Geoengineers propose an experiment in sending salt water above the clouds to cause the creation of new and bright clouds that reflect the sunlight, another method to reflect the sunlight and cool the earth is to transport particles into the stratosphere in a kind of imitation of the eruption of the Pinatubo volcano. Both methods have many opponents who claim that they may have unintended consequences
Although it sounds like science fiction, researchers are taking a second look at a controversial idea that could use futuristic ships to blast salt water high into the sky above the oceans, creating clouds that would reflect sunlight and thus slow warming.
Rob Wood, an atmospheric physicist at the University of Washington, describes possible ways to conduct an experiment that would test the concept on a small scale in a study published in August in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the British Royal Society.
In the article, Wood and his colleagues elaborate on the idea. "What we're trying to do is show the benefits," says Wood.
The idea is that adding particles, in this case sea salt, to the sky above the oceans will create large, long-lived clouds. The clouds appear when water condenses around particles. Since there is a limited amount of water in the air, adding more particles will create more droplets, but these droplets will be smaller.
We proved that a large number of small droplets have a larger surface area, and this means that the cloud will return a greater amount of light to space," said Wood, who added that this would create a cooling effect on the Earth.
Clearing clouds over the sea is part of a broader concept known as geoengineering which holds that it is worthwhile to use technology to control the environment. Clarification, like other proposals in the field of geoengineering is controversial due to the ethical and political implications and all due to uncertainties of the result of the operation, but according to Wood, this does not prevent it from being investigated.
to the notice of the researchers
Shading the earth by raising reflective materials into the stratosphere
An economic analysis of the technologies required to raise materials to the stratosphere in order to reduce the amount of sunlight that hits the earth and thus reduce the impact of climate change shows that they are both technologically possible and economically achievable.
A study published in the journal Research Letters showed that existing basic technologies can be put together on a budget of less than $5 billion per year.
For comparison, the financial damage of carbon dioxide emissions is estimated to be between 0.2 and 2.5 percent of the total in 2030, equivalent to approximately 200 billion in the low case and could even reach 2 trillion dollars.
The solar radiation management technology (SRM) seeks to wait for the immediate impact of the eruption of large volcanoes such as the eruption of the Pinatubo volcano in the Philippines in 1991, after which even we in the country knew a cold and snowy winter.
However, the researchers say that this is not a preferable approach and this claim can only be asserted after an in-depth study of the consequences, risks and costs involved.
The researchers also emphasize that reducing solar radiation should not come at the expense of reducing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and with them also effects such as increasing the acidity of sea water. Also, the effect of reducing solar radiation is not uniform, and may cause different changes in temperature and precipitation in different countries.
to the notice of the researchers
26 תגובות
Hello, is it possible to attach a link to the articles mentioned in the article?
Is it possible to link to the articles mentioned in the article?
Maybe because it is not so simple to produce such bacteria?
Avi,
Fascinating article!
I'm just asking 🙂
Is the intention to produce clouds only over warm areas above the ocean? Is it after analyzing the winds so that it is possible to know where the clouds that will form will move? Because creating clouds over the ocean that will bring them over Bangladesh, for example, which is flooded 6 months a year, will not help the poor country so much.
Suggest watching the short video that Eyal linked to and describes an experiment conducted on the subject (on the subject of the article)
This is of course just a synopsis of the televised episode, and there were even more amazing ideas in the other episodes.
Of course you can find the full episodes for direct viewing on the Internet.
My father - it doesn't matter - effectively it is oil that due to the increase in prices will become profitable for Kriya - for you this means that salvation will not come from the direction of a lack of fossil fuel as Dror wrote - this is what George (Bioush) wrote -
Peak Oil's argument does not work - this threat against the industry is simply not effective anymore
No matter how much shale energy is more expensive than conventional oil, it is still cheaper than renewable energy for the time being, so George Monbiot is desperate - the green movement has lost an element of the argument in favor of renewable energy.
I agree with you that the amount of fossil fuel in the world is not directly related to the question of global warming. But Peak Oil's argument would have helped indirectly in that it would have encouraged the industry to look for alternative energy that it hoped would be renewable. To protect Monbiot's heart, the alternative energy they found was oil shale among other things - in other words, this angle of "saving" the world failed.
Why didn't they just create bacteria that breathe greenhouse gas and emit oxygen?
https://www.hayadan.org.il/menahem-ben-view-021111/
I recommend again the film The Unintrusive Truth, whose main point is:
The Kyoto Convention is doomed to failure because of its cost, ineffectiveness, and human nature.
