Essay by Eric Worrall
According to MIT researchers, blowing bubbles in space to block sunlight might be the solution to our climate woes. But MIT, like all the others, are ignoring a fundamental flaw with solar geoengineering schemes. Plants need sunlight.
MIT Scientists Propose Space Bubbles to Reverse the Worst of Climate Change
Angely Mercado
Published 2 days ago: June 17, 2022 at 4:48 amA team of researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology believe that we can mitigate the worst of climate change with… space bubbles. They’ve outlined a strategy in which a huge raft of bubbles, carefully positioned between Earth and the Sun, would deflect sunlight (and thus heat) to stop further global warming.
“Geoengineering might be our final and only option. Yet, most geoengineering proposals are earth-bound, which poses tremendous risks to our living ecosystem,” a web page dedicated to the solution reads. “If we deflect 1.8% of incident solar radiation before it hits our planet, we could fully reverse today’s global warming.”
The bubble array would be made of inflatable shields of thin silicon or another suitable material, according to the team. The bubble cluster would be placed in outer space at a Lagrange Point, where the Sun’s and Earth’s gravitational pulls create a stable orbit. The researchers also said that if the plan becomes a reality in the future, the completed array would be roughly the size of Brazil.
They admitted that one of the main concerns with their proposal would be the logistics of fabricating a large film, transporting it into space, and then unfolding it to form the bubble raft. They suggested fabricating the spheres in outer space to minimise shipping costs.
…
Read more: https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2022/06/mit-scientists-propose-space-bubbles-to-reverse-the-worst-of-climate-change/
The main project website is available here.
This project seems more fun than other geoengineering favourites, like blowing sulphuric acid or lime dust into the stratosphere. But aside from immense cost, all these geoengineering fantasies suffer a fatal flaw.
If ever implemented, solar geoengineering could cause a global famine.
Estimating global agricultural effects of geoengineering using volcanic eruptions
Jonathan Proctor, Solomon Hsiang, Jennifer Burney, Marshall Burke & Wolfram Schlenker
Abstract
Solar radiation management is increasingly considered to be an option for managing global temperatures1,2, yet the economic effects of ameliorating climatic changes by scattering sunlight back to space remain largely unknown3. Although solar radiation management may increase crop yields by reducing heat stress4, the effects of concomitant changes in available sunlight have never been empirically estimated. Here we use the volcanic eruptions that inspired modern solar radiation management proposals as natural experiments to provide the first estimates, to our knowledge, of how the stratospheric sulfate aerosols created by the eruptions of El Chichón and Mount Pinatubo altered the quantity and quality of global sunlight, and how these changes in sunlight affected global crop yields. We find that the sunlight-mediated effect of stratospheric sulfate aerosols on yields is negative for both C4 (maize) and C3 (soy, rice and wheat) crops. Applying our yield model to a solar radiation management scenario based on stratospheric sulfate aerosols, we find that projected mid-twenty-first century damages due to scattering sunlight caused by solar radiation management are roughly equal in magnitude to benefits from cooling. This suggests that solar radiation management—if deployed using stratospheric sulfate aerosols similar to those emitted by the volcanic eruptions it seeks to mimic—would, on net, attenuate little of the global agricultural damage from climate change. Our approach could be extended to study the effects of solar radiation management on other global systems, such as human health or ecosystem function.
Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0417-3
The reality is there is no remotely plausible level of global warming which would make it worth taking the risk of attempting to reflect sunlight to cool the Earth.
Even if the conditions of the Early Eocene (5-8C warmer than today) returned, tropical conditions most of the way to the Arctic and Antarctic, plants would still grow, and farms would still be productive. Almost certainly more productive than today.
Our primitive primate ancestors dominated and prospered during the extreme warmth of the Early Eocene, with populations of primates exploding across Africa, Europe and Asia. So we have strong paleo evidence that warm weather is no threat to primates. We also know from today’s world, the Earth’s tropics are some of the most productive regions in the world.
Solar geoengineering by contrast has the potential to mess up the entire ecosystem, and cause widespread starvation and crop failures. Not just because cool periods are less productive, but also because plants suffer immensely if they are deprived of sunlight – so much so, even a mild volcanic perturbation is enough to produce a noticeable dip in production.
Attempting to tamper with the amount of sunlight Earth receives in my opinion would be far more dangerous than any remotely plausible negative consequences of global warming itself.
Obviously this is a worst case scenario. The odds are negligible of a solar geoengineering project like this ever advancing sufficiently to be a threat to the global ecosystem. But given the evidence of negative consequences, in my opinion MIT scientists shouldn’t even be making the attempt to promote this lunacy.
The true believer (or ‘baptist’ as opposed to ‘bootlegger’) is opposed to human CO2 emissions on the assumption that any human impact on the Earth, or any other planet for that matter, is necessarily bad ipso facto.
This idea should cause an attack of the vapors in any true believer, in fact it makes me feel a little woozy.
The thought bubbles are getting bigger.
Cut back Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere and block sunlight. What could go wrong?
/sarc.
Academic simpletons.
Although I’m sure that non-academic qualifications such as bedroom preferences and epidermal melanin content play an increasingly big role in admissions to the formerly-great institute on the Chaaaaalz Rivah, it’s hard to imagine that they’re accepting simpletons. More likely there’s a hidden agenda.
I think we need to be clear with wanna be geo-engineers.
If you try to enact one of these schemes you need to understand you are putting your life on the line, because if this goes horribly wrong we will find you and you will get the full William Wallace.
It has to be made clear in advance that there are consequences.
