Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Cost analysis of aerosol solar radiation management published

page: 1
8

log in

join

posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Researchers associated with Aurora Flight Sciences, Harvard University and the Carnegie Mellon University have published a paper that looks at the cost of attempting to reduce global warming by injecting aerosols into the atmosphere at altitudes between 18 and 25 kilometers in a band between 30 degrees North and South latitude. They calculate that this would require a fleet of specially designed airplanes and airships and cost about about $5 billion dollars a year.

The scientists note that SRM is highly controversial and should not be implemented unilaterally. Nevertheless, the $5 billion price tag is attractive compared to the estimated $200 to $2000 billion that reducing carbon emissions would cost the world's economy by 2030. Full details here:

www.sciencedaily.com... %3A+Latest+Science

For the record, I consider adaptation to be the only safe response to climate change. The Earth's eco-sphere is highly susceptible to Chaos Theory.




posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Well commercial planes fly around 35-40,000 feet, or 12 kilometers up...

18 is about 60,000 feet...

So there's basically a paper saying that chem trails could in theory if high enough effect global warming...



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 



Well commercial planes fly around 35-40,000 feet, or 12 kilometers up...

18 is about 60,000 feet...

So there's basically a paper saying that chem trails could in theory if high enough effect global warming...


No. First of all, these aerosols would not be "chemtrails." It has long been understood that dust and ash from volcanic eruptions can screen incoming sunlight, cooling the global atmosphere. Solar radiation management, SRM, would attempt to mimic this process. The technology to do this does no yet exist.
edit on 31-8-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   
basically we're screwed. In short.
They must be pretty worried if they are going to all the trouble...



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Samuelis
 



basically we're screwed. In short.
They must be pretty worried if they are going to all the trouble...


There is a strong consensus that the increase in atmospheric temperature has been due to carbon dioxide contributed by human activity. SRM would attempt to offset this by blocking the heat from the Sun. This would not affect the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which means it would not, for example, halt the acidification of the oceans. It is a far from perfect solution.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by benrl
 



Well commercial planes fly around 35-40,000 feet, or 12 kilometers up...

18 is about 60,000 feet...

So there's basically a paper saying that chem trails could in theory if high enough effect global warming...


No. First of all, these aerosols would not be "chemtrails." It has long been understood that dust and ash from volcanic eruptions can screen incoming sunlight, cooling the global atmosphere. Solar radiation management, SRM, would attempt to mimic this process. The technology to do this does no yet exist.
edit on 31-8-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)


Im not saying its already happening, I am saying that the theory behind it is sound, that a plane could in theory "spray" a chemical or material that would directly effect the atmosphere.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 



Im not saying its already happening, I am saying that the theory behind it is sound, that a plane could in theory "spray" a chemical or material that would directly effect the atmosphere.


The theory is sound, and there has been some speculation that normal contrail activity is already reducing the rate of global warming. Unfortunately it is very difficult to get actual experimental data to prove or disprove this.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Here's the actual paper:

iopscience.iop.org...

These are the various techniques considered with estimated costs:




posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
...Im not saying its already happening, I am saying that the theory behind it is sound, that a plane could in theory "spray" a chemical or material that would directly effect the atmosphere.

Well, regular vapor CONtrails already effect the atmosphere -- they can create clouds.

I'm not saying they contribute to global warming or help offset global warming, but it has been known for a while that an unintentional by-product of airline travel is an increase in cirrus clouds (from contrails).

Although the the OP is talking about a totally different thing.

edit on 8/31/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

For the record, I consider adaptation to be the only safe response to climate change. The Earth's eco-sphere is highly susceptible to Chaos Theory.


The authors (I'm pleased to see) specificly state that they do not support the strategy they have investigated


I concur.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

Originally posted by DJW001

For the record, I consider adaptation to be the only safe response to climate change. The Earth's eco-sphere is highly susceptible to Chaos Theory.


The authors (I'm pleased to see) specificly state that they do not support the strategy they have investigated


I concur.


There are very few climate scientists who think that SRM is something that we should use any time soon.





new topics

top topics



 
8

log in

join