backtop


Print 32 comment(s) - last by LBID.. on Oct 24 at 2:28 PM


  (Source: physorg.com)
Solar geoengineering involves techniques like creating low-altitude marine clouds or increasing the aerosol concentrations in the stratosphere

Much like tailoring different articles of clothing to match the weather, a new study suggests customizing solar geoengineering to compliment the needs of different regions in an effort to combat global warming.
 
Solar geoengineering is a method of fighting global warming by reflecting sunlight back into space. Solar geoengineering involves techniques like creating low-altitude marine clouds or increasing the aerosol concentrations in the stratosphere.
 
A group of researchers from the California Institute of Technology, the Carnegie Institution for Science and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) have created a study that shows how tailored solar geoengineering can help certain regions fight global warming as needed rather than a uniform method of solar geoengineering -- which could negatively affect weather in certain areas. 
 
Some are opposed to solar geoengineering because it can affect weather around the world. For instance, greenhouse gases suppress precipitation, and reflecting a certain amount of sunlight back into space would not restore this precipitation. Greenhouse gases and aerosols affect Earth's heat and rain in different areas in different ways. With limited sunlight, everything could change and have dramatic consequences.
 
But that's where tailored solar geoengineering comes in. Different regions would only receive the amount of reflection needed to keep weather stable, yet reduce causes of global warming. The researchers used a model to predict how this would work, and found that reflecting sunlight away from the Earth based on region and season could help fight global warming without seriously affecting weather. 
 
"There has been a lot of loose talk about region-specific climate modification," said the study. "By contrast, our research uses a more systematic approach to understand how geoengineering might be used to limit a specific impact. We found that tailored solar geoengineering might limit Arctic sea ice loss with several times less total solar shading than would be needed in a uniform case." 
 
However, the researchers did add that solar radiation management could produce uncertain outcomes.

Source: Science Daily



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

could?.. how about WILL cause
By kattanna on 10/23/2012 10:39:06 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
However, the researchers did add that solar radiation management could produce uncertain outcomes


there is no "could".. there will be unknown changes..because we dont fully understand how the weather system works right now.




By geddarkstorm on 10/23/2012 11:31:31 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder if they've been watching too much Animatrix, and just couldn't wait for a robot revolution.


RE: could?.. how about WILL cause
By dgingerich on 10/23/2012 12:37:55 PM , Rating: 2
the law of unintended consequences: Anything you do with a complex system will have unintended consequences. The more complex the system, the more unintended consequences will occur, and the more likely the consequences will be negative.

you can't get much more complex than the Earth's weather system, except for perhaps the human body.


RE: could?.. how about WILL cause
By praktik on 10/23/2012 1:42:47 PM , Rating: 3
Another example might be drug policy - the road to hell is paved with good intentions, innit?


RE: could?.. how about WILL cause
By dgingerich on 10/23/2012 1:59:04 PM , Rating: 2
We have already seen in history (the history of China, for instance) what letting drugs become freely available does to a society. Current drug policy may not be pleasant, but it is the best we can do under the circumstances. If drugs, even just marijuana, become fully legal, it would tear this country apart. I, for one, am not willing to be ruled from Mexico by drug dealers.


RE: could?.. how about WILL cause
By praktik on 10/23/2012 2:40:21 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting!

quote:
If drugs, even just marijuana, become fully legal, it would tear this country apart.


Like what happened after the repeal of Volstead act?

I understand we should look to history and agree violently on that - but a selective reading of history is perhaps worse than not looking to history at all...

I would argue that the costs of prohibition far outweigh the benefits, and that your fears of chaos are more rooted in emotion than they are in fact.

The most easily understood argument against prohibition is the fact that price of illegal drugs has been declining over the decades and availability of illegal drugs has been increasing. Effective prohibition would be increasing price and decreasing availability. Just a very narrow slice of the "unintended consequences" of well-intentioned policy.

This might be an interesting read for you: http://dragon.soc.qc.cuny.edu/Staff/levine/The-Bir...


RE: could?.. how about WILL cause
By DiscoWade on 10/23/2012 1:17:36 PM , Rating: 3
I always think such ideas are either pure idiocy or money grabs or both. Think about it and for our purposes assume human produced CO2 really does cause catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Then this proposal is basically saying that to fix the damage humans are doing to the environment we are going to damage the environment. Brilliant. At least the scientists proposing this will get a big grant so they can sleep in their big climate-controlled house.


You better damn well HOPE it's warming
By LBID on 10/23/2012 2:40:54 PM , Rating: 2
I'd enjoy a cynical chuckle every time I heard some clueless idiot bemoaning 'global warming', if it weren't so deadly serious. You do know what the alternative is, right? A condition that our planet has been under during a great deal of its recent history?

That's right, it's called an ice age. The planet is actually still in the process of emerging from a minor one. Given a choice between an ice age and some extra heat, I'll take the heat every time.




RE: You better damn well HOPE it's warming
By praktik on 10/23/2012 2:55:01 PM , Rating: 2
You've found the hole!

In all this time why hasn't any of these climate fearmongers considered the natural cycles of the earth like ice ages??

