Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

National Geographic: Shading the Earth

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 10:23 PM
Original message
National Geographic: Shading the Earth
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/big-idea/01/shading-earth

Shading the Earth

If we don’t cut fossil fuels fast enough, global warming may get out of hand. Some scientists say we need a plan B: a giant sunshade that would cool the whole planet.

Some call it hubris; others call it cool reason. But the idea that we might combat global warming by deliberately engineering a cooler climate—for instance, by constructing some kind of planetary sunshade—has lately migrated from the fringe to the scientific mainstream. We are already modifying climate by accident, say proponents of geoengineering; why not do something intentional and intelligent to stop it? Hold on, say critics. Global warming shows we understand the Earth too little to engineer it without unintended and possibly disastrous consequences. Both sides worry that facts on the ground—rising seas melting ice, failing crops—may cut short the geoengineering debate. “If a country starts thinking it’s in their vital interests to do this, and they have the power, I find it hard to imagine them not doing it,” says Ken Caldeira, a climate expert at the Carnegie Institution.

Caldeira is talking about the easiest, cheapest form of geoengineering: building a sunshade in the stratosphere out of millions of tons of tiny reflective particles, such as sulfate. Planes, balloons, battleship guns pointed upward—there is no shortage of possible delivery vehicles. And there is little doubt you could cool Earth that way, because volcanoes already do it. After Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, launching ten million tons of sulfur into the stratosphere and spreading a sun-dimming haze around the planet, the average temperature dropped by about a degree Fahrenheit for a year. With carefully designed particles, geoengineers might make do with a fraction of that tonnage—though because they fall out of the stratosphere, the particles would have to be delivered continually, year after year. Still, says Caldeira, the sulfate scheme would be “essentially free compared with the other costs of mitigating climate change.”

Not so the idea suggested by Roger Angel, an eminent astronomer and telescope designer at the University of Arizona. Angel has proposed launching trillions of two-foot-wide, thinner-than- Kleenex disks of silicon nitride—each disk an autonomous robot weighing less than a gram— into space between Earth and the sun, where they could deflect sunlight. By Angel’s own reckoning, the scheme would take decades and cost trillions of dollars. With that much time and money, we could wean ourselves from fossil fuels and actually solve the climate problem—by far the better outcome, as Angel and most proponents of geoengineering would agree. Unfortunately, though the recession has temporarily slowed the rise in carbon dioxide emissions, we’ve made no real progress toward that goal. Some say we’re running out of time.

If we put up a sunshade without restraining emissions and the sunshade later fails, the climate accident would become a train wreck: The global warming we’d been masking would come rushing at us all at once. That might be the worst unintended consequence of geoengineering, but there could be others—damage to the ozone layer, perhaps, or an increase in drought. If CO2 keeps rising, though, we may face greater emergencies. And what once seemed insane hubris just might become reality. —Robert Kunzig
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. There is ONE, and only one, thing that will stop GW, IMHO.
Collapse.

And we sure as shit are headed for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zonkers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. Operation: Giant Patio Umbrella
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billyoc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 10:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. As seen on TV!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 10:46 PM
Response to Original message
4. "Billy Mays here for the Earth Umbrella ... "
ka-BOOM!

--d!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terry in Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-18-09 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
5. Tragically comic
The last desperate measure of industrialism's heroic age -- one more piece of heroic engineering. But of course.

If you've got a hammer, everything looks like a nail. *Sigh*


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Croquist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
6. What a couple of great ideas!
The sulfate idea maybe the best idea since they introduced Kudzu into the South East or the Brazilians decided to cross breed African bees.

Both ideas will cut the amount of sunlight from reaching the planet. We don't need that sunlight, what does it do for us anyway? OK, so it is used by plants to make O2 from CO2 and make food but what good are those anyway? I think we should just nuke the damn sun and be done with it.

I have to admit though that I question Doctor Roger Angel's idea. He wants to put trillions of mirrors in space but I think there is an easier solution. He should leave his office where he comes up with such brilliant ideas and drive the 1.03 miles to the University of Arizona Physics-Atmospheric Sciences building. From there he should go up to the department head, Eric Betterton, smack him upside the head and tell him that the USHCN surface station is in the middle of a paved parking lot right behind his office, with cars parked right next to it and it might not measure the temperature quite so high if they moved it onto the grass.

That seems a lot easier then his idea. Of course I'm just a stupid denier and the guy running the audit of the USHCN is an idiot so what do we know?

http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=13018&g2_imageViewsIndex=2

PS: If Doctor Angel really wants to help save the planet maybe he could walk there. That way he wouldn't have to park next to the damn thing.

http://www.mapquest.com/maps?1ai=Tucson+AZ+85721-0001+US&1c=Tucson&1s=AZ&1z=85721-0001&1y=US&1l=32.2379&1g=-110.9469&1v=STREET&2c=Tucson&2s=AZ&2a=1118+E+4th+St&2z=85721&2y=US&2l=32.230049&2g=-110.955023&2v=ADDRESS#a/maps/l:::Tucson:AZ:85721-0001:US:32.2379:-110.9469:street::1/l::1118+E+4th+St:Tucson:AZ:85721:US:32.230049:-110.955023:address::1/m::13:32.233975:-110.950882:0:::::1:1:1::/io:1:::::s:EN:M:/e
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I'd rather have the station on asphalt.
Tucson doesn't have a lot of grass. If I'm trying to predict local meteorological behavior for a site (typically a building), I'd want a station to be measuring a site with an albedo similar to the area around my site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Croquist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. The idea is to measure the temperature of the planet
not for "a site with an albedo similar to the area around my site." Do you really think that measuring the temperature in a parking lot is acceptable for measuring the temperature of a state that has a population density of 58 people per square mile?

Why would you want to use the temperature around a building at all?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-19-09 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. If I'm trying to figure out the heat transfer through a building envelope...
I care very much about the temperature around a building. Besides - isn't the Tucson/UofA weather station for measuring Tucson data and not for extrapolating across the entire state?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Croquist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. That's not the way NOAA says it should be done
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/X030FullDocumentD0.pdf

According to NOAA's Climate Reference Network (CRN) Site Information Handbook Tucson rates as a 5 (5 being the worst). See section 2.2.1 Classification for Temperature/Humidity.

Class 5 (error ≥ 5ºC) – Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating
source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.


You would think that the Professors of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona, Tucson whose offices are in the building in front of this and probably park their cars in the same parking lot would have noticed it but apparently you would be wrong.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-20-09 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. I stand corrected.
I still like to have data from a location similar to local building installations, but I guess that's not the purpose of this particular station.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC