This sort of thing sounds like it could potentially be a real danger to Arctic organisms. Anything they might consume could kill animals or have other effects in disrupting ecosystems. One would need to be very careful and have a lot of information about its potential effects on living systems before thinking about implementing or even field testing anything of this type.
Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 8, 2022, at 4:55 PM, Russell Seitz <[email protected]> wrote: > > "If non-absorbing HGMs could be manufactured, and if they could be > transported and distributed without contamination by dark substances, they > could cool the climate. " > > I agree, especially since in contrast to the floating glass microspheres > Webster and Warren reject, the solar radiation absorbance of the air in > microscopic bubbles is roughly four orders of magnitude smaller than that of > glass. >> On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 9:51:11 AM UTC-4 Alan Robock wrote: >> Webster, M. A., & Warren, S. G. (2022). Regional geoengineering using tiny >> glass bubbles would accelerate the loss of Arctic sea ice. Earth's Future, >> 10, e2022EF002815. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EF002815 >> >> https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022EF002815 >> >> Abstract >> Arctic sea ice might be preserved if its albedo could be increased. To >> this end, it has been proposed to spread hollow glass microspheres (HGMs) >> over the ice. We assess the radiative forcing (RF) that would result, by >> considering the areal coverages and spectral albedos of eight representative >> surface types, as well as the incident solar radiation, cloud properties, >> and spectral radiative properties of HGMs. >> HGMs can raise the albedo of new ice, but new ice occurs in autumn and >> winter when there is little sunlight. In spring the ice is covered by >> high-albedo, thick snow. In summer the sunlight is intense, and the snow >> melts, so a substantial area is covered by dark ponds of meltwater, which >> could be an attractive target for attempted brightening. However, prior >> studies show that wind blows HGMs to the pond edges. >> A thin layer of HGMs has about 10% absorptance for solar radiation, so >> HGMs would darken any surfaces with albedo >0.61, such as snow-covered ice. >> The net result is the opposite of what was intended: spreading HGMs would >> warm the Arctic climate and speed sea-ice loss. >> If non-absorbing HGMs could be manufactured, and if they could be >> transported and distributed without contamination by dark substances, they >> could cool the climate. The maximum benefit would be achieved by >> distribution during the month of May, resulting in an annual average RF for >> the Arctic Ocean of -3 Wm-2 if 360 megatons of HGMs were spread onto the ice >> annually. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/1859bec4-ef57-431e-850d-0d71ad51aec6n%40googlegroups.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/44D3AE30-61DF-44B5-8BC4-A8DA55C32A8A%40stonybrook.edu.