Oh wait... they have... and supply evidence that demonstrates the anthropological vector that is feeding into the cycles of the planet.

The question isn't about people ignoring ice ages, that's a pretty basic historical fact no one disputes.

What people DO dispute is the degree to which anthropological factors explain current trends - or not.

So your "cynical chuckle" - believe it or not - is matched by "heavy sighs" on the other side when they hear people trot our hockey sticks and ice ages and solar influences to hand-wave away human causes.


RE: You better damn well HOPE it's warming
By LBID on 10/23/2012 3:33:54 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So your "cynical chuckle" - believe it or not - is matched by "heavy sighs" on the other side when they hear people trot our hockey sticks and ice ages and solar influences to hand-wave away human causes.


Engrish? I'm not sure if you had a point there, but it was lost in that mashup of failed metaphors.

As for 'supplying evidence', I'm afraid that 'hoping your theories and beliefs have some actual basis in fact' does not qualify. Ol' mother Terra has seen far worse events than humanity come and go, thinking that we have more of an impact seems to me the height of hubris.


RE: You better damn well HOPE it's warming
By praktik on 10/23/2012 4:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As for 'supplying evidence', I'm afraid that 'hoping your theories and beliefs have some actual basis in fact' does not qualify.


That would be foolish indeed! More hand-waving without much substance. Which climate scientists are "hoping" instead of offering evidence?

Its easy to make sweeping statements about an entire body of science, more difficult to actually take the time to analyze and fight against your internal confirmation bias.


By Tyndel on 10/23/2012 7:11:07 PM , Rating: 2
According to a recent Met Office report we have not increased in temp in the last 16 years back to 1997. that is equal to the previous 16 years of warming we saw that ended the fears of the 70s of a new ice age.

Phil Jones said in 2009 that no upward trend has to continue for 15 years before he would start to get "worried" but now insists that a 16 year pause is insignificant. He is the head of Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

There is science and there is "science" with an agenda. I consider myself a healthy skeptic and seek to find fault with new "science" rather then take everything I hear as gospel. You know kind of how a scientist is supposed to approach new things.

There was a daily mail article on this a bit back.


By LBID on 10/24/2012 2:28:15 PM , Rating: 2
Still waiting for this vaunted evidence that humanity is making the earth get warmer. One would surmise that the wait will be long, as no such credible evidence exists.


I'm still not convinced
By dgingerich on 10/23/2012 12:34:10 PM , Rating: 2
I'm still not convinced that CO2 is to blame. All I know about CO2 shows that it can't be nearly as bad as the GW pushers claim. I mean, seriously, the Earth had ten times as much CO2 in the atmosphere 350 million years ago, and it was one of the best times for life in general in the history of the planet. That's where all our coal and oil came from.

In addition, there is plenty of evidence that sea level was higher and temperatures were warmer, and the ice caps were much smaller, in our distant past. (Seriously, do you think and ancient map of Antarctica without the ice sheet really came form aliens?? I think it's more likely that the ice sheet down there isn't as old as they claim.) Humans survived, and thrived, back then, and we will again.

They pull this stuff and they're going to cause damage to the economy to sell snake oil and possibly screw things up worse than what they claim to be fixing. I'd rather not go back to the weather of the 1800s, and the year without a summer. That would be an immense problem.




RE: I'm still not convinced
By Ringold on 10/23/2012 6:53:50 PM , Rating: 1
Lets combine a few points. First, what you point out. Second, what other people were talking about regarding unintended consequences of near-term action. Third, lets look at economic analysis that shows the optimal amount of CO2 abatement is fairly minimal in regards to maximizing long run growth. Fourth, lets also consider that these scientists say that even if CO2 output from humans falls to zero, the cat is already out of the bag for an extremely long time.

I think keeping all that in mind, there's only two logical conclusions for someone who holds humanities best interest at heart:

1) There's little harm that will come from waiting, say, another 20 years until those unintended consequences can be minimized.

2) Just to be on the safe side, we could pursue massive adoption nuclear energy. Expensive up-front, extremely cheap on a continuing basis, operates rain or shine night or day, extremely safe and zero emissions of any sort.

People that advance other views I think are really just coming from a position of wanting to see mankind rolled back in to the African bush in the long run, instead of defiling holy mother Earth or, even worse, spreading our vile existence to other planets.


I love the money pit
By KFZ on 10/23/2012 11:52:17 AM , Rating: 2
That is my answer to this proposal.




UHH CHEMTRAILS ?
By iskifreely on 10/24/2012 12:11:28 AM , Rating: 2
IT S NOT MY OPINION BUT I AM SMART ENOUGH TO LOOK UP AND ALSO LOOK AT THE FACTS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA

SHOULD ANSWER A QUESTION OR TWO THEY ALSO MADE A SEQUEL TELLING YOUU WHY




By Arsynic on 10/23/2012 10:14:43 AM , Rating: 1
Or maybe another mythical creature that threatens humankind.




global - warming?
By gnac on 10/23/2012 12:01:41 PM , Rating: 1
We are already "experimenting" with localized solar modifications. Look at the roofs of residential buildings (dark colored and sloped to pick up the maximum heat in the winter), roads - asphalt, car colors (how many white cars do you see vs black?). The bottom line is we do everyting we can to reduce the solar reflection and increase the absorbtion -conversion of radiation to heat.

