Geoengineering schemes to combat climate change still risky, say reports

Dramatic reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases are essential to help mitigate the effects of climate change, according to two reports issued last week by the National Research Council of the US National Academy of Sciences. Written by a 22-strong committee, the reports argue that removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is the most promising approach to tackle climate change, but conclude that the use of geoengineering to reduce the amount of solar energy that reaches the atmosphere is too risky. That type of geoengineering, the reports state, should instead be restricted to small-scale experiments rather than full deployment.

physicsworld.com...


This article discusses two types of geo-engineering. The Standard SRM idea, or deploying particles in the stratosphere to mimic the effects of a volcanic eruption, and cloud brightening. The article, which was written in Feb of this year, also states that the people who propose doing this, are against doing it. And the way they talk, it hasn't been done yet. Not even the experiments that have been discussed. So while I doubt the hard core believers will be swayed by this or any other facts, those who do actually research things such as this, can see the progression thus far.

I am glad that they all seem to be on the same page with all this.

Marcia McNutt, a former director of the US Geological Survey who chaired the committee, says the fact that scientists are even thinking about using geoengineering to mitigate climate change should be a "wake-up call". "The longer we wait, the more likely it will become that we will need to deploy some forms of carbon-dioxide removal to avoid the worst impacts of climate change," she insists.

Conflicting views

However, some climate scientists urge the need for caution. "No reputable scientist I know thinks placing tiny reflecting particles in the stratosphere is a good idea, although some support studying it," says Philip Duffy, president and executive director of the Woods Hole Research Center, an institution that focuses on climate change. Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann takes an equally sceptical view. "I believe that we should continue to fund studies of geoengineering approaches," he says, "if only for one purpose: to expose just how dangerous many of these schemes might be."

Agreed. Nothing good can come of geo engineering like this and i hope that we never do it. I was talking to a guy the other night at a party, a smart guy, who was adamant that the solution to global warming is to release particulates into the upper atmosphere...i was horrified and asked him "but what if we get it wrong?" and he just said "we wont though"

Yikes...lets hope he never gets into a position of power.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

the damn scientists who developed this aren't sure what the ramifications might be, so yea, I'd be a bit worried about your buddy.

If a meaningful reduction in CO2 was made, then regardless of warming, I would hope that these ideas are shelved quickly.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
Agreed. Nothing good can come of geo engineering like this and i hope that we never do it. I was talking to a guy the other night at a party, a smart guy, who was adamant that the solution to global warming is to release particulates into the upper atmosphere...i was horrified and asked him "but what if we get it wrong?" and he just said "we wont though"

Yikes...lets hope he never gets into a position of power.

What the hell kind of parties do you go to?

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
Agreed. Nothing good can come of geo engineering like this and i hope that we never do it. I was talking to a guy the other night at a party, a smart guy, who was adamant that the solution to global warming is to release particulates into the upper atmosphere...i was horrified and asked him "but what if we get it wrong?" and he just said "we wont though"

Yikes...lets hope he never gets into a position of power.

What the hell kind of parties do you go to?

Chemtrail busting parties. BYOV (Bring your own vinegar)

Actually, it wasnt a party, my wife and i invited a couple who lives in the same buildoing as me for homemade pizzas. Hes a very smart guy, studied physics like me (but actually finished his uni course) and is head ofa succesful company, has written 2 sci fi books...which is why i remember so clearly his idiotic idea...

You guys know the funny (sad?) thing? Its that clearly, we (the nasty paid shiull debunkers) are as worried about geo engineering on a level like this as the chemmies are...Except we know what to be scared of (not clouds)

a reply to: network dude

Sadly, it's doubtful that any significant progress will be made to reduce emissions and barring a miracle breakthrough in sequester... SRM is probably what we'll be left with.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: network dude

Sadly, it's doubtful that any significant progress will be made to reduce emissions and barring a miracle breakthrough in sequester... SRM is probably what we'll be left with.

I kind of agree...but ill remain optimistic.

a reply to: Kali74

With our population ever increasing, I think you might be correct, but with all the hype as of late dealing with the gloom and doom aspects of Climate Change, one would think that change is actively taking place right now. But based on the current CO2 levels, it doesn't appear so.

But if this idea is deployed and it's affects are minimal, what then? I don't hear of a plan "C" in the works at all. (other than my choice, which is plan "A" and adapt, improvise and overcome.)

Perhaps we need to seed the upper atmosphere with gold like the Annunaki? Perhaps we already are?

a reply to: Nickn3

I'd be more interested in collecting rainwater than I am now.