 
average temperature as low as -0.4°F. Unfortunately, by adding CO2 and other 
greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, we have, in a sense, thrown another quilt 
on the planet when we were perfectly comfortable to begin with. (Watch TIME's 
video "The Truth About Solar Power.") 

One way to turn down the thermostat would be to spread sulfur particles into 
the atmosphere, either through artillery or with airplanes, thickening the air 
enough so that it would bounce some sunlight back. We know that process does 
reduce global temperatures: when Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in 
1991, it threw millions of tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, causing 
global temperatures over the following months to drop by nearly 1°F. 
Geoengineering would work much the same way — only it would need to be done 
continuously, to keep up with the intensifying greenhouse effect. 

Other methods include spraying seawater mist from ships toward low-lying 
clouds, which would then reflect more sunlight. Another more extreme but 
oft-discussed option would involve putting mirrors into the earth's orbit. If 
those ideas have the disadvantage of sounding convoluted, they have the real 
advantage of being cheap — at least in relative terms. According to the new 
paper by Lane and J. Eric Bickel of the University of Texas, the seawater-mist 
method could counteract a century's worth of warming for $9 billion. Compare 
that to the political complexity and the economic unknowns associated with a 
meaningful and enforceable global climate accord. "The benefits are so great, 
at a low cost, that at the very least it makes sense to invest in a real 
research program for this," says Lane. (See pictures of the world's most 
polluted places.) 

But before we start creating man-made volcanoes, we should worry about the side 
effects. For one thing, increasing sulfur in the atmosphere would increase acid 
rain, with all the damage that can do to forests and wildlife. And there are 
serious concerns that artificially changing cloud cover could disrupt global 
precipitation patterns, a risk that climate scientists Susan Solomon and 
Gabriele Hegerl raised in a recent article in Science. They found a global drop 
in precipitation levels after the eruption at Mt. Pinatubo, and an increase in 
droughts. A cool but dry planet wouldn't be an upgrade from where we are now. 
"Climate change impacts are driven not only by temperature changes, but also by 
change in other aspects of the climate system, such as precipitation and 
climate extremes," they write. 

That's a powerful criticism: it's hard enough for scientists to predict what's 
happening to our climate now, and it would be even harder if we start fiddling 
with it further. But worst of all might be to take only the safe and slow 
approach and watch the climate collapse around our ears. We're already 
geoengineers, after all; we might as well get good at it.

  a.. Find this article at: 
  b.. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1916965,00.html 
Copyright © 2009 Time Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in 
part without permission is prohibited.
  Privacy Policy|Add TIME Headlines to your Site|Contact Us|Customer Service 
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Attachment: 0%2C8816%2C1916965%2C00.html&ot=A&oi=170&s=1024x768&c=32&j=1.3&v=Y&k=Y&bw=999&bh=540&ct=lan&hp=N&[AQE]
Description: Binary data

<<inline: logo_time_print.gif>>

Reply via email to