Do you support the possible use of Solar Radiation Management?

[eclipsenow]

This Vox piece summarises Solar Radiation Management in 10 minutes - the pro’s and con’s from experts in May 2023.

Do we risk over-doing it and hurting global agriculture or even freezing the earth as in “Snowpiercer”? Not at all. Dr David Keith models it and says we could probably cancel HALF our warming - but no more as the side effects start to get dangerous. (Only watch this older piece if you need to hear him say it - the Vox article above is more recent.)

Not only that, but we have evidence from nature. The USGS says the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption cooled the world 0.5 degrees for 2 years. We survived at least half a degree of cooling and dust in the stratosphere without catastrophic crop loss.

Also, it takes time to build the special super-wide wing jets to fly the dust up 20 km. Smith et al 2018 said that back then it would cost about $2.25 billion annually to build 6 super-wide wing jets a year. That’s only 0.02 degrees of cooling every 6 jets. If we adjust for inflation that’s probably $4 billion a year for an extra 6 planes. It takes 15 years just to get to 0.3 degrees of cooling - and that’s not even at Pinatubo levels yet! Given all that time and effort the moment there was even a hint of bad side effects the nations concerned would protest and we would be able to sort it out. It’s not like we can do this overnight! Radware Bot Manager Captcha

What are your thoughts?

 

[AlexB23]

This Vox piece summarises Solar Radiation Management in 10 minutes - the pro’s and con’s from experts in May 2023.

Do we risk over-doing it and hurting global agriculture or even freezing the earth as in “Snowpiercer”? Not at all. Dr David Keith models it and says we could probably cancel HALF our warming - but no more as the side effects start to get dangerous. (Only watch this older piece if you need to hear him say it - the Vox article above is more recent.)

Not only that, but we have evidence from nature. The USGS says the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption cooled the world 0.5 degrees for 2 years. We survived at least half a degree of cooling and dust in the stratosphere without catastrophic crop loss.

Also, it takes time to build the special super-wide wing jets to fly the dust up 20 km. Smith et al 2018 said that back then it would cost about $2.25 billion annually to build 6 super-wide wing jets a year. That’s only 0.02 degrees of cooling every 6 jets. If we adjust for inflation that’s probably $4 billion a year for an extra 6 planes. It takes 15 years just to get to 0.3 degrees of cooling - and that’s not even at Pinatubo levels yet! Given all that time and effort the moment there was even a hint of bad side effects the nations concerned would protest and we would be able to sort it out. It’s not like we can do this overnight! Radware Bot Manager Captcha

What are your thoughts?

I do not trust this technology, as it will give people (read: massive companies) an excuse to continue emitting CO2, and the dust could be toxic.

Why Everyone Should Forget Solar Radiation Management Exists - Environment Co

Do you know what solar radiation management is and how it could impact the planet? Learn more about it here.

environment.co

 

[Bradskii]

This Vox piece summarises Solar Radiation Management in 10 minutes - the pro’s and con’s from experts in May 2023.

Do we risk over-doing it and hurting global agriculture or even freezing the earth as in “Snowpiercer”? Not at all. Dr David Keith models it and says we could probably cancel HALF our warming - but no more as the side effects start to get dangerous. (Only watch this older piece if you need to hear him say it - the Vox article above is more recent.)

Not only that, but we have evidence from nature. The USGS says the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption cooled the world 0.5 degrees for 2 years. We survived at least half a degree of cooling and dust in the stratosphere without catastrophic crop loss.

Also, it takes time to build the special super-wide wing jets to fly the dust up 20 km. Smith et al 2018 said that back then it would cost about $2.25 billion annually to build 6 super-wide wing jets a year. That’s only 0.02 degrees of cooling every 6 jets. If we adjust for inflation that’s probably $4 billion a year for an extra 6 planes. It takes 15 years just to get to 0.3 degrees of cooling - and that’s not even at Pinatubo levels yet! Given all that time and effort the moment there was even a hint of bad side effects the nations concerned would protest and we would be able to sort it out. It’s not like we can do this overnight! Radware Bot Manager Captcha

What are your thoughts?

If your dog keeps crapping on your carpet then the solution is not to keep cleaning the carpet. You put in measures that stops the pooch doing it in the first place.

