• Shading Earth Could Combat Global Warming.
    78 replies, posted
[TABLE="class: outer_border, width: 800, align: center"] [TR] [TD] [TABLE="width: 640, align: center"] [TR] [TD][h2]Shading Earth: Delivering Solar Geoengineering Materials to Combat Global Warming May Be Feasible and Affordable[/h2][B]A cost analysis of the technologies needed to transport materials into the stratosphere to reduce the amount of sunlight hitting Earth and therefore reduce the effects of global climate change has shown that they are both feasible and affordable.[/B][/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD] [TABLE="width: 500, align: center"] [TR] [TD]Published August 31, 2012, in IOP Publishing's journal Environmental Research Letters, the study has shown that the basic technology currently exists and could be assembled and implemented in a number of different forms for less than USD $5 billion a year. Put into context, the cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions is currently estimated to be between 0.2 and 2.5 per cent of GDP in the year 2030, which is equivalent to roughly USD $200 to $2000 billion. Solar radiation management (SRM) looks to induce the effects similar to those observed after volcanic eruptions; however, the authors state that it is not a preferred strategy and that such a claim could only be made after the thorough investigation of the implications, risks and costs associated with these issues. The authors caution that reducing incident sunlight does nothing at all to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, nor the resulting increase in the acid content of the oceans. They note that other research has shown that the effects of solar radiation management are not uniform, and would cause different temperature and precipitation changes in different countries. Co-author of the study, Professor Jay Apt, said: "As economists are beginning to explore the role of several types of geoengineering, it is important that a cost analysis of SRM is carried out. The basic feasibility of SRM with current technology is still being disputed and some political scientists and policy makers are concerned about unilateral action." In the study, the researchers, from Aurora Flight Sciences, Harvard University and Carnegie Mellon University, performed an engineering cost analysis on six systems capable of delivering 1-5 million metric tonnes of material to altitudes of 18-30 km: existing aircraft, a new airplane designed to perform at altitudes up to 30 km, a new hybrid airship, rockets, guns and suspended pipes carrying gas or slurry to inject the particles into the atmosphere. Based on existing research into solar radiation management, the researchers performed their cost analyses for systems that could deliver around one million tonnes of aerosols each year at an altitude between 18 and 25 km and between a latitude range of 30°N and 30°S. The study concluded that using aircraft is easily within the current capabilities of aerospace engineering, manufacturing and operations. The development of new, specialized aircraft appeared to be the cheapest option, with costs of around $1 to $2 billion a year; existing aircraft would be more expensive as they are not optimized for high altitudes and would need considerable and expensive modifications to do so. Guns and rockets appeared to be capable of delivering materials at high altitudes but the costs associated with these are much higher than those of airplanes and airships due to their lack of reusability. Although completely theoretical at this point in time, a large gas pipe, rising to 20 km in the sky and suspended by helium-filled floating platforms, would offer the lowest recurring cost-per-kilogram of particles delivered but the costs of research into the materials required, the development of the pipe and the testing to ensure safety, would be high; the whole system carries a large uncertainty. Professor Apt continued: "We hope our study will help other scientists looking at more novel methods for dispersing particles and help them to explore methods with increased efficiency and reduced environmental risk." The researchers make it clear that they have not sought to address the science of aerosols in the stratosphere, nor issues of risk, effectiveness or governance that will add to the costs of solar radiation management geoengineering.[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][IMG]http://images.sciencedaily.com/2012/08/120830191017.jpg?1346371577[/IMG][/TD] [TD]A cost analysis of the technologies needed to transport materials into the stratosphere to reduce the amount of sunlight hitting Earth and therefore reduce the effects of global climate change has shown that they are both feasible and affordable. (Credit: © mozZz / Fotolia)[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][B]SOURCE: [/B] [URL][URL]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120830191017.htm[/URL][/URL][/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Preliminary Sketches: [IMG]http://slacktory.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Mr.-Burns-blocks-out-the-sun.jpg[/IMG]
Soon the whole world will be like the surface in Metro 2033 but instead of a gas mask you'll need an umbrella!
Didn't Alpha Centauri (the game) have this?
