Who controls Earth’s thermostat?
In 2008, scientists are contemplating ways of engineering Earth’s atmosphere to counter global warming. One goal is to reduce the total sunlight that strikes the Earth.
In 2008, scientists are contemplating ways of engineering Earth’s atmosphere to counter global warming.
They call it geo-engineering. One goal is to reduce the total sunlight that strikes the Earth. And one way to do that is to put reflective particles of sulfate into the stratosphere, much like a volcano does, but on a worldwide scale.
Earth & Sky spoke with Scott Barrett, an expert on environmental treaties at Johns Hopkins University in Washington. Barrett’s the author of, Why Cooperate? The Incentive to Supply Global Public Goods.
Scott Barrett: The main thing to understand about this is that the option is technically feasible based on preliminary analyses by engineers. So in contrast to reducing emissions, which requires the cooperation of quite a large number of countries, geo-engineering could potentially be done even by just a single country acting on its own.
Barrett said he’s by no means advocating this form of global climate control. But, he said, in the event of rapid and catastrophic climate change, reducing emissions of greenhouse gases might be too little, too late.
Scott Barrett: With this capability, all of a sudden we’re in almost a kind of territory where the big question is, who’s got their finger on the global thermostat?
Scott Barrett also said, “Some might want the climate to be cooled to a certain degree. It’s possible that some might actually prefer the warming. And so now, with this capability, all of a sudden we’re in almost a kind of territory where the big question is, who’s got their finger on the global thermostat.”
Barrett pointed out that, before trying this form of adjusting Earth’s thermostat, we would need to have a common understanding about the nature of the technology. He suggested the need for a broadbased scientific inquiry: what the technology can do, what it can’t do, what risks it poses for the world.
“There are also other concerns,” Barrett added, “because that means that we’d be using one global experiment to basically try to counteract another global experiment. I’d say the biggest problem with geo-engineering is probably going to come in the area of governance. Who decides when and if this technology will ever be used?”
Tell us what you think about global warming solutions in the comments below.
NEW! Find related content with Sphere
The main thing to understand about this is that the “preliminary analysis” of climate engineering was done 45 years ago in 1962 by Harry Wexler, head of research at the US Weather Bureau. He concluded then (and it is still true today) that:
“[Climate control] can best be classified as ‘interesting hypothetical exercises’ until the consequences of tampering with large scale atmospheric events can be assessed in advance. Most such schemes that have been advanced would require colossal engineering feats and contain the inherent risk of irremediable harm to our planet or side effects counterbalancing the possible short-term benefits.”
In short, geo-engineering is scientific speculation, not “engineering,” since no one can certify its safety. See http://www.colby.edu/sts/agu2007wexler.doc for details.
I agree on the side of caution – extreme caution. What would be the difference of medling unconsciously with our planet’s atmosphere for centurys with the likes of our industrial age, cars, etc. to consciously attempting to “make it all good?” by dumping another new chemical into it?
The risk is the same… at present we are headed for warming and to me what’s proposed could mean “ice age”... at a rapid rate.
And then there’s the “control issue” – Scary thought indeed.
looks like mankind has gotten itself in a bit too deep with its lust for making things faster, easier and more profitable. I’m sure we can adapt to a changing earth, but it’s a shame we’ve had to ruin a great (perhaps one of a kind?) piece of celestial art in the process.
I believe there is evidence that we have passed the tipping point and face very rapid climate change. It may be an exponential rate, considering that feedback is being provided by Nature itself. I agree that we must directly solve the problem by cooling the planet. We must, however, be very careful. The Human species, though technologically advanced, lacks the intelligence to grasp the consequences of its actions. I fear that Nature rapidly miscarries emerging intelligent species that do not have those characteristics necessary both for surviving and for doing no harm to other intelligent species.
Several possibilities seem worth considering. Reflective particles might be successful, but pose the risk of over compensating. Greater use of solar energy, particularly through the concentration of light energy using parabolic mirrors. Light energy used to do work, especially work that does not emit heat in its application, serves two purposes: It reduces the direct solar heating of the planet, restoring to some degree the albedo lost due to melting ice packs; and simultaneously provides energy that could be used for desalinization, or for producing hydrogen cells to propel autos and ships.
Worth considering are chemical reactions involving carbon dioxide, especially those, if there are any, which produce no harmful byproducts and require heat energy to fuel the reaction.
