It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

geoengineering is it a solution to the wrong problem?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Firstly let me start by saying this thread is not intended to answer the question debated on this subject so often of if we are being sprayed or not as this debate is a no brainier and often ends in personal attacks on a posters character which is something i wish to avoid.

It is my hope that this thread will bring healthy debate on the subject of if geoengineering will work and if not why it will not work.
Now most forms of geoengineering are solutions to the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere causing a green house effect preventing solar heat from reflecting back into space thus causing global temperatures to rise.
1. Reforestation [increase the amount of trees decreases CO2 level's]
2. Giant floating CO2 scrubbers [giant filters to trap the CO2 and therefore reduce co2 levels in the air]
3. spraying aerosol combined with metal [zinc aluminium and barium]in the stratosphere to reflect solar heat.

All 3 seam to be good in answer to the green house effect there are other's but for the purpose of this thread i wanted to concentrate on these 3 as they seam the most likely viable options.
Now lets take a look at global temperature rise which i believe to be at .65 degree rise in air temp.
So we know that science as taught to us in school states that the rise in air temp is due to the greenhouse effect
and that that is directly caused by the co2 we humans produce.

When we look at CO2 released into the atmosphere we make up 3% of the annual and nature takes the other 97% so how come it's our 3 % causing such a big problem?
Now i'm going to branch away here because in order to challenge the scientific base i must explain why i think this is wrong.

This i am going to make as simple as possible not because i think you are all stupid but because my example is one we can all relate to.

example 1.
first you take a glass fill it with cold water and then you leave it on the side go back an hour later and the water has risen in temperature [at this point most of us take a mouthful and chuck it down the sink and pour a fresh cold one]
So we know that because the temp of the air is higher than that in the water a heat exchange takes place over a long period of time hence the water becomes warmer.
Now if we increase the volume of water say fill a saucepan up and put it on the stove and leave it the temp of the water would increase but the process would take longer.
so lets do a quick recap if the air temp is higher than the water temp over time it will cause the water temp to rise.
This process supports the greenhouse effect theory.

example 2.
Now we turn the hob on underneath the saucepan of water and increase the water temp.
As the temp rises the opposite effect is noted as in as the water temp rises above the air temp the heat exchange is reversed and the air temp around the saucepan increases [when your wife/husband is cooking Sunday lunch and the veg goes on the boil you walk into the kitchen and can feel the temp of the room has increased dramatically and this happens far quicker than the rise in example 1.
so second recap if the water has a higher temp than the surrounding air temp will increase but the heat exchange will be quicker.

example 3.
Now if when we turn the hob on we put a lid on the saucepan the increase of the water temp happens far quicker than when there is no lid.

Now this has proven that the heat exchange from a liquid to a gas is quicker than the heat exchange rate from a gas to a liquid.
It also proves that if the liquid has a higher temp then the air temp will rise quicker.

So now i branch back in put that into a global scale [after all 70% water on our planet interacting with our atmosphere].
So we have had a .65 degree rise in air temps so lets put that along side the temp rise in the worlds oceans which i believe is a 1.5-3 degree rise so lets take 2 degrees as a mean figure which means the water temp has increased by 3x the rise in air temp.
so when we put that against example 1 and 2 we see that example 2 must be true in this instance so the temp increase must have something to do with the ocean and not the atmosphere other wise we would have a higher air temp than water temp.

So if its not air temp then where is the heat coming from when we looked at example 2 we increased the heat below the water which in turn increased the temp of the water so we must look for heat source below the sea.
This heat is created by the mantle below the earth's crust so in order for the temp of the oceans to rise the temp of the mantle must have risen too.
so can we see any effects elsewhere that would indicate the temp of the mantle has increased.
It is a well known fact that earthquakes are increasing in numbers and magnitude and the amount of volcanic eruptions has also increased in the last 10 years and as both of these share a link to the mantle temp then it follows that the mantle temp has increased.
Its also scientific fact that the majority of the worlds volcanoes are under the oceans along the ridge lines of the tectonic plates so if we have an increase on land we can assume that there is an increase in volcanic eruptions going on below the oceans and this is increasing the temp of the oceans.

