As the tumultuous twenty-first century rolls on, it is becoming clear that simply cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions will not be enough to prevent catastrophic climate change around the world. Even if greenhouse gas emissions ceased completely, the momentum emissions generated thus far will be too great to stop. Advanced technologies, such as geoengineering, have been proposed as a savior from the unfolding crisis. However, recent research conducted by MIT’s climate scientists indicates that geoengineering may have negative unintended consequences for our global ecosystem.
Geoengineering is a proposed technology that would release dimethyl sulfide into the atmosphere, which would create sulfate aerosols that reflect sunlight and increase cloud cover. This would result in a global cooling effect to counteract GHG-caused global warming. This method is inspired by certain phytoplankton, which naturally absorb carbon dioxide and produce dimethyl sulfide. Ocean fertilization via mass dispersal of nutrients to encourage phytoplankton growth might be an effective method of inducing geoengineering.
Development of geoengineering technology has attracted the attention of Bill Gates and the CIA, which is reportedly interested in using geoengineering technology to weaponize the weather. This attention from high places should result in increased public interest and accountability of the project. “Discussions of geoengineering are gaining ground recently, so it’s important to understand any unintended consequences,” says Chien Wang, a co-author of the study and a senior research scientist at MIT. “Our work is the first in-depth analysis of ocean fertilization that has highlighted the potential danger of impacting rainfall adversely.”
Related: Could this rock be the key to fighting climate change?
What did the researchers conclude about the viability of geoengineering? “Generally, our results suggest that the cooling effect associated with enhanced DMS emissions would offset warming across the globe, especially in the Arctic,” says Benjamin Grandey, co-author of the MIT study. However, Grandey notes “precipitation would also decline worldwide, and some parts of the world would be worse off. Europe, the Horn of Africa, and Pakistan may receive less rainfall than they have historically.” The researchers warn that this decrease in rainfall could have disastrous consequences for ecological and human well-being. The team hopes that their work will inspire others to dive deeper into the impact of geoengineering. Certainly, drastically altering the atmosphere to correct for a previous violent alteration should be well-studied and understood before it is treated as a viable global solution.
Images via University of Notre Dame and NASA/Wikipedia
A carbon diet strategy to address elevated levels of GHG in the air is unviable (it would take to long to explain it here). That is OK, because it is now financially viable to remove the CO2 from the air and turn the carbon into a valuable product at a profit. http://www.fastcoexist.com/3050184/this-new-technology-sucks-up-carbon-pollution-and-turns-it-into-carbon-nanotubes "The method can run on solar power, so it serves as a carbon sink. If machines were spread over a large area—10% of the size of the Sahara Desert—the scientists calculated that they could remove enough carbon in the atmosphere to return to preindustrial levels in about a decade."
IPCC AR5 TS.6 Key Uncertainties is where climate science “experts” admit what they don’t know about some really important stuff. IPCC is uncertain about the connection between climate change and extreme weather especially drought. IPCC is uncertain about how the ice caps and sheets behave. Instead of gone missing they are bigger than ever. IPCC is uncertain about heating in the ocean below 2,000 meters which is 50% of it, but they “wag” that’s where the missing heat of the AGW hiatus went, maybe. IPCC is uncertain about the magnitude of the CO2 feedback loop, which is not surprising since after 18 plus years of rising CO2 and no rising temperatures it’s pretty clear whatever the magnitude, CO2 makes no difference. http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/3713-CO2-Feedback-Loop Barring some serious flaw in science or method, Miatello’s paper should serve as the death certificate for AGW/CCC. http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE.pdf https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/04/dr-bill-gray-responds-to-pope-francis/ http://www.climatism.net/facts-about-global-warming/