Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Earth
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
[Below is the original script. But a few changes may have been made during the recording of this audio podcast.]
A manmade volcano erupting continuously to shade the Earth until greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere are brought down. Thousands of mirrors boosted into geosynchronous orbit to block sunlight. Crewless ships wander the oceans spewing saltwater into the air to increase cloud cover.
These are just a few of the proposals from scientists to manipulate, or geoengineer, the planet to stave off global warming.
The U.K.'s Royal Society has spent the last year identifying which schemes are just plain crazy and which just might be needed if the world doesn't start reducing greenhouse gas emissions right away.
Covering the world's deserts in reflective material is the most dangerous, expensive and ineffective geoengineering scheme, not least because it would likely change weather patterns. Fertilizing the ocean with iron to promote plankton blooms also gets high marks for danger because of the potential for unintended ecosystem impacts.
On the safer side? Artificial trees to suck CO2 out of the air are safe… but they don't come cheap. Painting roofs white is also safe… but not likely to make much impact. In the sweet spot of safe, immediately available as well as relatively effective and inexpensive sits—capturing excess CO2 where it largely comes from: power plants.
And the simplest and cheapest way to slow global warming on a planetary scale, it turns out, is simply to stop cutting down the forests helping control today's climate. It won't solve the whole problem but a few trees go a long way.
Of course, the craziest geoengineering scheme to date is the one we're already doing: changing the climate with an excess of greenhouse gas emissions. If we don't stop that experiment, we might have to start an even crazier one.
—David Biello
See what we're tweeting about
11 Comments
Add CommentRight you are! Beyond craziest. Lunatic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRiddle me this: If Hansen and Gore are wrong and Archibald is right, how will you clean up the deadly mess you have created?
Archibald, David. “Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States” presented at the International Conference on Climate Change, March 2008. http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf.
It seems to me that the cutting of trees is not a problem. In fact this should be beneficial as compared to allowing them to fall naturally and rot. As long as the trees cut are replaced with a new tree and the old tree is converted to a house or furniture.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only thing that worries me is what if we're wrong about the degree of global warming? What happens if we go overboard? In another century or two the scientists say "Sorry, we overestimated our impact, and we just helped to usher in the next ice age."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you really want to control global warming,
you need to do it directly:
http://u3aclimatestudy.pbworks.com/Mega-chimney%20idea
The remarkable part of this solution is that
while cooling the planet, you generate power
and clean water, too!
simple solutions:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisreduce greenhouse gas emissions = use less energy = smaller population, (with different concepts of status) (who eat less animal products)(and use less "fertilizer") (and live life slower)(crazy mantra of sustainable growth/fastest possible progress)(use REAL currency = energy)
method = real education, not child minding (sic) institutions while their parents unfulfill their own lives to distribute wealth? to the greedy
Suppose the trees or other organisms that remove disproportionate shares of CO2 from the atmosphere are more effective than expected? Or perhaps they will escape into the wild. When we have moved past CO2-producing power generation, they are still sucking CO2 out of the air, possibly down to levels that starve normal plants of a nutrient required for the existence of life on earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat sounds safe.
Idiocy. Learn to adapt. CO2 isn't the problem. If anything, its the cure. CO2 is free plant food. And it isn't affecting climate. But it does increase plant growth and food production. Some scientists are so consumed with tryiug to lower CO2, they're not asking whether they "should" lower CO2. Increased CO2 also allows plants to grow better in arid conditions because of the need for less transpiration. They need less water. Of course, more plants in the desert will decrease reflectivity, and increase humidity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBiofuels on the other hand are increasing pollution. It increases N2O emissions. Ethanol increases ozone formation. Hydrogen increases atmospheric methane longevity.
The fish I have worked with for over 40 years I believe could if grown on a wider scale help with the Co2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe numbers need a work but essentially growing 10,000 pounds of tilapia per acre of fertilized water will capture 1,000 english tons of carbohydrate for each acre grown which translates into approximatly 66 tons of carbon, for each acre of algae grown for tilapia, which is approximatly 10,000 pounds of tilapia per fertilized acre.
The current estimated value of each pound used for human consumption is $1.40 per pound of live weight which provides a renewable amount of good nutritious food.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe numbers need work but essentially growing 10,000 pounds of tilapia per acre of fertilized water will capture 1,000 english tons of carbohydrate for each acre grown which translates into approximatly 66 tons of carbon, for each acres of algae grown for tilapia, which is approximatly 10,000 pounds of tilapia per fertilized acre of algae produced, on which the tilapia are fed...
The current estimated value of each pound used for human consumption is $1.40 per pound of live weight which provides a renewable business providing a good amount of nutritious food, and captures 66 tons of carbon per acre
Reply | Report Abuse
First the hassle between those who are explaining the upcoming climate catastrophy and those who still negate it while invoking at best scientific doubt. It turns out to be mentally toxic for the common mind ill-equiped to deal with scientific subtleties.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen mix a bit of politics, a large amount of gonzo economics, a fear of change and a serious lack of foresight and we are all, as James Lovelock predicts, heading for the wall. And as he adds, just sit back and enjoy, till there is nothing more to enjoy, because it is aldeady too late to do anything significant.
Have a great day, y'all.
Biomass pyrolysis is already starting to implement CO2 sequestration. See www.eprida.com for full details. As investment in the technique increases, all the other hair-brained schemes will simply disappear. Yet, a vast anti-biomass pyrolysis lobby is already operating to ensure the world will go on polluting and making big profits for energy companies...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this