5 ms·
You did not get the point. Currently we are close to 400ppm/+0.8°C without geo-engineering. If we use geo-engineering, keep temperature at current level and con
by noiv 14y ago
You did not get the point. Currently we are close to 400ppm/+0.8°C without geo-engineering. If we use geo-engineering, keep temperature at current level and continue emitting CO2 to let's say 1000ppm, we can't stop because the greenhouse effect of these extra 600ppm will kick in as fast as the reducing effect of the engineering slows down.
But you are right: This is not comparable to today's situation where concentration rises by 1-2 ppm y⁻¹, but it is comparable to injecting instantly the equivalent of 600ppm into the atmosphere. It's like the opposite of a huge volcano eruption.
So to make a long story short, any geo-engineering solution which does not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and turn them into a stable chemical compound is nothing but a time bomb - exploding at failure.
- aroberge 14y agoYes, I did get the point, but I don't believe that you get the Physics. It takes a lot of energy to raise the average temperature of the earth by 4 C - much more than we are getting from the Sun "within a few days". Stopping (most) of the Sun's light to reach the Earth would be an effective (if not crazy...) way of cooling down the Earth. Adding a huge quantity of greenhouse gases is not going to turn the atmosphere into a one-way trap for radiation. The physics involved in light being blocked by air-borne aerosol particles and that of the trapping of heat by greenhouse gases are different, and their effect, while going in opposite direction, are not the exact inverse one of another.