We should review how close we are to effecting artificial photosynthesis. It seems that perhaps our recent advances in our understanding of DNA could contribute to such an effort, which has the advantage of converting solar heating to edible materials, if only sugar (ethanol?). I disagree with those comments suggesting that we should dismiss any technology out of hand. Of course any truly effective solution will require an extraordinary engineering effort. Landing on the moon, and returning, required a huge engineering effort; but this was made possible by a charismatic leader, JFK, capable of mobilizing the population and seeing that the resources (e.g. much, much money for technical education) are made available. Also, we have many more tools at our disposal—someone recently pointed out that one laptop has more computer power than was available to NASA in the Apollo era—even though this power is currently used principally to make operating systems pretty, listening to music, and viewing videos.
The suggestion, which I continually hear espoused, that we have survived major climate change before, including ice ages. I fear that we have become so dependent on technology for our survival that we lack the low tech skills possessed by our ancestors. Certainly, waiting on rooftops for FEMA will not be a useful strategy to survive global warming. In fact, society could degrade to lawlessness, raising the possibility that we will kill each other before Nature has its shot.
At one point the possibility of generating electricity in space and microwaving it back to earth was mentioned. What came of that? Was it abandoned because it used microwave? I’ve noticed that opponents of nuclear energy, in weighing the evils, conclude that nuclear has less harmful potential.
Hydroponic farming, reforestation, introduction of plant life into warming areas where it would have previously been inappropriate, etc., are all worth considering.
Essentially, the situation is simple: We live on a rock that is very hot inside, has a cooler shell (though thin), is covered by a very thin atmosphere outside of which is a lot of very cold space. It is a heat transfer problem.
I don’t understand why Conservatives have made this life or death scientific problem a political issue. Of course, through religion, we have apparently lost any widespread understanding of the scientific method. I even heard someone on the radio suggest that evolution be taught as a belief. Then, we do have a large group of people, using the cover of religion, trying, through violent terrorism, to drive the world back into the 6th century. A couple days ago I searched for the ten largest corporations on the planet. The top group, apart from Walmart, which was number two, are all oil companies, with the remainder being auto manufacturers. Could be money I guess. But it does make me wonder if we are a species that deserves to survive.
I’ve been hearing about this for some time now, and in fact, it’s been suggested that this “experiment” is already underway, via the “chemtrails” that nobody seems able/willing to identify. These lingering contrails are evident in the skies on an almost daily basis, and the only explanation that has been given in the media is that they are being used for “climate control.” You can find information online regarding this phenomenon by conducting a search using the keyword “chemtrails.” If anyone has any official information on this program, I’d love to hear it! Thanks.
This idea scares me to death. Has anyone given any thought to what will happen to photosynthesizing plants if we reduce the amount of sunlight they receive? This is our food supply. Our crops will already be suffering because of shifts in climate; one more disruption may be enough to push them (and us) over the edge.
If we wish to solve a problem successfully, it’s important to define the problem correctly. In this case, the amount of sunlight hitting the earth isn’t the main issue; the rise of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere that trap the heat is. I’m not surprised when politicians or average citizens comes up with various wrong-headed schemes to fix things, but I get really worried when scientists, who presumably know better, do the same.
Who controls Earth’s thermostat?
I’ll answer that with another question, what is the ideal temperature we are going to set this thermostat to?
That is never brought up during
global warmingclimate change discussions. If we are warming, are we just returning to an optimal temperature? Aren’t we recovering from the Little Ice Age? Why would warmer temperatures be bad?Dale:
in a way, I think your right. the issue is that this warming is being brought about by mankind, faster than it would have happened naturally. I don’t believe there is any “correct” temperature that the earth should be at, rather a correct temperature for the earth during certain stages of change in the earth’s environment. the problems really start to arise when you think of several side effects stemming from this warming. assuming humans can adapt to this warming, then what’s the big deal? well, do you value the natural beauty of the earth as it is now? do you value the ice caps, the temperature of the colder regions? well, you better find a solution. do you value the organisms who will either leave their current area or go extinct as the temperature changes to one they cannot live in? well, you better find a solution. do you value the fact that in some areas it is not hot all the time, therefore tropical diseases are not a worry? well, you better find a solution. do you value the fact that your home by the sea is not currently underwater? well, you better find a solution. do you value the fact that the glacier/lake/river/aquifer that you get your water from still exists? well, you better find a solution. the problem with global warming is not the temperature, it’s the stuff that you’ll lose because of the temperature.
