Comments on: Geo-engineering remains a bad idea

By: Fred

Fred — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 06:48:12 +0000

It is universally agreed that reverse greenhouse effects are caused by such phenomena as haze or dust in the atmosphere. To illustrate this, visualize a green house with reflective film put on the glass. Because much of the radiant energy is reflected, it will be cooler than a greenhouse without reflective film.

For the past 100 years CO2 concentrations have increased, but temperatures have fluctuated down as well as up. Including the effects of reverse greenhouse effects explains this.

From 1900 till 1942, temperatures rose as anticipated. From 1943-1979 temperature trends remained constant, contrary to increased greenhouse gases. From 1980-2002 temperatures showed large temperature increases, followed by five years trending no change, then the past two years have shown dramatic temperature drops. The 2008 global temperature is lower than 12 years ago.

What happened in the 40’s? Industry and manufacturing expanded at an unprecedented rate producing massive air pollution, which produces a reverse greenhouse effect.

What changed in the 70’s and 80’s? The EPA started reducing air pollution, especially sulfides, thereby reducing the reverse greenhouse effect. Similar actions were instituted by other industrial nations. This explains the “global warming” that followed.

The recent lack of temperature rise and “global cooling” is explained by the effect of air pollution now being produced by China and other emerging countries?

I don’t advocate burning high sulfer coal to control global temperatures, but there are other Geo-engineering techniques such as cloud whitening which are safe, low cost, controlable and reversabile. We sure could use some public exposure and research on reverse greenhouse techniques to better determine sensible carbon policies.

Seawater spray
Various schemes have been suggested, such as that proposed by John Latham and Stephen Salter, which works by spraying seawater in the atmosphere to increase the reflectiveness of clouds. The extra condensation nuclei created by the spray will change the size distribution of the drops in existing clouds to make them whiter. The sprayers would use fleets of unmanned Rotor ships known as Flettner vessels to spray mist created from seawater into the air to thicken clouds and thus reflect more radiation from the Earth.The whitening is achieved as a result of the Twomey effect.
This technique can give >3.7W/m2 of globally-averaged negative forcing, which is sufficient to reverse the warming effect of a doubling of CO2.

There are three approaches to dealing with global warming. Mitigation (renewable energy), Adaptation(if it is going to flood, move or build levies) and null-engineering( reverse greenhouse effects). I believe the best solution , with the least social consequences, is an economical combination of all three.

By: paulm

paulm — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 06:26:01 +0000

Of course things are getting bad…I think that geoengineering is going to be used at some point by the good and bad guys. One way of injecting aerosols in to the atmosphere that I have not come across – would be provoking volcanic eruptions. This is something that should be achievable. Of course we must reach a state of virtual Zero CO2 emission also!

By: AVE_fan

AVE_fan — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 18:51:08 +0000

The term “geoengineering” is being applied only to the use of sulfate aerosols to block incoming sunlight. For a different version, involving the facilitation of rapid transfer of warm surface air to the upper layer of the troposphere, see the website http://www.vortexengine.ca and link to the July article in the Toronto Star for additional details.

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:50:27 +0000

The idea is mitigation — you might read my book for more details, though the essential strategy has been posted here. But I’ll run through the solution in November, I think.

By: David Appell

David Appell — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 02:05:25 +0000

Joe, you repeatedly claim that geoengineering is a bad idea, but you have never once offered a reasonable alternative. Not one of your ideas will cut GHG emissions by 80% over the next several decades. Not one. You’re just hoping for pie-in-the-sky, and you and your side have never shown how we can reach such GHG cuts while maintaining our standard of living. And one thing is sure, people WILL NOT give up their standard of living….

By: Lou Grinzo

Lou Grinzo — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 20:42:39 +0000

A new step in the progression of GW deniers.

The planet’s not warming. Oh, it is.

It’s not man-made (human beings couldn’t possibly warm the whole planet!). Oh, we did.

There’s nothing to be done about it. Oh, the costs of doing nothing far outstrip the costs of taking action.

We can geoengineer the planet (hey, we CAN change things!), and it’s cheaper than fixing the root problem, CO2 emissions. Oh, that’s too risky.

Oh, brother.