The solution: ground engineering
my father
An interesting and topical article, what is not clear to me is why they are not working to plant trees and plants on a global scale and bring
the earth to the more or less natural state, which was supposed to be without human intervention.
Nor does it seem that there is any danger in this action
First of all, the cheap and accessible oil is over, today what is being talked about is more problematic types of oil - or normal oil found at great depth or in environmentally sensitive areas (Alaska), and mainly - in forms such as oil sands, oil shale, etc. Their cost is no longer a few dollars per barrel but many tens and even hundreds of dollars per barrel. Therefore, it cannot be said that we have not reached peak oil.
Beyond that, as I mentioned regardless of how much oil is still in the ground, the problem is the greenhouse gases that have already been emitted and those that will be emitted from the oil that is still left.
Avi Blizovsky
It is not clear to me where George Monbiot says that the opponents of the Turkish measures are right - he only says that they are winning.
I only brought this section because it is a section of someone who is an ideological green who believes in full anthropogenic warming and says that the oil is not going to run out soon (and is discouraged because of it) I am not clear where you disagree with him.
Clouds reflect sunlight on the one hand but also trap heat on the other. I understood that the type of cloud and the height at which it was formed are important. It seems that the solution is in the reduction of the amount of greenhouse gases or in the ability to absorb the existing ones in one way or another. Venus is covered with clouds, this does not prevent it from being hot, if it had no greenhouse gases it would be colder than Venus without clouds at all.
The problem is not oil. She was never oil.
The problem is
created the government.
If this instinct was not inciting and dissuasive we could easily solve the energy problem and the warming problem and many other difficult problems.
The link works. The mind of the writer does not. He tries to explain that because the opponents of the green measures won, it means they were right. I think they won because they have more money. But this political victory will be a Pyrrhic victory because the Earth does not make political calculations and when it is angry, no claims of the right will succeed in allaying its anger.
Explanation of what is meant by political victory:
Twenty years of efforts to prevent climate breakdown through moral persuasion have failed, with the collapse of the multilateral process in Rio de Janeiro last month.
Apart from that, the damages of warming are true whether we have oil for 20 years or 50.
Dror regarding the amount of fossil fuels:
We were wrong on peak oil. There's enough to fry us all
(hope the link works)
I think there was an episode on the subject as part of the Discovery Channel's "Earth Project":
http://videos.howstuffworks.com/science/project-earth-videos-playlist.htm#video-32584
An interesting experiment in TERRA FORMING. On a lifeless planet I would say, come on! Cool! But here? Unexpected results can cost us dearly.
No one knows what the effects of the warming will be and even then it is limited because there is a limit to the available oil and that limit is approaching quite quickly. In other words, man will begin to burn less fossil carbon in the coming years simply because there won't be as much anymore.
What is the point of complicated and expensive solutions when there are simple and cheap solutions?
You need a good estimate of the damage that will be caused by warming up to a given period of time
You need a good estimate of the cost of the actions that can be taken to prevent it (allegedly)
We need an assessment of how much of the damage can be prevented with this cost. (allegedly)
All this should be taken into account that the relevant science is still in its infancy.
When there is a difference of 1 to 10 in the estimates of the general damage in a span of 18 years it is difficult to sell it to someone.
And it is even more difficult to sell solutions when they cannot estimate the cost of the damage they save.
It is even more difficult when the cost of the solutions themselves is not clear.
Why is it that every time warming is mentioned, people go to the Ilagim site?
Did anyone understand what Moore wrote?
And who exactly will decide on cooling the earth? I guess Israel for example would welcome it but Canada or Iceland would oppose the idea.
Confidential - our problem is not a lack of oxygen, of which there is a lot and enough for everyone. The described problem is an excess of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide. Planting a forest may reduce the concentration of PAD for a limited period, as long as the forest grows (50-60 years). But the effect of the forest on the concentration is limited, and the constant planting of new forests is required, in a world where the existing forests are hardly given space.
Even when an entire mountain collapsed in 1991, the cooling effect wore off after less than a year. And we don't have enough such mountains in the area for one of these to explode every year.
Moore, your comment gave me cancer.
No need, didn't you hear that there was a volcanic eruption in Nicaragua, the Earth's greenhouses? hahaha, now this volcano will cool down nicely and you and your warming take it, put it on, you know where the opposite effect will happen, you will be affected
1. Father, in simpler words - what are the possible consequences of these two methods?
2. Can't we just plant more plants to have more oxygen? Even if it doesn't help too much, there will be more oxygen.