The damage done to society from mis and dis information makes me always shake my head in dis belief at the schemes conjured up from fear and half baked scientists,and yet they let them out of school un -whole.I,of course believe they should get a rebate and should be involved in a class action suit to get a large portion of their money back,but of course which ones would listen to old Papa?? Not many,I assure you,they are so motionally invested in the time and money they have spent to get that mis-information that they are the most shrill people on the planet the minute you challenge them. They are invested in their paradigm and will go into the sea as the pied piper lays out his tunes. The earth is self reliant,when we have these periodic anomalies that enhance our grid(magnetospheres) energy,the magma warms,the volcanoes steam and blow of course and the weather processes are enhanced until the excess grid energy abates and it will when this systemic situation leaves our galaxy.This has gone on for centuries and has evidence that is known of course. The chemtrails have been installed when the shkin cancer rates elevated and other problems became evident. THE JET EXHAUST is the single largest carbon problem in the atmosphere,it just is ,but that industry would move mountains before they would allow that to be played over and over on the news ,now wouldnt they? Has anyone seen just the militarys amount of jet fuel burned each and every day in the US? Check it out. Oxygen,of course is not made from photosynthesis and so does not fit into the equation for the amount of plants on the planet. We can remove all plants from the planet and breathe just fine,we just cannot eat. The photosynthesis theory that has been further adjusted to become facts to the science men who need to join the suit when I get done with them,I am going to repeat ,I am a grid scientist,we understand how the planet works from stem to stern and have completely explained the carbohydrate genesis through a plant on many forums,but it does take time for those emotionally invested boys to process grid science.Weather processes have been adjusted for centuries by a private group by adjusting nodes and flows.It is a simple,logical,beautifully engineered system.Everything on the earth including the spiral helix in your DNA is tasked to the grid system of the universe,As above,so below means the laws of the universe are the same in near or deep space as in your living room.We have many solutions to earths problems,but temperature variations out of what you seem to think are normal range will just have to wait. We will not allow goofball “Fixes” I assure you.When a train system is installed all over the US,and jets are only used for over water travel,the ozone layer will return to normal.Carbon is heavy and falls to earth,when the dew falls,the atmosphere at the lower levels is cleaned nightly.All of the winds aloft carbon from the jets stays long enough to deplete our oxygens and cause the carbon that evey science man from those “Other Schools” thinks causes a greenhouse effect,come back to school science men and get an addendum for your selves that will serve “Your People”
Has anyone though that the real theromostat comes from the “Yellow Disk” in the sky. Humanity is powerless to do anything about it since the sun is about 10^6 times larger than Earth!
This is very possible, and I fear it may be something that someday soon we may have to collectively consider… Because I do not see us as a world getting together and reducing our production of greenhouse gases quickly enough for it to forestall some of the more serious aspects of Global Warming. I would suggest we start off with a very small dust ring and measure its effects. If we give the particles magnetic properties, we could herd or sweep up these particles rapidly should the need arise.
We may have to choose doing this or roasting like a chicken in an oven someday….
After listening to the segment about adding particles to the earths atmosphere to block the suns rays…I thought…whoa, bad idea!!! Why not help the problem and not make a new problem??!! It seems to me that blocking the suns rays would surely ruin a huge source of energy. The amount of enegy used in Solar energy is already so small. Why tamper with it.
Why not try removing some of the particles in the air to relieve the stress on the atmosphere? What about huge balloons with filters that float in the upper atmoshere? What about a element that can cling to the CO2 particles and cause them to fall from the air? I know these are uneducated outlandish ideas but we have learned not to put out a fire with gasoline…. Haven’t we?
I’ve come to the conclusion that mankind is doomed. Whether it’s by our unwillingness to give up things like fossil fuels or our astonishing willingness to do stupid things like pump particulate into the atmosphere, we are too stupid a species to continue indefinitely. Mans folly is this idea that we are capable of impacting anything permanently. The earth would swallow our sky scrapers if we let it. Our only hope is to find a level of harmony with the planet. Instead of investing untold fortunes into ideas like the one this article presents, why not redirect those funds into finding a way to live here without damaging our home? I like the ideas mentioned above: hydroponic gardening, solar energy farming, etc. But, it’s going to take a global paradigm shift to change the way we live. Perhaps a little natural catastrophe is in order.
