Skip to comments.We can brighten clouds to reflect heat and reduce global warming. But should we?
Posted on 11/09/2017 9:35:46 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Ever-higher temperatures are melting the ice sheets faster than projected. Sea level is rising. International efforts to reduce greenhouse gases are taking longer than expected. It's a nightmare scenario that could soon demand an emergency response. What to do?
One idea gaining traction is to seed marine clouds with salt water or other particles, increasing their potential to reflect solar rays, cooling the earth. It's part of a nascent and controversial branch of science known as "sunlight reflection methods," or SRM.
"We think SRM could buy time for other (carbon-reduction) measures to be put in place," said Philip J. Rasch, chief climate scientist for the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Wash.
"If the worst-case scenarios of global warming come to pass, these technologies could be used to help people, saving lives and economies from the worst effects of climate change," added Joseph Majkut, director of climate policy at the Niskanen Center, a Washington, D.C., think tank.
Actual funding for marine cloud brightening, or other techniques, will depend on how much time Congress thinks it has time to wait and watch.
"This is the only fast acting way to reduce heat, within a time span of years to decades," said Wanser. "So if the catastrophes we are trying to avoid are in the next 30 or 40 years, this may be the only thing that will reduce heat."
(Excerpt) Read more at phys.org ...
Very sad that people are this stupid. No laughing matter...but what else can you do?
The global warming scam is not about warming or mitigating warming. It is about government takeover of the means of production....use of energy.
Those marine clouds might turn the soil of Britain and Alaska salty.
Acid rain was a problem in Europe and upstate New York decades ago.
Cities and paved roads drastically alter the natural albedio of the earth quite a bit more than the ‘experts’ tell us.
funny how the global warming morons aren’t advocating a program to dismantle the cities they all just LOVE to live in....
Instead they would rather dismantle the rurual live by destroying the internal combustion engines that help to power the food production those fools in the cities rely so heavily upon...
Trees can grow quite big in 30 to 40 years.
New types of trees might be genetically developed that have roots that rot slowly, storing CO2 safely and cheaply for hundreds of years.
There are many volcanoes in Atarctica that are quietly heating up the ground and melting the ice. Depending on who you talk to and what articles you read it might happen soon or it might take a while. Yet the moron scientists still say that it is man made. Here is one of many links on this subject.
Let’s even accept the non “consensus” theory that humans have messed horribly with the climate with our production and atmospheric release of CO2 (which I do not accept as the only or “major” cause of “climate change”).
Now if you are of that mind would you accept that humans can INTENTIONALLY mess with the climate and are so G-d awful smart that can be no unforeseen ill consequences? No. The two theories cannot be rationally connected.
And even if you are like myself, NOT believing that human activity totally explains “climate change”, then would you even consider scientists intentionally messing with it? No.
A more appropriate question is can society save itself from too many scientists with too much time on their hands; so much that they can concoct all kinds of cockamamie theories and ask people to take them seriously.
The greens do like the green stuff.
As with anything, follow the money.
I think that the volcanoes you reference are only just becoming a topic of discussion. I read about them for the first time today.
They are going to be the final nail in Climate Change’s coffin.
making clouds whiter rather than blacker? That’s racist
[[Lets even accept the non consensus theory that humans have messed horribly with the climate with our production and atmospheric release of CO2 (which I do not accept as the only or major cause of climate change).]]
You shouldn’t even accept it as a ‘minor’ cause of climate change- The total amount of CO2 produced by man amounts to just 0.00136% of the atmosphere- There is nowhere near enough man produced CO2 to capture and back radiate enough CO2 to cause even localized warming- let alone global warming
Think of it this way- someone figured out for the that 0.00136% of an olympic sized pool’s water content was 4 five gallon pails of water.
Now, take those 4 five gallon pails, fill them with 100 degree water- and dump them into the 90 degree pool- Will you have ‘catastrophic warming’? No- of course not- you will see the 100 degree water reach equilibrium very rapidly and the pool will remain at 90 degrees-
if you want the math for the 0.00136% figure- here it is
The atmosphere contains just 0.04% greenhouse gases (including CO2) from both nature and man- man’s contribution of just CO2 stands at just 3.4% of that 0.04%
3.4% of 0.04% = 0.00136%
our atmosphere weighs approx 6 quadrillion tons- the amount of man’s CO2 is so minuscule compared to that that it is absolutely asinine to suggest it can be causing climate change- even slightly
The volcanos are not a recent discovery and it is also not a secret that there is a high level of radiation in Antarctica. Also, we are protected from the sun by the earth’s magnetic field which has been weakening over time and the north and south magnetic poles are expected to flip just as they have done in the past.
But all of this has been suppressed because it did not fit the global warming agenda.
As I keep telling people, global warming is not something new it has been going on for over 20,000 years and is not man made. But of course the government would not be able to tax and control the people if they knew the truth.
And in Copper Hill/Ducktown, TN a basin at the intersection of TN/GA/NC.
For decades up until the 70's the copper deposit was mined and smelted on site which produced local acid rain and turned the area into a Nevada desert.
There used to be a restaurant there in the 50's called The Sahara.
Pine trees are the only thing that grow there now.
Global warming does not frighten me; I have spent a lot of time with the actual (raw) data. The physics is clear. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and will warm the planet. The coefficients and feedback loops are obscure. How much warming do we get, and how much does the planet resist change.
Geoengineering scares me to death. If we change the albedo (reflective coefficient) of our clouds, ice, or some other large portion of our planet, that will certainly change global temperatures. We know how large the initial change will be - opposite but equal in magnitude to the “warming disaster” we want to avert. For a sufficiently large remedial action, that could trigger a new path in global temperatures, an ice age. Geoengineering our way out of an ice age may not be as easy as triggering one.
>Global warming does not frighten me;
Global warming shouldn’t frighten anyone. A warmer climate is beneficial to life. Ice ages on the other hand? Death on a massive scale.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.