Guest essay by Eric Worrall
If geoengineering was ever attempted on a significant scale, it would likely lead to crop failure and global famine. As a 2018 study discovered, plants need sunlight. But despite this rather disturbing drawback, scientists are pushing ahead with their experiments.
Balloon test flight plan under fire over solar geoengineering fears
Swedish environmental groups warn test flight could be first step towards the adoption of a potentially “dangerous, unpredictable, and unmanageable” technology
A proposed scientific balloon flight in northern Sweden has attracted opposition from environmental groups over fears it could lead to the use of solar geoengineering to cool the Earth and combat the climate crisis by mimicking the effect of a large volcanic eruption.
In June, a team of Harvard scientists is planning to launch a high-altitude balloon from Kiruna in Lapland to test whether it can carry equipment for a future small-scale experiment on radiation-reflecting particles in the Earth’s atmosphere.
An independent advisory committee will rule on whether to approve the balloon test flight by 15 February. Swedish environmental groups have written to the government and the Swedish Space Corporation (SSC) to voice their opposition.
In the letters, seen by the Guardian, organisations including the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, Greenpeace Sweden and Friends of the Earth Sweden said that while the balloon flight scheduled for June does not involve the release of particles, it could be the first step towards the adoption of a potentially “dangerous, unpredictable, and unmanageable” technology.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/08/solar-geoengineering-test-flight-plan-under-fire-over-environmental-concerns-aoe
This is not the first time an unpopular green technology took on a life of its own. In 2007-8, global infatuation with biofuel subsidies triggered widespread hunger riots in poor countries.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is unnecessary. Geoengineering can be used to control the planet’s temperature. What we need is a liquid we place on the surface that evaporates exponentially as the temperature increases. And the vapor forms clouds to reflect away the incoming sunlight. Water looks like a good candidate, and 70% coverage should be lots….
No, no, no – the models only look scary if clouds amplify CO2 warming.
Calcium carbonate is what the experimenters are considering as a feasible agent. The Original Post highlighting volcanic (sulfur) impacts is misleading.
Although the cited experiments do plan comtrolled investigations of sulfate releases the aim is for improved scientific data; not planned use as an agent since, among other things, sulfate aerosols are known to cause stratospheric heating. The calcium carbonate experimental release is, in part, to try and determine what it’s actual impact on the stratosphere is.
Although I do not think solar geo-engineering should be done, here is the simplified trade off presumably informing proponents’ agricultural calculation . Bear in mind their strategy is not to use Mt.Pinatubo eruption spewed molecular weight equivalent levels of (say) calcium carbonate.
The concept is essentially to create haze and in 1999 experiments for every 1% increase in haze the reduction of assorted crop yields on average from between 0.7% to 1.0%. While, for example in tested wheat, there are reductions of 2% to 4% yields for every statistical 1*Celsius increase in the growing season’s average maximum & average minimum temperature. In other words a trade-off is being factored in & those apparently seem theoretically favorable to proponents of solar geo-engineering.
Furthermore, there is seed oil plant research that the impact of increased % of haze on it’s reduced yield is counteracted by increased levels of nitrogen fertilization. That said, to me this is impractical for poor farmers & usage sequel management – but to technical solar geo-engineering proponents a scientific work around.
As for the inter-play of CO2 with the above parameters I have no particular insight. And I am
not trying here to parse the purported trade-off as it relates to tropical vs. temperate, coastal vs. interior, nor summer vs. winter.
While, for example in tested wheat, there are reductions of 2% to 4% yields for every statistical 1*Celsius increase in the growing season’s average maximum & average minimum temperature.
Je ne comprend pas. Are you saying that 1o increase in the maximum summer temperatures on the prairies in Canada is going to trash our wheat harvest? And in India the growing season is the cool season and a 1o increase in temperature is going to decrease harvests? Where did you get this crap?
Also tell us what is the effect of a 1o drop.
Mankind does not even know what the optimum global climate actually is let alone how to achieve it. So we do not know whether cooling with particulate matter will improve our global climate or make it worse. Adding particulate material is deliberate pollution and could have serious medical consequences for many. How much would such an effort cost per expected degree C change in global climate and how long would the particles last in the Earth’s atmosphere? My best guess is that such an effort would be cost prohibitive and have possible dire consequences.
From what I’ve been able to pick up, they seem to think LIA temperatures and ~250ppm CO2 are the “right” climate. So they’re shooting for those targets – but what happens if they overshoot? The arrogance to think that there isn’t risk of that happening.
180ppm and temperatures below LIA, will that make these fools happy?
“As a 2018 study discovered, plants need sunlight.”
Does anyone recall the 1970’s sci-fi movie “Silent Running”?
Sure. Joan Baez and closet marijuana.
Is the precautionary principle not screamed by each and every enviro?
These geoengineering ideas I’ve seen proposed lately are insanely dangerous. Talk about “existential threat”!
At what point to they constitute an imminent threat?
The 2008 biofuel scare triggered the financial crash, as it drove food prices up for poor people and the collapse in the debt mountain.