Guest essay by Eric Worrall
With the prospect of trillions of dollars of climate cash well and truly fading, researchers seem to be bidding down the price tag for saving the planet.
Blocking out the sun to fight global warming: Bob McDonald
Solar geoengineering is controversial but proponents say we have no choice
By Bob McDonald, CBC News Posted: Mar 31, 2017 5:55 PM ET Last Updated: Mar 31, 2017 5:55 PM ET
In light of the new U.S. administration’s decision to cut back on environmental protection and cultivate the coal industry, carbon emissions are unlikely to go down over the next four years.
So scientists are considering a scheme to shade the atmosphere from the sun and cool the Earth to compensate for global warming. It’s a risky plan.
The concept is called Solar Geoengineering. One of the ways it could work, scientists say, is by injecting tiny particles high into the atmosphere, where they where together they would act as a sun shield, reflecting sunlight back into space and cooling the planet.
…
When Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, 20 million metric tonnes of sulphur dioxide was blown into the stratosphere. There the molecules reacted with water vapour to form tiny particles that were carried on high altitude winds, producing a global haze. The average temperature of the Earth dropped by 0.5 C for more than a year after the eruption.
The geoengineering project would do the same thing on a much smaller scale, using a fleet of aircraft to spray 250,000 metric tonnes of sulphur dioxide, or some other material such as calcite into the lower stratosphere.
…
Scientists estimate that by brightening the atmosphere with these particles, they could reflect one percent of sunlight back into space and provide enough cooling to balance the warming effect of the carbon emissions coming from industry.
Harvard Professor David Keith estimates the project would have to be an international effort and cost about $1 billion to $10 billion per year. That sounds like a lot, but it pales compared to the U.S. military budget, for example, which is expected to increase to $639 billion dollars in 2017.
…
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/bob-macdonald-blocking-sun-global-warming-1.4050149
While it might seem tempting to take this special offer price for saving the world, I suggest if we wait a bit longer, we might see even more extraordinary price cuts. Who knows, next year’s price for saving the world might be a 100K research grant and a few packs of smokes.
Looks like last months temperature has made a big drop:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg
I’ll be interested to see if there’s another step plateau from the El Nino like we saw in 1998. Maybe we’ll finally get that series of ever-climbing new highs that some have been predicting for decades.
“Looks like last months temperature has made a big drop”
Yeah, there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature is going down instead of up. Back to the drawingboard CAGW promoters.
I wonder if that “scientist”-activists who propose this scam realize that in the 70s – when the consensus was we were headed toward a new ice age – the then geniuses wanted to spread soot over the the poles to melt the ice caps. Where would we be today if that happened? Is this proposal a exhibit of arrogance, stupidity or a provocation?
That amount is just the asking price along the lines of a cost overrun plan for a nuclear plant project. It has no relation to performance metrics or outcomes. It might fund the travel budget.
Was this some sort of “April Fool” joke? Estimates varying by an entire order of magnitude, sounds like the Jerry Brown ‘bullet train’ which runs slower than most 95 year old grandmas in the LA Marathon…
No, you want a space mirror array. It could either shade or brighten the Earth as needed, and/or power other efforts like asteroid mining and robotic factories. Very expensive but over 50-100 years, probably doable.
One to ten billion per year is a hell of an advance for science fiction! Maybe Mosher will start a writers’ workshop.
Interesting post.
Actually any fears of miscalculation are rather silly – solar input can be adjusted easily. Look at the very risky alternative, you know, the one the warmists are trying to obtain : remove all sources of CO2 emissions by replacing cars and power plants. So NOW where are you if the CO2 levels get too low to sustain plants in the quantity required to feed the planet? Geoengineering is a far, far more flexibe and risk aversive method.