So to me the problem is below us and the warmer the oceans the higher the amount of C02 the oceans will produce.
Now if this is the case then the as the oceans temp increases so will the air temp increase.

Lets look at option 3 on the geoengineering list which involves placing metals in our stratosphere to reflect solar heat back out into space.
now not only will it reflect solar heat back out but it will also reflect heat generated here on earth back down.
This is like example 3 putting a lid on your saucepan which we know will speed up the warming process and instead of solving a problem it will in fat increase the problem especially if the problem is below rather than above.

For this reason i believe that option 3 will not work at all and is one of the reasons that i spend so much time debating the issue here on ATS .
It is my hope that the other to options are implemented as i feel that they are the only ways of reducing greenhouse gases and maybe offset the increase of co2 that the ocean are producing due to the rise in temp.

It is my hope that we can debate this in an adult manner and look forward to your thought's on my thread.




posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Planting trees is obviously the best solution since it's been proven that it works by now.
From what I know, there aren't that many negative sides to planting more trees...at least a lot less then other geoengineering ideas.

I think metals they ( could ) spray are used to block light, not heat.
edit on 16-6-2011 by User8911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   

This is like example 3 putting a lid on your saucepan which we know will speed up the warming process and instead of solving a problem it will in fat increase the problem especially if the problem is below rather than above


The SRM strategies involving the injection of aerosols is based a lot on what actually occurred following the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. It was found that the huge amount of material (sulphur dioxide) injected into the stratosphere caused a decrease in global temperatures. So it does work. The reason it works is because, unlike clouds (which do prevent heat from escaping into space), the particles are so small that they "selectively" scatter the short wavelength radiation back into space while allowing the longwave radiation from Earth's surface to pass through. It is more like a two way mirror than the lid of a saucepan.


As to the source of the warming being the oceans. No. Sea surface temperatures have not risen 2º. The (arguable) ERSST data shows an increase of less than 1º since 1910, comparable to atmospheric temperatures.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


i wish to add this quote to this thread
The oceans of the world store more than one thousand times more heat than the atmosphere. The vast majority of that heat is in the tropical waters. When the oceans warm so does the atmosphere; when they cool, global temperatures follow. The Pacific Ocean covers a third of the earth’s surface and exhibits a dominant impact on the global temperature.
Therefore why is the oceans not included within the global warming argument when it is clear that it has such a high impact on global temperatures.
edit on 16-6-2011 by djcarlosa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by djcarlosa
 




Therefore why is the oceans not included within the global warming argument when it is clear that it has such a high impact on global temperatures.

I don't know how you can say that. Oceans are included, they are central to climate change modeling. None of it would make sense if they weren't included.

It's not as simple as you would like it to be. It is not a simple matter of temperature differences, the ocean is not homogenous. Changes in salinity due to the melting of glacial ice can cause changes in ocean currents which in turn changes the way the heat stored in the oceans is distributed. Places which were exposed to cold currents may be exposed to warm currents and vice versa. This is the main reason that warming doesn't mean that everywhere gets hotter. Some will get warmer, some will get colder.
edit on 6/16/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by Phage
 


i wish to add this quote to this thread
The oceans of the world store more than one thousand times more heat than the atmosphere. The vast majority of that heat is in the tropical waters. When the oceans warm so does the atmosphere; when they cool, global temperatures follow. The Pacific Ocean covers a third of the earth’s surface and exhibits a dominant impact on the global temperature.
Therefore why is the oceans not included within the global warming argument when it is clear that it has such a high impact on global temperatures.
edit on 16-6-2011 by djcarlosa because: (no reason given)


The original source of that quote was AGW skeptic Art Horn:
www.energytribune.com...!-Its-Global-Warming!-No-Wait-its-Cooling!-No-WaitPart-1

The oceans of the world store more than one thousand times more heat than the atmosphere. The vast majority of that heat is in the tropical waters. When the oceans warm so does the atmosphere; when they cool, global temperatures follow. The Pacific Ocean covers a third of the earth’s surface and exhibits a dominant impact on the global temperature. Around 1910 the tropical Pacific Ocean began to warm. The impacts of such a warming are not always readily apparent. It takes years for glaciers and sea ice to react to the gradual ocean warming. Such was the case in the 1910s and into the 1920s.


