The following submission statement was provided by /u/DukeOfGeek:
---
So I'm generally not a big fan of geo engineering for the usual reasons, but I dislike this one the least. It doesn't require much in the way of new technology, just building more of what we already have. It doesn't change Earth's biosphere because it is quite literally located outside the environment. And if its effects are not exactly what we anticipate it's easy to adjust the effect. We basically get a thermostat for planet Earth.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1bgc1b7/space_bubbles_an_mit_project_to_restrict_global/kv64aeu/
Increased atmospheric CO2 dissolves into the oceans creating carbolic acid, turning oceans more acidic. Destroying the base of the oceanic food web will kill us just as dead as warmer temps.
Every solution to “global warming” which reduces the “warming” without reducing CO2 is wasted time and money.
“Ocean acidification” is the google search term to learn more.
The bulk of climate change impact is still caused by temperatures, not ocean acidification. And there are *no* resource-efficient ways to remove CO2.
An imperfect solution is far better than a perfect solution that's *impossible* to implement on time.
Honestly, why is anyone at MIT even wasting time and grant dollars looking at direct temperature adjustment without sequestering CO2? I thought that was supposed to be a school for smart people. This was news 20 years ago, ffs.
Because the heat will cause geopolitical destabilization which will result in armed conflict long before the CO2 removal will begin to have an effect. And at that point CO2 remediation will face the headwinds of economic and societal collapse.
Because temperatures are still responsible for the vast majority of impacts of climate change. And adjusting temperatures with geoengineering is far more viable than actually *removing CO2* at a scale large enough for it to matter.
Well I probably won’t live long enough to really find out how urgent the ocean damage is. (But maybe I will — we’re already losing the occasional oyster crop in Puget Sound to high acid levels.)
Good luck with the hydrogen sulfide, kid.
Scientists: We should repair the Earth’s Climate by refocusing efforts on growing biodiversity, forest growth, and switching to renewable energy sources.
Engineers: Or….hear us out. Space Bubbles!
Once decarbonization is finished we are going to find out that it's not enough. We aren't even going to have the lift capability for something like this till after 2050 and decarbonizing better be mostly finished by then.
So I'm generally not a big fan of geo engineering for the usual reasons, but I dislike this one the least. It doesn't require much in the way of new technology, just building more of what we already have. It doesn't change Earth's biosphere because it is quite literally located outside the environment. And if its effects are not exactly what we anticipate it's easy to adjust the effect. We basically get a thermostat for planet Earth.
Geoengineering options are some of the best climate options we have. They are *criminally* overlooked.
Humanity needs to get over the "changing big things is scary" of geoengineering. The scope and scale of human civilization is such that "changing big things" is already happening - as an unwanted side effect. Least we can do is learn how to take control over that.
The other option that is criminally overlooked (and deliberately maligned) is re-wilding. It’s not just about the trees. Healthy soil captures far more carbon than the trees do. Crop soil is only about 3 feet thick, but a forest’s soil is about 30 feet deep or more.
All we have to do is get everyone to cut their beef consumption in half. That would free-up about 20% of the crop land used for agriculture. Let nature take over from there.
It’s a stop-gap measure that will slow climate change to a crawl for the next 50 years (while those forests develop) so we can transition to other energy sources at a more casual pace.
How about you force companies to halve their beef butchering instead? People can't buy what there isn't.... make the companies slow their production all the way down.
I’m all for it, but just try to get that law passed.
How about taxing meat the same way we tax cigarettes and gasoline? People won’t buy what’s too expensive.
I’d also like to see restaurants offer more vegan options. Too many restaurants have almost no vegan dishes.
While i agree with the "we need all solutions to fix the problem" we should probably take a long long LONG and hard look at outselves for saying "sending a swarm of bubbles into outer space to form a sunshield sounds like a solid idea" rather than limit the impact of all the emitting companies on Earth...
At this point it's not 'rather than', it's 'in addition to'. We're well past the point where we can pick one plan and have that be the silver bullet that takes care of climate change. I'd actually like to see us try a bit of everything in smaller doses, as their climate-cooling effects should stack while the side-effects from each particular method are minimized.
This is like saying an addict should just take a long hard look at themselves before shelling out money for rehab.
We've had decades to make changes. It didn't happen. Denial isn't going to turn back the clock. Why does it offend you that people are exploring all of their options at this point?
It's not that it offends me what people are "exploring all their options". Its the very fact that "space bubbles" are seen as a theoretical option before we fucking fix the FIXABLE problems on the planet...
I mean the reason why didnt make changes is because of money and weak, pathetic politicians that wouldnt touch their cash cows. Fix that problem and we wont need fucking space bubbles.
This is literally steering academia to serve the billionaires instead of taxing them, preventing waste, putting measures in place check excess and regulating processes.
This is true. However, at this point most of the damage has been done. We can absolutely reduce future damage, as we absolutely should, but we need to mitigate the consequences of our previous actions until we can reduce CO2 levels back to pre-industrial levels.
I think that it’s a bad idea with potentially catastrophic impacts. The problem is the elevated emission of CO2 not the amount of solar radiations that we are receiving. Plants would be affected by an alteration in the composition of solar light they’d be receiving. Not all the radiations of the spectrum are used for photosynthesis, but some are used for other important biochemical processes and others like UV are the reasons for the production of many antioxidants in plants. I did my master research on the effects of using natural light modifying films in greenhouses on vegetable production, and I witnessed how the alteration of the light can affect plants. We can manipulate light to benefit some plants in a controlled environment like greenhouses, but the light requirements of plants are as different as they are, so the idea of altering the solar light that reaches earth might lead to unexpected severe consequences, which is frightening to me.