 

[AlexB23]

If your dog keeps crapping on your carpet then the solution is not to keep cleaning the carpet. You put in measures that stops the pooch doing it in the first place.

Amen, brother. And the dog(s) in your analogy are the massive oil/fossil fuel companies and billionaires. The measures to stop the companies are to place emission limits on them.

 

[Ophiolite]

I do not trust this technology, as it will give people (read: massive companies) an excuse to continue emitting CO2, and the dust could be toxic.

In regard to toxic dust, given this program would be put into operation by individuals and groups who are appalled by what humans have done to the planet I think we can have a high confidence level that they will ensure this is not the case.

If your dog keeps crapping on your carpet then the solution is not to keep cleaning the carpet. You put in measures that stops the pooch doing it in the first place.

However, if your neighbours dog is responsible and you haven't figured out a way to stop it getting into your home, regular carpet cleaning might not be such a bad idea.

I am not arguing for this idea. I simply think that if I am drowning I won't automatically reject a large piece of flotsam to cling to just because it isn't a proper life jacket.

 

[Bradskii]

However, if your neighbours dog is responsible and you haven't figured out a way to stop it getting into your home, regular carpet cleaning might not be such a bad idea.

I am not arguing for this idea. I simply think that if I am drowning I won't automatically reject a large piece of flotsam to cling to just because it isn't a proper life jacket.

I'm not a fan of band aid solutions. We know what's causing the problem and we know how to fix it. And almost every country on the planet agrees with the solution. We can build levees to prevent flooding, clear undergrowth to lessen the severity of fires, re-evaluate farming to allow for droughts etc. But addressing secondary problems is no good unless we solve the primary problem itself.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm not a fan of band aid solutions. We know what's causing the problem and we know how to fix it. And almost every country on the planet agrees with the solution. We can build levees to prevent flooding, clear undergrowth to lessen the severity of fires, re-evaluate farming to allow for droughts etc. But addressing secondary problems is no good unless we solve the primary problem itself.

I understand your distaste for solutions that treat the symptoms not the cause. I also favour focusing on the primary issue, but I do not think that it is necessarily an either/or choice. I know insufficient about the pro and cons of the proposal to make an informed decision, other than the generic informed decision "Don't rule anything out until you have clear reason to do so".

 

[eclipsenow]

I do not trust this technology, as it will give people (read: massive companies) an excuse to continue emitting CO2, and the dust could be toxic.

Why Everyone Should Forget Solar Radiation Management Exists - Environment Co

Do you know what solar radiation management is and how it could impact the planet? Learn more about it here.

environment.co

I don't like people stabbing people - but I don't ban kitchen knives.
Just like kitchen knives - do we need to ban research into this tool and sane use of this tool because some from big oil might propose misusing it? Big Oil's days are numbered. The growth of EV's has the IEA calculating that there will be an oil glut by 2028. That means the price will drop - and stacks of enterprises that are ONLY profitable because of the high price might be forced to shut down. It's a tough time to be in Big Oil.

So let's keep pressure on governments to eliminate all fossil fuels while also investigating what shaving of say 0.3 degrees might do? How much more time it might give us?

But I'll let Dr David Keith answer in his words - about 30 seconds to a minute here.

Also - what actual evidence is there that Mt Pinatubo's sulfur hurt people and was toxic?

Sulfates are the most commonly proposed aerosol, since there is a natural analogue with (and evidence from) volcanic eruptions. Alternative materials such as using photophoretic particles, titanium dioxide, and diamond have been proposed.[79][80][81][82][83] Delivery by custom aircraft appears most feasible, with artillery and balloons sometimes discussed.[84][85][86] The annual cost of delivering a sufficient amount of sulfur to counteract expected greenhouse warming is estimated at $5–10 billion US dollars.[87] This technique could give much more than 3.7 W/m2 of globally averaged negative forcing,[88] which is sufficient to entirely offset the warming caused by a doubling of carbon dioxide....​

​

...​

• Ozone depletion: a potential side effect of sulfur aerosols;[116][117] and these concerns have been supported by modelling.[118] However, this may only occur if high enough quantities of aerosols drift to, or are deposited in, polar stratospheric clouds before the levels of CFCs and other ozone destroying gases fall naturally to safe levels because stratospheric aerosols, together with the ozone destroying gases, are responsible for ozone depletion.[119][120] The injection of other aerosols that may be safer such as calcite has therefore been proposed.[8] The injection of non-sulfide aerosols like calcite (limestone) would also have a cooling effect while counteracting ozone depletion and would be expected to reduce other side effects.[8]
  
  

  Solar radiation modification - Wikipedia

  en.wikipedia.org

It can't be too bad when Paul Crutzen has proposed it!

