4 ms·
There are basically two approaches to geo-engineering, and they both have unpredictable consequences: * reflect sunlight back into space through "albedo modifi
by vonnik 9y ago
There are basically two approaches to geo-engineering, and they both have unpredictable consequences:
* reflect sunlight back into space through "albedo modification", either by spraying sulfates high in the stratosphere to mimic a volcano, or by conducting cloud whitening. complication: it will affect precipitation patterns, and allows the CO2 buildup to continue, meaning a sudden cessation would produce wrenching warming. it also does not slow ocean acidification.
* suck CO2 out of the atmosphere. also known as carbon sequestration. That's what Climeworks is doing, but their method is not the only approach. What they've built is a kind of chemical tree. Another approach is to create algae blooms by seeding the ocean with iron filings, since iron is often the limiting parameter to algal growth. algae: the amazon of the sea. a joker named Russ George dumped a tanker of iron into the northern Pacific a few years ago to show this could be effective, but his experiment was poorly designed. carbon sequestration does not address the underlying cause. but we are losing the battle against the underlying cause, which is basically our addiction to economic growth driven by fossil fuels, and existing carbon in the atmosphere will continue to warm the planet for many decades to come, even we switch entirely to clean energy today. so it's likely that humanity will have to combine carbon sequestration with clean energy to avert even worse climate change.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/03/geoengineering-caldeira-climate-change/ http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/03/geoengineerin...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170724105044.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170724105044.h...
http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/iron-dumping-leaves-geoengineers-with-egg-on-their-faces-me-too-15147 http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/iron-dumping-leaves-geoe...
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/07/re-engineering-the-earth/307552/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/07/re-engi...
- collyw 9y agoSerious question. Why not just plant a shit load more trees?
- dalbasal 9y agoCosts at scale, mostly. Algea grows faster and doesn't require land.
- bamboozled 9y agoHonestly, how expensive is it to plant trees? I'm sure a LOT of people would be interested in volunteering for that and while the military is not fighting people they could be fighting climate change, with trees!
- DennisP 9y agoThere's not enough room to plant that many trees. There have been studies on just how much it would take, and it would have a huge impact on food production and biodiversity. Meanwhile, worldwide we're losing trees to deforestation, drought, forest fires, disease, etc. I'm not saying trees can't be part of the solution, they should be, but we can't "just" plant trees.
- hwillis 9y agoThe total amount of CO2 we have added to the atmosphere is ~1 trillion tonnes[1], or 280 billion tonnes of carbon. That's roughly equal or at least similar to the mass of all of the carbon in plant and animal life on land. Obviously it's impossible to double the amount of plants, animals and bacteria on land. If you add in oceanic biomass, we'd only have to increase biomass by 25% overall. This is is still practically impossible and we are at a historic loss of biomass and biodiversity. Ocean acidification also makes this impossible. The scale of global warming is entirely beyond planting trees or anything else. There are 3000 tonnes of CO2 in the air for every person on earth. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Current_concentration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_at...