4 ms·
How much land area would we have to cover with this to solve global warming?
by seeknotfind 3y ago
How much land area would we have to cover with this to solve global warming?
- DANmode 3y agoThe real question is how much can you fit into the time machine.
- iand675 3y agoAccording to the article, half of the Sahara Desert based on 2019 calculations. Probably more now.
- klvino 3y agoWhile that would work as an estimate of total sq meters, applying that scale in a localized area would have too much of an impact on wind/currents, inversion, and the downstream of those changes. First targets would be urban heat islands and airports. Second would be industrial and manufacturing facilities. Regulations and Nimby would likely mean manufacturing and industrial would be more quick to adapt for use. The case for urban heat islands is pretty straightforward, but the application with airports would be to mitigate the heat trapping that takes place, especially overnight. Exhaust from flights result in more heat being trapped, similar to urban heat island but due to atmospheric effects and not solely due to surface materials and lack of greenspace.
- Nevermark 3y agoImagine a checkerboard of huge tiles dropping the temperature across a large area of desert, for a desert reclamation project. Seems we are going to have to geoengineer in the future, greening deserts would be a silver lining to all the climate and response chaos.
- JimtheCoder 3y agoSo you're saying there's a chance...
- iancmceachern 3y agoCall Sherwin Williams (their slogan is cover the world in paint)
- mensetmanusman 3y agohttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360132321009665 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036013232... People are starting to study this. Basically it would be like installing artificial snow to redirect the light energy back to space.
- RobGR 3y agoNo, it's better than installing artificial snow to reflect energy. The snow doesn't change the energy budget of the earth at night, because there is nothing for it to reflect, and the infrared energy it emits is pretty much like the infrared energy from most other surfaces, and a certain percentage makes it off planet and the atmosphere absorbs a certain percentage. The skypaint emits infrared in a particular bandwidth which the atmosphere does not absorb, called the "atmospheric window", so a much higher portion of it's energy makes it off the planet. This effect will operate regardless of whether the sun is shining on it or not, it will keep dumping something around 120 watts per square meter off the planet as long as it is exposed to the sky.
- halfjoking 3y agoCan we paint the existing snow /ice in the Arctic with this? Like crop dust with UAV planes? Other than “think of the wildlife/habitat”, why not?
- lucubratory 3y agoBecause the cost would be high, and there would be no quick way to undo it if it turned out to be a bad idea. And because in the real world you're not allowed to just say "other than all the environmental damage, why not?".
- halfjoking 3y agoHuge corporations say “Other than all the environmental damage, why not?” all the time. They weigh the likelihood of being caught or not, and do a cost/benefit analysis. They choose environmental damage just for a 1% increase in profit margins. If they can do it, why can’t a properly funded radical geoengineering activist group do it?
- TT-392 3y agoProbably better off covering building area, to save double, by reducing the need for AC.