Seems we “Tree Hugging Dirt Worshipers” were warning about Global Warning years ago. We were sneered at, called crazies, and told we didn’t know what we were talking about. NOW it is “Hip” to be “Green” and everybody is running around coming up with more stupid destructive ideas to “fix” the problem. “It may be to late” the man in the interview said? Or something like that. Well, who’s fault would that be do ya think??? Maybe. Just maybe. If someone had listened a decade ago it wouldn’t be to late now.
And folks. It is never to late. Gaia loves Her children and if we can pull our heads out of our selfish me first attitudes, we can still save Her. We were NOT “given” dominion over the Earth. We were entrusted to care for the Earth.
Instead of running around making things worse, you all need to stop, go to the Elders of the Native American Tribes and ask, politely, what we can to do clean up the mess you’ve made. Then sit down,shut up and listen to the answer and implement what you are told to do. No name calling or belittling of ideas because they are not “scientific”. Your science is what got us into this mess. The methods and ideas are outmoded and 19th century folly.
There are hundreds of examples of the US Government trying to fix a problem with Nature and only making things 10 times worse. That is “modern science”???
Listen People. Listen to the Tree Huggers. You just might be surprised at the level of intelligent solutions offered.
I completely agree about seeking advice from the elders of our society. They’re an overlooked resource in problem-solving the mess we often find ourselves in. Thanks for the heartfelt comments.
central florida dui attorney vermont attorney general b goldberg attorney chicago chicago criminal defense attorney michelle clark san diego attorney michigan attorney general attorney general and texas central florida shoplifting attorney harrisburg workers compensation attorney florida criminal law attorney bronx criminal defense attorney ft lauderdale personal injury attorney illinois attorney orlando fraud attorney search engine optimisation consultant uk personal injury attorney boston central florida dwi attorney write an enduring power of attorney central florida dwi attorney enduring power attorney
I heard that a new “scientific” method to slow global warming is to seed the clouds with a chemical to block the sunlite. Why don’t we use what worked for millions of years? If there is a buildup of CO2 then what wants and processes CO2 better than anything? Green plants(trees)! So why don’t we cut down some more forests to make way for more houses and malls? Is there any correlation between our current problems and the systematic removal of trees and grasses from our environment? How hard would it be to require that any vegetation removed by a landowner be required to replace it in kind? We can’t be the eco-police for other countries but we can certainly set the best example. Look how much nicer our country would look and then be a much more enjoyable place to live if we just had more green vegetation to look at. We are at a threshold in time. The next few years will make a difference lasting generations. I believe that given a choice most people would make the right one for their children even it cost a few extra dollars. Get the word out!
Perhaps there is a need for transforming change to occur with all deliberate speed.
At least to me, global warming is not a “them versus us” problem, a China, India and the East versus USA, Europe and the West problem, for example. The overdeveloped nations, the developing nations and the underdeveloped nations are stakeholders with regard to global warming and climate change. For every stakeholder to point a finger at another stakeholder, as a way of placing blame for the potentially catastrophic consequences of runaway climate change, gets us nowhere, I suppose.
Is it reasonable and sensible for the human community to consider that those corporations and industries found to be responsible for polluting the environment during the 20th would be held accountable for that pollution AND those businesses responsible for polluting the Earth and its atmosphere in the 21st century would pay the costs of their present and future actions?
In order to secure a good enough future for our children, we could begin by examining the necessity of redirecting the great wealth that is being fecklessly hoarded and conspicuously squandered by a remarkably small group of people within the family of humanity toward conservation programs that protect and preserve the Earth.
Afterall, does anyone seriously believe or possess good scientific evidence to suggest that the artificially designed, dissipative national economies can much longer thrive without adequate resources and irreplaceable ecosystem services provided by Earth?
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
It is an interesting to consider trying to control how much sulight enters our atmosphere however, we should not take it serious. My concern is what and how many contingencies ONLY do we have if plan fails? I think this question should be thought out with more attention. Why is that we have to try and change our enviornment. When our way of life in this monopolizing society is causing this global warming. Why can’t we just change ourselves by changing our modes of transportation?