I am NOT saying this is the cause of global warming... but if you believe in AGW - then this is more likely to be incrementally impacting the avg temperature than the accumulation of CO2.

If clouds reflecting will have a measurable effect - then dark man made items will have a similiar meausrable effect.




Dear President
By ksfa10 on 10/23/12, Rating: -1
Good Government program
By assemblage on 10/23/12, Rating: -1
RE: Good Government program
By praktik on 10/23/2012 12:03:51 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think the UN could as this would need to be supported by all the individual nations within it.

You'd get support from the Maldives and other countries that may not be countries for much longer, but bigger players would likely withold their votes and stymie the program.

Recall that "The UN" is not a monolothic entity with crack troops poised to harry Americans to FEMA concentration camps at the word of Obama, but rather, it is a collection of countries that seek to buttress their interests through the venue provided for by the UN.

In this sense there is no "the UN", but rather a squabbling pack of countries self-interestedly pursuing their bottom line. Sometimes this results in prudent cooperation, as numerous agreements on things as diverse as black markets and disease and the laws of the sea can demonstrate - but equally this can turn very easily into inaction, as cases like Rwanda and America's attempt to get the world on board for its (mis)adventures in Iraq go to show... Typically the "bigger" and more ambitious ideas can't move forward - and ones that have a perceived benefit to only one or a few nations (like America, when they couldn't sell the rest of the world on Iraq) die lonely deaths...

Welcome to the UN 101, and you're welcome..:)


RE: Good Government program
By Bad-Karma on 10/23/2012 12:08:23 PM , Rating: 2
I think you missed the fact that his post was dripping with sarcasm.....


RE: Good Government program
By praktik on 10/23/2012 12:44:59 PM , Rating: 2
yes but the underlying premise is that "government" and "UN" plans are, a priori, doomed to failure.

Was just clarifying that the reasons for failure of UN initiatives are never the failure of "the UN", but rather nearly always stemming from the conflict of interests between nations who then use their leverage within the UN to stymie this or that program.

Kind of like how people blame "Congress" in shorthand, when really the reasons for failure rest on individual members, their agendas and their personalities.


RE: Good Government program
By dgingerich on 10/23/2012 1:26:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Kind of like how people blame "Congress" in shorthand, when really the reasons for failure rest on individual members, their agendas and their personalities.


Kind of like Harry Reid, and his Dunning-Kruger brain, and his followers causing such problems in the Senate?


RE: Good Government program
By praktik on 10/23/2012 1:41:16 PM , Rating: 3
A proper game theory approach wouldn't limit the reasons for failure to one subset but rather look at ALL members within a given entity and see how their interactions play out.

But yes, in that you are specifying actual individuals you are on the right track. However I worry that your analysis may be flawed if you limit yourself to blaming problems on one subset of the larger group, as could be the case with your example.

As always, we need to look holistically at how these individuals act+react, and how their counterparts act+react if we are to come to a better understanding of why policy fails to gain traction.


RE: Good Government program
By dgingerich on 10/23/2012 1:54:16 PM , Rating: 2
Accurate point. There is enough blame to throw around to both parties and all the alliances within them. There are plenty of people in both parties who both act on a complete miscomprehension of reality and on their own selfishness.

However, Harry Reid has always struck me as that unwavering, confident, complete idiot that can never admit to himself that he has ever made a mistake. He has that confidence that can only come from a complete inability to comprehend reality. He's a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. I just absolutely hate that guy. There have been those people in the Republican party, too, but, thankfully, they're dead now.


RE: Good Government program
By JediJeb on 10/23/2012 9:26:46 PM , Rating: 2
Overall it isn't just the fault of those in government, but those who put them into their position. Voters have just as much blame as those in office and until we all take the responsibility to learn how government works and become involved in the process we will be stuck with the same lot of leaders who only serve their own interests.

There are a few elected officials who truly have the heart to serve their constituents and a few constituents who have the knowledge to make wise decisions when voting, but overall those are the rare exceptions to the rule.


RE: Good Government program
By assemblage on 10/23/2012 7:43:50 PM , Rating: 1
Hehe, yea i was being sarcastic. I could see it happening... and the sparkle in Al Gore's eye.


RE: Good Government program
By StevoLincolnite on 10/23/2012 12:38:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It could be funded by a worldwide tax at the gas pump, and on any non-hybrid or non-electric vehicle.


I'm not sure how receptive Americans are to additional taxes...

But you can shove them where the sun doesn't shine! :P


RE: Good Government program
By FITCamaro on 10/23/2012 12:52:14 PM , Rating: 2
I'm hoping to God that you're joking.


RE: Good Government program
By iskifreely on 10/24/2012 12:05:07 AM , Rating: 2
THEY HAVE BEEN PRACTISING SINCE THE LATE 90'S

WATCH
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA


"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki