Here’ is the first report I’ve seen on the conference this past week on geoengineering. I would have like to attend, but didn’t have either time or money right now. I was a little disturbed by what seemed to be an absence:
Participants…split into groups representing the two broad kinds of geoengineering: methods which block solar radiation from the sun, like spreading aerosols in the stratosphere, and techniques to remove carbon from the atmosphere, like growing algae blooms at sea.
…A vexing question for participants was the role of commercial companies in this controversial field. A breakout group devoted to the idea of blocking sunlight—by whitening clouds or the ocean surface, for example—couldn’t agree on whether it should propose barring for-profit companies from the enterprise.
Ignoring the issue of the role of private enterprise, what I’m reading seems very terracentric (which isn’t uncommon among the scientific community — I think it was one of the reasons that it there was so much skepticism about Alverez’ dinosaur-extinction theory). After all, if the goal is to block sunlight, the closer to the source you are, the easier the job might be. Maybe there were some space-based solutions discussed, but you can’t figure it out from this report. One of the reasons that I wanted to attend was to provide a perspective that might not otherwise be there, and it looks like my fears were born out.
I’d bet that if you proposed (say) Ehricke-type solettas, or sunshades, you’d be laughed out of the room, largely out of ignorance of space transportation economics. I would have provided a tutorial to explain why it’s foolish to extrapolate costs of current launch systems to future large-scale space access, because I’ll bet that’s exactly what most of them would do (because it’s what most people do now). I’ll look forward to a more detailed report on the conference, though, including a full list of presentations.
[Monday afternoon update]
It should be noted that I’m not advocating geoengineering. I’m just pointing out that for those who do, they shouldn’t exclude space-based solutions because of false preconceptions. It’s sort of like my attitude toward NASA. I wouldn’t weep much if the agency was defunded (other than the personal impacts on my friends who are employees and contractors). But seeing as how that’s unlikely to happen, I’ll continue to lobby to at least have the funds spent sensibly, in terms of actually advancing us in space.
I was struck by the assumption that global warming was a problem, and an ice age wouldn’t be. Which appears to parallel the hostility of some at the conference to the private sector.
I’d like to see some inkling that the people proposing geoengineering solutions actually have a clue as to what the result of their ‘solution’ will be.
An engineer misplaces a decimal point building a bridge….maybe a few dozen or a hundred people die and you’re out the cost of the bridge.
Screw up on geoengineering? I don’t even want to think about the fallout.
When we get to weather forecasts that are 100% accurate six months out, then you can talk to me about the long term affects of your ‘solution’.
Indeed. Think of those videos of rockets suddenly careening off course and augering in during the early days of testing. One unappreciated non-minimum phase zero, and the planet goes blooey. And, these clowns would be doing the analysis and implementation with the only prototype. No, thank you. In fact, forget the thanks, and just hell no.
What’s Bart’s saying. Go cool off Venus as a proof-of-concept.
or warm up Mars
Or we could simply go with the massive implementation of nuclear power and fuel cells and be done with it.
Or we could simply go with the massive implementation of nuclear power”
Which has the advantage of fundamentally being useful in both “Hell on Earth” and “Snowball Earth” scenarios.
I’d also like to propose derailing at least half of the required geological analysis and seismic customization by standardizing on barges as the foundation for nuclear power plants. Suddenly earthquakes are basically eliminated as an immediate threat. (Although they could drain the artificial lake, but presumably that would take enough time for an orderly shutdown for repairs.)
Since global warming is bogus, geo-engineering is bogus as well.
Considering modern red-tape, I would love to see the final environmental impact report on any of these so called geo-engineering solutions. There probably isn’t enough paper in the world to print a single copy of the report.
Geoengineering appears to be the study of counting angels on the head of a pin so that the researcher can win research dollars away from green researchers who want to achieve ends using the stated objective of the geoengineering as a pretense to do things an even harder way.
We’ve already seen a successful, global-scale example of geo-engineering to stop rising temperatures. I refer now to the 600+ nuclear weapons that were detonated above ground between 1945 and 1965. The dust particles these detonations thrust into the upper atmosphere reflected sufficient sunlight to cause global temperatures to stop rising and remain level over that period.
There were no significant ill effects from these detonations.
Of course, the haters of civilization that make up the core of the environmental movement today will never accept this data and will never relent in their efforts to see us all consigned to utter poverty, misery and — ultimately — to death.
Awwww.. now you’re ruining all the fun. Geoengineering is the only way to get the whiny “we’re hurting the planet” generation to actually dream about engineering as a positive force or – as I like to call it – progress.
It sounds like the geoengineering types have good intentions. However, so did the people who advocated planting kudzu to control erosion in the south. No way in hell I’d allow them to tinker with the global environment when the mechanisms are so poorly understood.
I would have provided a tutorial to explain why it’s foolish to extrapolate costs of current launch systems to future large-scale space access…
How exactly would you determine the costs of future large-scale space access?
How exactly would you determine the costs of future large-scale space access?
Cost of gravity-well mandated fuel x 2. Done. We’re just a long freaking way from there. For geoengineering, the major lifts would be bulk cargo.
Aaahhhh, the fantasy of large flight rates has a new peg to hang its tattered hat on. It’s enough to turn Rand into a believer in global warming. 🙂
Al:
For geoengineering, the major lifts would be bulk cargo.
Since when are solettas bulk cargo? They sound pretty fragile to me.
It’s enough to turn Rand into a believer in global warming.
NO, no, no. Didn’t you get the memo? It’s not global warming — it’s “climate change.”
Didn’t you get the memo?. It’s not global warming — it’s “climate change.”
🙂
Hopefully we will figure out which direction it’s going before we decide whether to install air conditioning or heating.
Back when I had housemates the thermostat setting was the #1 source of arguments. Can you imagine the fights that will break out over what temperature to set our planet?
Yeah, wire-stabilized aluminum foil disks can be destroyed by a hard sneeze. But that’s actually a decent velocity impact. I wouldn’t be too obsessed with them if they were packed flat though. And (worst case) getting aluminum foil up as rolls is about as robust as anyone could desire.
Regardless, why in the hell are we lifting it all from Earth anyway? Fused moon rock disks.