Professor Paul Crutzen, winner of the 1995 Nobel Prize for his work on the Antarctic ozone hole, has proposed an emergency geoengineering solution to cool off the planet: dump huge quantities of sulfur particles into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight. His paper, “Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections: A Contribution to Resolve a Policy Dilemma?” was published in the August 2006 issue of the journal Climatic Change. A recent editorial in the New York Times by Ken Caldeira called for more research into geoengineering schemes like this to cool the planet, proposing that 1% of the $3 billion federal Climate Change Technology Program should be spent thusly.​

Local Weather Forecast, News and Conditions | Weather Underground

Weather Underground provides local & long-range weather forecasts, weather reports, maps & tropical weather conditions for locations worldwide

classic.wunderground.com

​

​

 

[AlexB23]

I don't like people stabbing people - but I don't ban kitchen knives.
Just like kitchen knives - do we need to ban research into this tool and sane use of this tool because some from big oil might propose misusing it? Big Oil's days are numbered. The growth of EV's has the IEA calculating that there will be an oil glut by 2028. That means the price will drop - and stacks of enterprises that are ONLY profitable because of the high price might be forced to shut down. It's a tough time to be in Big Oil.

So let's keep pressure on governments to eliminate all fossil fuels while also investigating what shaving of say 0.3 degrees might do? How much more time it might give us?

But I'll let Dr David Keith answer in his words - about 30 seconds to a minute here.

Also - what actual evidence is there that Mt Pinatubo's sulfur hurt people and was toxic?

Sulfates are the most commonly proposed aerosol, since there is a natural analogue with (and evidence from) volcanic eruptions. Alternative materials such as using photophoretic particles, titanium dioxide, and diamond have been proposed.[79][80][81][82][83] Delivery by custom aircraft appears most feasible, with artillery and balloons sometimes discussed.[84][85][86] The annual cost of delivering a sufficient amount of sulfur to counteract expected greenhouse warming is estimated at $5–10 billion US dollars.[87] This technique could give much more than 3.7 W/m2 of globally averaged negative forcing,[88] which is sufficient to entirely offset the warming caused by a doubling of carbon dioxide....​

​

...​

• Ozone depletion: a potential side effect of sulfur aerosols;[116][117] and these concerns have been supported by modelling.[118] However, this may only occur if high enough quantities of aerosols drift to, or are deposited in, polar stratospheric clouds before the levels of CFCs and other ozone destroying gases fall naturally to safe levels because stratospheric aerosols, together with the ozone destroying gases, are responsible for ozone depletion.[119][120] The injection of other aerosols that may be safer such as calcite has therefore been proposed.[8] The injection of non-sulfide aerosols like calcite (limestone) would also have a cooling effect while counteracting ozone depletion and would be expected to reduce other side effects.[8]
  
  

  Solar radiation modification - Wikipedia

  en.wikipedia.org

It can't be too bad when Paul Crutzen has proposed it!

Professor Paul Crutzen, winner of the 1995 Nobel Prize for his work on the Antarctic ozone hole, has proposed an emergency geoengineering solution to cool off the planet: dump huge quantities of sulfur particles into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight. His paper, “Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections: A Contribution to Resolve a Policy Dilemma?” was published in the August 2006 issue of the journal Climatic Change. A recent editorial in the New York Times by Ken Caldeira called for more research into geoengineering schemes like this to cool the planet, proposing that 1% of the $3 billion federal Climate Change Technology Program should be spent thusly.​

Local Weather Forecast, News and Conditions | Weather Underground

Weather Underground provides local & long-range weather forecasts, weather reports, maps & tropical weather conditions for locations worldwide

classic.wunderground.com

​

​

I agree with your sentiment, I do not like people stabbing people, and banning knives would be a terrible idea, cos a man's got to cook. My friend, this is just an excuse for Big Oil to continue raping the Earth. Our ozone hole is fixed (has been since the 2010s), cos people banded together to stop CFCs back in the late 1980s, not resorting to spraying sulfur into the stratosphere. I do not want large crop dusters flying 20 km above my area and wanna know what fuel the high altitude planes will use? Fossil fuels... I am with @Bradskii on this one, and he and I are both eco-friendly individuals.