[QUOTE=Bradyns;37476718][TABLE="class: outer_border, width: 800, align: center"] Preliminary Sketches: [IMG]http://slacktory.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Mr.-Burns-blocks-out-the-sun.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Other concept designs: [IMG]http://nurtz.com/upload/mirror.jpg[/IMG]
Artist's Conception: [IMG]http://i48.tinypic.com/t8t36d.jpg[/IMG]
Why not this instead? [img]http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090629004815/en.futurama/images/thumb/7/74/GiantIceCube.jpg/570px-GiantIceCube.jpg[/img]
Sounds like another case of treating the symptoms instead of the problem, really Personally I think it's a huge risk, given that we can't accurately predict with any certainty what the effect of reducing direct sunlight will have on the wider environmental systems
Cover the sun side with solar cells while you're at it.
What are these particles in question.
SIMPSONS DI- [QUOTE=Bradyns;37476718] Preliminary Sketches: [IMG]http://slacktory.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Mr.-Burns-blocks-out-the-sun.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Damnit
We don't know who struck first, us or them, but we do know it was us who blackened the skies.
[QUOTE=FreakySoup;37477497]We don't know who struck first, us or them, but we do know it was us who blackened the skies.[/QUOTE] Animatrix <3!
[QUOTE=Cows Rule;37476978]Cover the sun side with solar cells while you're at it.[/QUOTE] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere"]Nicccce.[/url]
[QUOTE=Bradyns;37477626]Animatrix <3![/QUOTE] Matrix.
This was a main plot point in Highlander II: The Quickening. God, that was a shitty movie.
why not just build u own planet
[QUOTE=Bomimo;37478363]Matrix.[/QUOTE] If the line is from Matrix, I think he is referring to the actual scene from Animatrix. Literally the worst idea ever.
Best idea ever! Why didn't we think of this earlier! [IMG]http://u.cubeupload.com/Paramud/pSrxM1.gif[/IMG] No really, i am not sure if this is a good idea or not. I mean could we accidently over compensate and create a new ice age?
[QUOTE=ripsipiirakk;37478850]No really, i am not sure if this is a good idea or not. I mean could we accidently over compensate and create a new ice age?[/QUOTE] SRM should never be conducted. Instead we should focus on carbon offsetting by planting additional trees and refining existing methods of carbon storage. We also need to cut back on the production of meat, since methane is an even worse greenhouse gas.
Plant. More. Trees.
When I've got some money I want to just buy a big chunk of land and leave it to grow however it wants to grow. Might throw a handful of tree-seeds out here and there but I'm not going to tend to it or anything. The farmers on either side would probably get pretty grumpy about weeds spreading from my land into theirs but bugger em
Highlander 2 already did this.
Reminds me of Angry beavers Mission to the big hot thingy they built a dam that shaded the earth
This just in: Researchers find that dark places are cooler than being out in the broiling sun light.
[QUOTE=Fangz;37478965]Highlander 2 already did this.[/QUOTE] I already said this. SIDE NOTE: The only saving grace of that movie was Sean Connery (Ramierez) sitting on a plane, macking on the redhead next to him. . . "You know what they say about women with red hair? (whispers) They like to sit on men's faces." A funny line to begin with. . .but made even funnier by Connery's accent. "You know what they shay about women with red hair? They like to shit on men's faces."
[QUOTE=ripsipiirakk;37478850]Best idea ever! Why didn't we think of this earlier! [IMG]http://u.cubeupload.com/Paramud/pSrxM1.gif[/IMG] No really, i am not sure if this is a good idea or not. I mean could we accidently over compensate and create a new ice age?[/QUOTE] An ice age doesn't just happen like that, it takes centuries, if we saw signs of that happening we would just stop or warm up the planet again(because we're very good at warming it up).
[QUOTE=ripsipiirakk;37478850]Best idea ever! Why didn't we think of this earlier! [IMG]http://u.cubeupload.com/Paramud/pSrxM1.gif[/IMG] No really, i am not sure if this is a good idea or not. I mean could we accidently over compensate and create a new ice age?[/QUOTE] It's a bad idea. The Earth has a very long time left, we're just going to have to be able to sustain ourselves. So far, not so good. Although I agree we must every drop of oil and every last resourceful fragment of some element, to make sure we are good to go when our planet is starting to reach its eventual doom.
read: global dulling is not good.
[QUOTE=FreakySoup;37477497]We don't know who struck first, us or them, but we do know it was us who blackened the skies.[/QUOTE] It's "scorched the skies".
Terraform Mars. I want to live on Mars.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.