PDA

View Full Version : Obama looks at climate engineering



Sol Invictus
04-11-2009, 03:15 AM
In a document entitled Geoengineering: Workshop on Unilateral Planetary Scale Geoengineering (http://www.cfr.org/project/1364/geoengineering.html), the CFR proposes different methods of “reflecting sunlight back into space,” which include adding “small reflecting particles in the upper part of the atmosphere,” adding “more clouds in the lower part of the atmosphere,” and placing “various kinds of reflecting objects in space either near the earth or at a stable location between the earth and the sun.”

Seth Borenstein (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hm1kMpA2nQALOfQL8Y8PxxTHNVtgD97ECHLG1)
AP
April 08 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) — The president's new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air.

John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.

"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table."

Holdren outlined several "tipping points" involving global warming that could be fast approaching. Once such milestones are reached, such as complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, it increases chances of "really intolerable consequences," he said.

Twice in a half-hour interview, Holdren compared global warming to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."

At first, Holdren characterized the potential need to technologically tinker with the climate as just his personal view. However, he went on to say he has raised it in administration discussions.

Holdren, a 65-year-old physicist, is far from alone in taking geoengineering more seriously. The National Academy of Science is making climate tinkering the subject of its first workshop in its new multidiscipline climate challenges program. The British parliament has also discussed the idea.

The American Meteorological Society is crafting a policy statement on geoengineering that says "it is prudent to consider geoengineering's potential, to understand its limits and to avoid rash deployment."

Last week, Princeton scientist Robert Socolow told the National Academy that geoengineering should be an available option in case climate worsens dramatically.

But Holdren noted that shooting particles into the air — making an artificial volcano as one Nobel laureate has suggested — could have grave side effects and would not completely solve all the problems from soaring greenhouse gas emissions. So such actions could not be taken lightly, he said.

Still, "we might get desperate enough to want to use it," he added.

Another geoengineering option he mentioned was the use of so-called artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide — the chief human-caused greenhouse gas — out of the air and store it. At first that seemed prohibitively expensive, but a re-examination of the approach shows it might be less costly, he said.

Jägerstaffel
04-11-2009, 03:58 AM
Cool. Sci-fi in my lifetime!

Sol Invictus
04-11-2009, 04:05 AM
Cool. Sci-fi in my lifetime!

Yeah, too bad poisoning people is illegal.

Susi
04-12-2009, 02:40 AM
One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.

Has already been discussed at length for many years in various scientific fora.


"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table."

Because clearly imposing lifestyle changes on people who use, by some estimates, 80% of the world's resources is too difficult.


Another geoengineering option he mentioned was the use of so-called artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide — the chief human-caused greenhouse gas — out of the air and store it. At first that seemed prohibitively expensive, but a re-examination of the approach shows it might be less costly, he said.

Something like this already being done, someone's slow on the draw...

In any case, I prefer my geoengineering projects, if any, to be of low impact on the natural processes (those uninfluenced by human activity). We are never satisfied with our conditions. In the 50ies to the 70ies we complained of global cooling. Now we complain of global warming, despite the Earth being at its lowest temperature period in its entire history.

RoyBatty
04-12-2009, 02:53 AM
The ones doing the loudest complaining about global warming are the ones who have the most vested interests in profiting from those complaints.

Susi
04-12-2009, 04:47 PM
I don't think one can deny that there are warming and cooling trends; it's just that we still don't fully understand the way all of Earth's systems work. Each system, despite how separate they may seem, contributes to the climatic systems.

The people who complain about global warming, yes, I'd agree, they are out to profit from it... but I think that mostly complaints from from a fundametal misunderstanding of how the Earth works. *insert suggestion of a year of physical geography taught to every student*

Birka
04-12-2009, 05:53 PM
The ones doing the loudest complaining about global warming are the ones who have the most vested interests in profiting from those complaints.

Greatest example of that is that Al Gore has become a multi-millionaire selling bogus carbon credits. GE Corp. is a big producer of "green technology" and is always having the media it owns do specials about global BS warming. It owns NBC and MSNBC, and they push their "green"agenda more than any other media anywhere.

Loddfafner
04-12-2009, 05:56 PM
I am more convinced by those who argue for potentially catastrophic global warming aggravated by human activities than by the skeptics. However, drastic interference with nature tends to backfire badly in unpredictable ways. History is littered with the results of the hubris of technocratic elites.

Although I do not believe the Gaia hypothesis, I can't rule out the possibility that human industrialization is Mother Earth's way of staving off an ice age.

Skandi
04-14-2009, 05:02 PM
The Earth warms and cools cyclicaly, if we were to head back into the Carboniferous then the temperature then was about15C warmer than today, there were tiny (if any) ice sheets. sea levels were 100-200m higher than now. Some of that rise was related to ice some to thermal expansion and some to plate tectonics.

So we know the Earth will warm it is just a case of how fast? Methane (CH4) is much more effective than CO2 at retaining heat, and there are huge stores of Methane in both the oceans and on land, in the oceans Methane is stored in the form of gas hydrates, these are stable at cold temperatures, BUT they can be destabilised by a drop in pressure, (Sea level fall) a rise in pressure (Sea level rise) or a rise in temperature. If they were to release their trapped methane there would be several catastrophic evens including tidal waves. The temperature would also rise at a rate that could exceed 1C per year.

Remember that after the ice melts the albedo affect is lessened so the rise is faster, extra heat means more water vapour in the atmosphere, which also has a green house effect. But as the temperature rises so does the speed of plant growth, and rises in sea levels produce more warm shallow seas where algae flourish, reducing CO2 concentrations and cooling the world again.

Bloodeagle
04-15-2009, 06:15 PM
This planet needs a good purging, or ice age to bring some balance back.

lei.talk
04-19-2009, 04:13 PM
http://i40.tinypic.com/p0lqp.jpg (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GZAZ_enUS281US281&q=%22red+hot+lies%22+horner)