This study just proves that Einstein was right. “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”
Albert Einstein
A new College song for MIT (with apologies to the fans of UK soccer team West Ham United):
I’m forever blowing bubbles,
Pretty bubbles in the air,
They fly so high, nearly reach the sky,
Then like my dreams they fade and die.
Fortune’s always hiding,
I’ve looked everywhere,
I’m forever blowing bubbles,
Pretty bubbles in the air.
I’m dreaming dreams, I’m scheming schemes,
I’m building castles high.
They’re born anew, their days are few,
Just like a sweet butterfly.
And as the daylight is dawning,
They come again in the morning!
I should have read to the current end of the comments before posting the same song
The alarmists are constantly screaming at us, CO2 is the control molecule of climate. Those who point out, it is really all to do with sunlight and Milankovitch cycles coupled with solar cycles that are the actual important variables, are shouted down at every turn. Get with the ‘settled’ science they demand, often throwing in, ‘you denier you’.
How strange then? Here we have MIT clearly stating “It’s the Sun what did it” with so much confidence it is the Sun to blame, they want to spend trillions blocking it out. They are certain and want us to continue to freeze at the present chilly world average of barely 15 deg. C lower atmosphere temperature.
The alarmists can’t have it both ways can they (maybe they can in their view)? If CO2 is the villain of the piece, then they have to devote $trillions to playing with CO2? If it is Sunlight volume, then they want to spend $trillions on sun shades in space.
You don’t think they are a bit confused about what to suggest causes climate variation do you?
Actually, no, they aren’t suggesting the sun as the cause. These hare-brained geoengineering schemes are merely looked upon as last-ditch, emergency measures to “fix the climate”. What these morons don’t realize is that 1) Our climate isn’t “broken”, nor is CO2 a “problem”, and 2) “Fixing” a non-problem will actually create a host of problems for both humanity and indeed life on earth.
Hmm, so deflecting 1.8% of sunlight would completely reverse the little bit of gentle warming we’ve apparently caused. For comparison purposes, how much does the amount of sunlight hitting the earth (the frequencies that warm us up) vary by ‘naturally’?
First off…what is the earth optimal temperature. They keep claiming temps are going up and that is bad, but what temps is optimal?
MIT has gone down the drain. Even at a Lagrange point, thrusters must be used to keep a large, light object from moving away owing to the pressure of the solar wind which is highly variable. The larger the object, the more thrust must be used. Even the James Webb Space Telescope uses thrusters.
Only true for L1, L2 and L3; not true for L4 and L5.
JWST is located in orbit around L2.
Can anyone point to a mechanism that is going to increase today’s beneficial one point three degrees per 100 years warming? IPCC models? Heh heh.
Cow farts…it’s them pesky cows….man.
Warmer is better, said everyone with a lick of sense.
Why not put these loonies at a La Grange point?
Not a bad idea. How many would we need to cover the same area?
The world is threatened by many disasters at once and world leaders are powerless against them. Climate change is one such threat and leaders can now make history by unilaterally introducing geoengineering later this year. Biden has the best chance of doing that.
The world has been threatened by nature for billions of years. Biden has no clue about leadership. The moron cannot ever remember to put his feet down when stopping while riding a bike.
Sulphuric acid, now bubbles (of what?). Geoengineering: a new form of pollution of space.
Check Professor Valentina Zharkova’s solar cycle research and what we will suffer in coming years. Our Looney lefty snowflakes will wish they had installed those natural gas pipelines for heat as they freeze. At least we are beginning to realize that our climate change is dictated by the Sun.
More idiocy about something that we can do nothing about.
From the article: “They admitted that one of the main concerns with their proposal would be the logistics of fabricating a large film, transporting it into space, and then unfolding it to form the bubble raft. They suggested fabricating the spheres in outer space to minimise shipping costs.”
About 40lbs of helium would be sufficient to inflate a one-mile-diameter spherical “balloon” in space.
This was incorporated into one concept for a Solar Power Satellite in the past. You blow up a one-mile-diameter balloon covered will solar cells using the helium.
Don’t take this to mean I’m encouraging the geoengineering of the Earth’s climate. I would actively discourage such recklessness.
I am saddened that such a prestigious institution ignores the scientific method and supplants it with politics and a grant.
Wait, WHAT??!!…. Apparently …..MIT is no longer Techno-LOGICAL….
These people will kill us all
Just wondering if they’ve calculated how much terrestrial carbon would be emitted to construct and support a couple million square kilometers worth of silicon shields in a earth-solar L1 point (which is only semi-stable, btw, requiring refueling for station keeping). Are these the same brilliant experts who reject orbital solar beamed power?
This is a good time to point out the ORIGINAL meaning of the Precautionary Principle:
Even Wikipedia got this one right:
(My Bold.)
(The 1st Rio Conference turned this on its head; they said “The Climate Problem (TM)” is so serious, it is worth the risk” or sumptin like that.
Wouldn’t MIT be red faced if they did as they proposed and at the same time the earth decided to enter into another Little Ice Age?
Calling this garbage “science” is an insult to actual scientists.
It’s obviously a terrible, terrible idea.
It’s the product of a young, ambitious mind. An ill-informed mind. If you and I can see the fact that climate alarm is almost entirely the output from computer models, why can’t MIT professors see it?
My guess is their reason is biased by the billions of dollars in grants available for climate “research.” They should be able to milk this idea for a few years of grants, until whoever is at the wheel of funding wakes up.
Yep. Problem is too many marginal “scientists” chasing grant money, therefore a flood of fuccockta theories.