4 ms·

Finally a real, cheap solution for climate change!!!

by mjs33 7y ago

thedrbrian 7y ago
You know I was thinking about that. Is there anyway we could use this phenomena to lower temps? Like have a large parasol like cloud moving over the globe reflecting sunlight.
- Jaruzel 7y ago
  Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160425-how-a-giant-space-umbrella-could-stop-global-warming https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160425-how-a-giant-spac...
  - lm28469 7y ago
    I'm always amazed when people come up with these ideas, somehow thinking that colonising Mars or deploying something half the size of earth in space to shade us from the sun would be easier than just not fucking up the planet in the first place. Technology really is a new deity, it seems like if you believe in it hard enough you don't need to care about real life, logic or even common sense. It's "we'll have flying cars by 2000" level bullshit.
dividedbyzero 7y ago
It would require a very large eruption to make a worthwhile dent in the rate of warming; small-ish ones happen all the time with no strong effect. Even if such an eruption didn't have a lot of highly undesirable side effects, we simply don't have any way to trigger something like this. At any rate, the short-term consequences would be absolutely devastating and in no way cheap.
kaybe 7y ago
Some problems with that: - You can only offset a certain amount of warming with it. If you put too much aerosol into the stratosphere it will merge, become larger and precipitate quite fast. The exact possible offset can only be estimated, but is below what we're already committed to. - You have to keep doing it. As soon as you stop you run into trouble very fast. - In the models we see drastic circulation changes. For example the jet stream collapses. Do you want to test it in real life? - The issue of ocean acidification still remains. The additional sulphuric acid in the environment won't help either. - Ah and of course it's not cheap. We do not have the tech to do it yet in the amount necessary. The currently easiest, cheapest and safest way to fight climate change remains to stop burning fossil fuels. (edit: And of course I get you're not being serious.)
- hwillis 7y ago
  As always, also worth noting that this is literally acid rain. Putting it in the stratosphere is intended to lessen the amount of acid rain per warming averted, but it's still the exact same chemicals that caused acid rain. There are very good reasons we removed sulfur from gasoline. Acid rain is probably better than global warming, assuming it doesnt literally kill the ocean. Its good that we have a potential backstop- we could definitely halt warming in a very short time and it might not kill all life. We can even produce the necessary sulfur for a short while. Or like, we could stop warming without dumping incredible amounts of acid in the air we breathe.
  - kaybe 7y ago
    > we could definitely halt warming in a very short time The limit estimated (from models) here [0] is a decrease of -2 W/m^2 at most. The IPCC scenarios are equivalent with a number of plausible energy imbalances by the end of the century, ranging for 2.6 W/m^2 (RCP 2.6) in the best and 8.5 W/m^2 (RCP 8.5) in the worst case. [1] So even in the best case it might very possibly not be enough to halt everything. Maybe it can buy us some time, but I think the only viable path forward is to stop as soon as possible and then carbon-capture it back. (See also this graphic [2] for possible pathways to stay below 1.5°C warming, all of which include carbon capture, up to half of current emissions starting in 10 years (in the best case by land-use changes, in all others by actively removing the carbon).) [0] https://d-nb.info/1160958696/34 https://d-nb.info/1160958696/34 [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-1/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-1/ [2] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3b.png https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3...
mrec 7y ago
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is exactly about artificially recreating the relevant aspects of this natural phenomenon. It's not a fix, but might be an effective mitigation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injectio...

Finally a real, cheap solution for climate change!!!

by mjs33 7y ago

Finally a real, cheap solution for climate change!!!

You know I was thinking about that. Is there anyway we could use this phenomena to lower temps? Like have a large parasol like cloud moving over the globe reflecting sunlight.

Jaruzel 7y ago
Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160425-how-a-giant-space-umbrella-could-stop-global-warming https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160425-how-a-giant-spac...
- lm28469 7y ago
  I'm always amazed when people come up with these ideas, somehow thinking that colonising Mars or deploying something half the size of earth in space to shade us from the sun would be easier than just not fucking up the planet in the first place. Technology really is a new deity, it seems like if you believe in it hard enough you don't need to care about real life, logic or even common sense. It's "we'll have flying cars by 2000" level bullshit.

dividedbyzero 7y ago

It would require a very large eruption to make a worthwhile dent in the rate of warming; small-ish ones happen all the time with no strong effect. Even if such an eruption didn't have a lot of highly undesirable side effects, we simply don't have any way to trigger something like this. At any rate, the short-term consequences would be absolutely devastating and in no way cheap.

kaybe 7y ago

Some problems with that: - You can only offset a certain amount of warming with it. If you put too much aerosol into the stratosphere it will merge, become larger and precipitate quite fast. The exact possible offset can only be estimated, but is below what we're already committed to. - You have to keep doing it. As soon as you stop you run into trouble very fast. - In the models we see drastic circulation changes. For example the jet stream collapses. Do you want to test it in real life? - The issue of ocean acidification still remains. The additional sulphuric acid in the environment won't help either. - Ah and of course it's not cheap. We do not have the tech to do it yet in the amount necessary. The currently easiest, cheapest and safest way to fight climate change remains to stop burning fossil fuels. (edit: And of course I get you're not being serious.)

hwillis 7y ago
As always, also worth noting that this is literally acid rain. Putting it in the stratosphere is intended to lessen the amount of acid rain per warming averted, but it's still the exact same chemicals that caused acid rain. There are very good reasons we removed sulfur from gasoline. Acid rain is probably better than global warming, assuming it doesnt literally kill the ocean. Its good that we have a potential backstop- we could definitely halt warming in a very short time and it might not kill all life. We can even produce the necessary sulfur for a short while. Or like, we could stop warming without dumping incredible amounts of acid in the air we breathe.
- kaybe 7y ago
  > we could definitely halt warming in a very short time The limit estimated (from models) here [0] is a decrease of -2 W/m^2 at most. The IPCC scenarios are equivalent with a number of plausible energy imbalances by the end of the century, ranging for 2.6 W/m^2 (RCP 2.6) in the best and 8.5 W/m^2 (RCP 8.5) in the worst case. [1] So even in the best case it might very possibly not be enough to halt everything. Maybe it can buy us some time, but I think the only viable path forward is to stop as soon as possible and then carbon-capture it back. (See also this graphic [2] for possible pathways to stay below 1.5°C warming, all of which include carbon capture, up to half of current emissions starting in 10 years (in the best case by land-use changes, in all others by actively removing the carbon).) [0] https://d-nb.info/1160958696/34 https://d-nb.info/1160958696/34 [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-1/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-1/ [2] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3b.png https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3...

mrec 7y ago

Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is exactly about artificially recreating the relevant aspects of this natural phenomenon. It's not a fix, but might be an effective mitigation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injectio...