 

[essentialsaltes]

This is a last resort measure.

I won't say "absolutely not", but as others have suggested it shouldn't be used in order to allow us to live our lives like the grasshopper rather than the ant.

 

[AlexB23]

This is a last resort measure.

I won't say "absolutely not", but as others have suggested it shouldn't be used in order to allow us to live our lives like the grasshopper rather than the ant.

Yeah, we must prepare for the future, instead of patching up issues as they happen (proactive vs. reactionary). By the way, geoengineering would make the sky appear white instead of blue, ruining the appearance of the sky, especially for those living outside cities.

Geoengineering Could Turn Skies White

Efforts to reflect away the sun's rays might also make the sky whiter, one of many reasons some distrust such geoengineering schemes

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[JesusFollowerForever]

This Vox piece summarises Solar Radiation Management in 10 minutes - the pro’s and con’s from experts in May 2023.

Do we risk over-doing it and hurting global agriculture or even freezing the earth as in “Snowpiercer”? Not at all. Dr David Keith models it and says we could probably cancel HALF our warming - but no more as the side effects start to get dangerous. (Only watch this older piece if you need to hear him say it - the Vox article above is more recent.)

Not only that, but we have evidence from nature. The USGS says the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption cooled the world 0.5 degrees for 2 years. We survived at least half a degree of cooling and dust in the stratosphere without catastrophic crop loss.

Also, it takes time to build the special super-wide wing jets to fly the dust up 20 km. Smith et al 2018 said that back then it would cost about $2.25 billion annually to build 6 super-wide wing jets a year. That’s only 0.02 degrees of cooling every 6 jets. If we adjust for inflation that’s probably $4 billion a year for an extra 6 planes. It takes 15 years just to get to 0.3 degrees of cooling - and that’s not even at Pinatubo levels yet! Given all that time and effort the moment there was even a hint of bad side effects the nations concerned would protest and we would be able to sort it out. It’s not like we can do this overnight! Radware Bot Manager Captcha

What are your thoughts?

I do not support. To me it is madness like the scientist who modify viruses to get them more infectious or deadly with the pretext that it would help in understanding how they infect and Kills, true madness.

The effects that these experiments will have on photosynthesis and life on earth is unknown I am totally against it. The risk is far too high. what about messing further the weather patterns? We know little about these and still a long way to go before we understand what could come of this.

 

[AlexB23]

I do not support. To me it is madness like the scientist who modify viruses to get them more infectious or deadly with the pretext that it would help in understanding how they infect and Kills, true madness.

The effects that these experiments will have on photosynthesis and life on earth is unknown I am totally against it. The risk is far too high. what about messing further the weather patterns? We know little about these and still a long way to go before we understand what could come of this.

Agreed, with the second part in green. But yes, if there is a scientist who modified viruses, then he or she must be held accountable, but as of 2024, credible sources say the virus is from mishandled animal meat in China. Hey, at least we agree on 50% of your comment.

 

[Laodicean60]

Not only that, but we have evidence from nature. The USGS says the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption cooled the world 0.5 degrees for 2 years. We survived at least half a degree of cooling and dust in the stratosphere without catastrophic crop loss.

We can drop a small nuke in volcanos and wala instant global cooling. Why spend all that money on planes and dust? Seriously, I don't like the idea of dust in the air because it'll end up in our lungs and stomachs from the foods we eat. We have enough environmental factors that are killing us.

 

[eclipsenow]

I agree with your sentiment, I do not like people stabbing people, and banning knives would be a terrible idea, cos a man's got to cook. My friend, this is just an excuse for Big Oil to continue raping the Earth.