So your addition

Therefore why is the oceans not included within the global warming argument when it is clear that it has such a high impact on global temperatures.

I presume is your own question, and not a quote?

Of course it's included. It's the first thing in the Wikipedia definition:
en.wikipedia.org...

Global warming is the current rise in the average temperature of Earth's oceans and atmosphere and its projected continuation.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
It is more like a two way mirror than the lid of a saucepan.


I think you mean more like a one way mirror. Reflects solar radiation out to space, lets heat radiation out to space.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 

No. I meant a two way mirror. A one way mirror only reflects light, it does not transmit it. The term is a bit ambiguous though.
www.jimloy.com...



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Uncinus
 

No. I meant a two way mirror. A one way mirror only reflects light, it does not transmit it. The term is a bit ambiguous though.
www.jimloy.com...



Aha, well, you have to remember you are talking to the general public


en.wikipedia.org...


A one-way mirror, also known as a two-way mirror


Hence the confusion



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by djcarlosa
Lets look at option 3 on the geoengineering list which involves placing metals in our stratosphere to reflect solar heat back out into space.
now not only will it reflect solar heat back out but it will also reflect heat generated here on earth back down.
This is like example 3 putting a lid on your saucepan which we know will speed up the warming process and instead of solving a problem it will in fat increase the problem especially if the problem is below rather than above.

For this reason i believe that option 3 will not work at all and is one of the reasons that i spend so much time debating the issue here on ATS .


Phage touched on this, but if this is really why you spend so much time debating, then it deserves clarifying.

The radiation from the sun is in mostly visible light, and nearby frequencies. This is sort wavelength light in the range 200-4000nm (and mostly around 600nm). This radiation heats up the earth, and is what any aerosol spraying is designed to reflect.

The heat from the earth is also radiation, but long-wavelength infrared, in the range of 4,000 to 100,000 nm. A vert different range of radiation.

Some materials are transparent to one form of radiation, and some to another. Greenhouse gases, like CO2, will let in the sunlight, but not let out as much heat.

The aerosols used for SRM are chosen so that they will reflect sunlight, but they will not reflect as much Earth heat. So they counteract the greenhouse effect.

For details on the composition of solar radiation, see:

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
having taken your comments on board and spending some time in researching ocean temperatures i cam across this report on ocean temps and the effects on fish stocks which includes a Winter Sea Bottom Temperatures from 1962 to 2001 and it shows a steady rise in temp that backs my theory.
www.stanford.edu...

quote:Scientific monitoring since 1944 by CSIRO at Maria Island, off the east coast of Tasmania, showed that surface water temperatures in the Tasman Sea have risen by nearly 2 degrees C over the past 60 years. This warming, one of the most rapid in the southern hemisphere oceans, is due to globally increasing sea-surface temperatures and local effects caused by southward extension of the East Australian Current.

source: www.terradaily.com...



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


How strange it is that when i provide a different topic to geoengineering and the reason behind why i do not believe it will work as i feel the issue is not the CO2 in the atmosphere but warming caused by our oceans you jump to the defence of option 3 on my geoengineering list when in the other debate you will not even agree with the possibility that this option is under way that i do not understand.

when you look back over the last 100 years you will see an increase in global temps runs in cycles each starting with a change in ocean temps rather than co2 increase.
it should be also noted that acidic levels are also rising which would also indicate an increase in under water volcanic activity.
so my point here is that out of the 3 options i do not think the 3rd should be used as i can't see any real beneficial effects to our climate.
edit on 16-6-2011 by djcarlosa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
AFAIK oceans do not "cause" warming.