No climatologist proposing SRM is with Big Oil.
I'm horrified any time a nation - especially my own Labor Government in Australia - approves any new fossil fuel project.
But solar is doubling every 4 years and has been for a while.
It's getting cheaper.
Professor Andrew Blakers (Australian inventor of the PERC solar cell decades ago - now in 90% of all solar panels worldwide) says there are good reasons to expect developments in solar to HALVE the price yet again by 2030!
Coal just can't compete with that.
And EV's just keep getting cheaper.

Our ozone hole is fixed (has been since the 2010s), cos people banded together to stop CFCs back in the late 1980s,

Climatologist Johan Rockstrom is famous for recently publishing data that concludes we CANNOT push the climate past 1.5 degrees. He’s also appeared on David Attenborough’s “Breaking Boundaries” series all about how many planetary boundaries we are close to breaking. He writes for “Earth4All” - a sister organisation to the Club of Rome. He explains the huge difference between the solving the hole in the Ozone layer and the decades it has taken to even start to do something about climate change. The difference? Cheap alternatives. The Montreal Protocol banned CFC’s within a few years because there were cheap alternatives that could do the job. With fossil fuels, there were no cheap alternatives everyone could agree on. Nuclear was controversial, and renewables 15 times too expensive to Overbuild across a wide geographic area for Geographic Smoothing. But now they’re so cheap - solar is doubling every 4 years, wind not far behind. Johan says we are close to climate’s “Montreal Moment.”

Solar is soon going to be deploying 2 or 3 times FASTER than the Paris agreement requested! The market has tasted cheap renewables - and likes them! All I want for Christmas is one terawatt of solar deployed annually

The effects that these experiments will have on photosynthesis and life on earth is unknown I am totally against it. The risk is far too high. what about messing further the weather patterns? We know little about these and still a long way to go before we understand what could come of this.​

We know up to 0.5 degrees of cooling.
Mt Pinatubo gave us the results.
What die-off off vegetation or crops or humans with dust in their lungs occurred globally in the 2 years following Mt Pinatubo?

 

[AlexB23]

No climatologist proposing SRM is with Big Oil.
I'm horrified any time a nation - especially my own Labor Government in Australia - approves any new fossil fuel project.
But solar is doubling every 4 years and has been for a while.
It's getting cheaper.
Professor Andrew Blakers (Australian inventor of the PERC solar cell decades ago - now in 90% of all solar panels worldwide) says there are good reasons to expect developments in solar to HALVE the price yet again by 2030!
Coal just can't compete with that.
And EV's just keep getting cheaper.



Climatologist Johan Rockstrom is famous for recently publishing data that concludes we CANNOT push the climate past 1.5 degrees. He’s also appeared on David Attenborough’s “Breaking Boundaries” series all about how many planetary boundaries we are close to breaking. He writes for “Earth4All” - a sister organisation to the Club of Rome. He explains the huge difference between the solving the hole in the Ozone layer and the decades it has taken to even start to do something about climate change. The difference? Cheap alternatives. The Montreal Protocol banned CFC’s within a few years because there were cheap alternatives that could do the job. With fossil fuels, there were no cheap alternatives everyone could agree on. Nuclear was controversial, and renewables 15 times too expensive to Overbuild across a wide geographic area for Geographic Smoothing. But now they’re so cheap - solar is doubling every 4 years, wind not far behind. Johan says we are close to climate’s “Montreal Moment.”

Solar is soon going to be deploying 2 or 3 times FASTER than the Paris agreement requested! The market has tasted cheap renewables - and likes them! All I want for Christmas is one terawatt of solar deployed annually

The effects that these experiments will have on photosynthesis and life on earth is unknown I am totally against it. The risk is far too high. what about messing further the weather patterns? We know little about these and still a long way to go before we understand what could come of this.​

We know up to 0.5 degrees of cooling.
Mt Pinatubo gave us the results.
What die-off off vegetation or crops or humans with dust in their lungs occurred globally in the 2 years following Mt Pinatubo?

Umm, a study says that solar geoengineering would reduce crop yields by a few percentage points, though further research is needed. We should stop the problem at the source. Listen to what @Bradskii, @essentialsaltes and @Laodicean60 are saying. If not them, then check out the study below. We should not play God, my friend.