As you say they hold a lot more heat than the atmosphere, and their heating and cooling "causes" weather and climate, but the "cause" of the warming is the retention of that heat - which is due to effects in the atmosphere.

The oceans do affect het atmosphere of course - evaporation and creation of aerosols are 2 obvious ways they do so.

The use of oceans to geo-engineer is, AFAIK, all to do with how they can be used to alter the atmosphere - sequestering CO2 by growing more biomass, whitening clouds by spraying up salt water.

so I think your conclusion is based upon an incorrect premise.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by djcarlosa
 

The sea bottom temperature data is for the North Sea. The North Sea is very shallow, ranging from less than 50 meters to 200 meters. In the winter there is a high degree of mixing between the surface and bottom meaning that higher surface temperatures result in higher bottom temperatures. The rise in temperature is not coming from the sea floor.

The water in the North Sea is generelly well mixed, particulary in the relatively shallow areas with strong tides. a stratification occurs in deeper parts in summer. The action of waves and currents is then insufficient to transport the solar heat to greater depths...

In autumn the sea is so churned up by storms that the thermocline is disrupt, and the water mixes again vertically (Saetre and Becker, 1990).

Source


You cannot compare localized data to global changes. As your source states, the rise in SST at Maria Island is due in part to a change in ocean currents as well as in overall increase due to warming.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by djcarlosa
 

It's hard to see any sort of cycle in temperatures over the past hundred years, just a warming trend. There don't seem to be any cycles in CO2 levels either, just an increasing trend. The small variations in temperature do not seem to correlate to any such variation in CO2 levels.


Long term data for ocean pH levels is lacking but more recent data shows that along with the increase in atmospheric CO2 we see, as expected, increased acidification of the oceans.

Option 3 would work. The Pinatubo eruption showed that it would work. However the chance that it may cause unforeseen consequences and does not address ocean acidification cannot be ignored.


edit on 6/16/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by Uncinus
 


How strange it is that when i provide a different topic to geoengineering and the reason behind why i do not believe it will work as i feel the issue is not the CO2 in the atmosphere but warming caused by our oceans you jump to the defence of option 3 on my geoengineering list when in the other debate you will not even agree with the possibility that this option is under way that i do not understand.

when you look back over the last 100 years you will see an increase in global temps runs in cycles each starting with a change in ocean temps rather than co2 increase.
it should be also noted that acidic levels are also rising which would also indicate an increase in under water volcanic activity.
so my point here is that out of the 3 options i do not think the 3rd should be used as i can't see any real beneficial effects to our climate.
edit on 16-6-2011 by djcarlosa because: (no reason given)


It will cool down the planet, because it lets out more heat than it lets in. How would that not help?

Besides, the point you made was that it was "like putting a lid on a saucepan", which it most certainly is not. It's more like "putting your beer in the shade".



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by djcarlosa
 



3. spraying aerosol combined with metal [zinc aluminium and barium]in the stratosphere to reflect solar heat.


None of the SRM studies involve zinc, aluminum or barium. They explore the effects of stratospheric application of sulfur dioxide aerosols.

Your "option 3" is not a correct representation of what has been contemplated.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by djcarlosa
 



3. spraying aerosol combined with metal [zinc aluminium and barium]in the stratosphere to reflect solar heat.


None of the SRM studies involve zinc, aluminum or barium. They explore the effects of stratospheric application of sulfur dioxide aerosols.

Your "option 3" is not a correct representation of what has been contemplated.


David Keith has suggested it - see en.wikipedia.org...

AFAIK you are corerct that there are no studies of it....but the chemies only need to see mention - whether it is a study or not is irrelevant to them - let alone someone actually suggesting that it should be done.

Adn since it includes aluminium, barium AND nanoparticles they all just about wet themselves!!


Of course the sophisticated little platelets he suggests be used would be instantly recogniseable under a bit of magnification when they fell to earth - so it'd be impossible for them to be any kind of secret programme......but as above - little practicalities aren't of concern to thet faithful.
edit on 16-6-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join