Solar geoengineering could ‘fail to prevent damage to crop yields’ - Carbon Brief

Releasing aerosols into the atmosphere in order to limit the rise in global temperature would not stave off damage to crop yields, a new study suggests.

www.carbonbrief.org

Nature article: Estimating global agricultural effects of geoengineering using volcanic eruptions - Nature

 

[Nithavela]

Human population is easier to manage than solar radiation. Just keep it at a nice, even zero and the rest works itself out over a couple millenia.

 

[AlexB23]

Human population is easier to manage than solar radiation. Just keep it at a nice, even zero and the rest works itself out over a couple millenia.

Haha, so dark, and so true. Man, I like dark humor.

 

[eclipsenow]

We should not play God, my friend.​

Too late - we already are by cooking this planet​

Interesting. The Carbon Brief article says maize is nearly twice as vulnerable to lower light than wheat, soy and rice. If we cancel ALL additional warming from 2020 the models show maize boosted 6% compared to raw effects of climate change, but reduced 5% by the SRM. So maize is 1% better off.
Now imagine 10 million people are killed in a wet-bulb heatwave across India and the Indian governmentstarts building SRM jets. People object trying to cite possible impacts on agriculture - and the Indian government replies "Oh no - maize yields might go up 1%?"
Then there's this:
“I suspect that the crop yields are sensitive to changes to extremes – for instance, droughts and heatwaves – that may be ameliorated by SRM and which are not accounted for in this model.”
It concludes:
“The study is important for looking at a possible impact of solar geoengineering that no one has yet explored. But because the data that goes into the study is so limited and so noisy, one shouldn’t read too much into it, at least not yet. Instead, this should be taken simply as motivation for doing more research and only reaching conclusions after more studies have looked at this question.”
Now - put that in a world context where solar is doubling every 4 years, wind not far behind it. Then Precision Fermentation or 'electric food' comes along - which if it can really scale and become as econnomical as Tony Seba predicts - could become 'climate proof food'. It's not just climate friendly, but climate proof. It's also ecosystem friendly in that it divorces the solar colletion area from our best arable land and forest areas. Instead of grazing cattle across what was once forest area, we can let the forests regrow and float solar panels on water reservoirs and rooftops and brownfields and some deserts.
It's from solar power - which is 22% efficient - totally beating photosynthesis which is only 6% efficient. In other words, PF is mostly immune to SRM.
If it REALLY kicks off and starts to bankrupt livestock grazing across 30% of the land on earth - we can regrow 3 trillion trees which would eventually store all industrial carbon emissions! Then we wouldn't need SRM any more.
But we might in the meantime - especially if those wet bulb heatwaves arrive.

 

[Gene2memE]

Also, it takes time to build the special super-wide wing jets to fly the dust up 20 km. Smith et al 2018 said that back then it would cost about $2.25 billion annually to build 6 super-wide wing jets a year. That’s only 0.02 degrees of cooling every 6 jets. If we adjust for inflation that’s probably $4 billion a year for an extra 6 planes. It takes 15 years just to get to 0.3 degrees of cooling - and that’s not even at Pinatubo levels yet! Given all that time and effort the moment there was even a hint of bad side effects the nations concerned would protest and we would be able to sort it out. It’s not like we can do this overnight!

Do you have a link for Smith et al 2018 on the cost estimates? Part of my work is aerospace consulting and $2.25 billion per year seems very, very low for a major aircraft engineering programme, particularly for something as novel as that with such limited output.

Developing large aircraft is expensive.

Boeing was estimating ~$4 billion at the start of the 1990s just to develop the technologies needed for a blended wing airliner with similar size/weight to a 767 (circa 350,000 pound MTOW). That's ~$10 billion in current dollars.

Airbus looked at a blended wing airliner before developing the A380 (I got to spend time with the guy who was in charge of aerodynamics for the programme). They estimated that the development cost of a flying wing design would be somewhere around 50% to 80% more than a traditional tube with wings design. Airbus ended up spending about $12-15 billion on R&D for the A380, and another $8-10 billion on tooling up for production.