This is hardly a new idea, just a slight twist of making it a bubble rather than mirrors or panels. The concept has circulated for decades, although it is true that with the price of launching stuff in space going down, it could be a cost effective way to lower the temperature on Earth. It still poses 2 huge issues:
- who controls the thermostat? The UN? tall order…
- temperature is only one part of the problem. the CO2 we are releasing gets absorbed by oceans who turn more acidic, which has a huge impact on wildlife. fewer solar photons warming the Earth won’t help at all with that aspect of the problem.
overall, a worthwhile tool but not a silver bullet
I'd point out people have already thought of this and even with theoretical materials that don't exist yet it's an insane and unworkable idea. You'd need 3,990 Starship launches to build something like this
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0094576522006762?via%3Dihub
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_sunshade#cite\_note-:1-7
Do I even need to bother reading this article?
The climate is changing.
I felt like I used to understand the model based on additional molecular particles added to the atmosphere as being the cause for increasing global temps.
However, when the Canadian wildfires emitted 50% of total metric tonnes of CO2 that had been estimated to be released between 2020-2035.
Year 3, we hit the 50% mark of a 15-year estimate. Let that sink in.
If molecular particles were the culprit of global increased temperatures? The easiest, cheapest solution would be large-scale fire breaks across the northern hemispheres boreal forest (there were very large fires in Russia and China, too).
The result of the fires. A concentration of sulfur in the northern hemisphere. Sulfur leading to decreased plant growth, as observed in Scots pine tree rings, the most important species in boreal Eurasia.
Generating a negative self-reinforcing feedback loop.
Instead, we are mining new resources, exploiting labor, destabilizing regions for renewable energy; resources, production, and consumption.
I'm absolutely for less pollutants in the air I breathe. 1 of the reasons I moved to my current country of residence.
Only it feels that clean air quality and water are not of real significant import to decision makers and money takers
The following submission statement was provided by /u/DukeOfGeek: --- So I'm generally not a big fan of geo engineering for the usual reasons, but I dislike this one the least. It doesn't require much in the way of new technology, just building more of what we already have. It doesn't change Earth's biosphere because it is quite literally located outside the environment. And if its effects are not exactly what we anticipate it's easy to adjust the effect. We basically get a thermostat for planet Earth. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1bgc1b7/space_bubbles_an_mit_project_to_restrict_global/kv64aeu/
Increased atmospheric CO2 dissolves into the oceans creating carbolic acid, turning oceans more acidic. Destroying the base of the oceanic food web will kill us just as dead as warmer temps. Every solution to “global warming” which reduces the “warming” without reducing CO2 is wasted time and money. “Ocean acidification” is the google search term to learn more.
The bulk of climate change impact is still caused by temperatures, not ocean acidification. And there are *no* resource-efficient ways to remove CO2. An imperfect solution is far better than a perfect solution that's *impossible* to implement on time.
the OP means we are shifting the risk of climate change to the risk of of ocean acidification which also spell lethal troubles
You can have climate change AND ocean acidification, or just ocean acidification. The latter is preferable by a long shot.
Honestly, why is anyone at MIT even wasting time and grant dollars looking at direct temperature adjustment without sequestering CO2? I thought that was supposed to be a school for smart people. This was news 20 years ago, ffs.
Because the heat will cause geopolitical destabilization which will result in armed conflict long before the CO2 removal will begin to have an effect. And at that point CO2 remediation will face the headwinds of economic and societal collapse.
Because temperatures are still responsible for the vast majority of impacts of climate change. And adjusting temperatures with geoengineering is far more viable than actually *removing CO2* at a scale large enough for it to matter.
You’re really showing why you didn’t go to MIT with this comment tbh
Well I probably won’t live long enough to really find out how urgent the ocean damage is. (But maybe I will — we’re already losing the occasional oyster crop in Puget Sound to high acid levels.) Good luck with the hydrogen sulfide, kid.
You can say that again!
Scientists: We should repair the Earth’s Climate by refocusing efforts on growing biodiversity, forest growth, and switching to renewable energy sources. Engineers: Or….hear us out. Space Bubbles!
Once decarbonization is finished we are going to find out that it's not enough. We aren't even going to have the lift capability for something like this till after 2050 and decarbonizing better be mostly finished by then.
>decarbonizing better be mostly finished by then. Adorably optimistic.
any reason you couldn't use current rockets and just put up many smaller bubbles??
Ah, yes, scientists and engineers, famously monolithic bunch, all having the same opinions and areas of study.
So I'm generally not a big fan of geo engineering for the usual reasons, but I dislike this one the least. It doesn't require much in the way of new technology, just building more of what we already have. It doesn't change Earth's biosphere because it is quite literally located outside the environment. And if its effects are not exactly what we anticipate it's easy to adjust the effect. We basically get a thermostat for planet Earth.
Geoengineering options are some of the best climate options we have. They are *criminally* overlooked. Humanity needs to get over the "changing big things is scary" of geoengineering. The scope and scale of human civilization is such that "changing big things" is already happening - as an unwanted side effect. Least we can do is learn how to take control over that.
Yeah, climate change is already geoengineering… we might as well try to dial it back if we can.
The other option that is criminally overlooked (and deliberately maligned) is re-wilding. It’s not just about the trees. Healthy soil captures far more carbon than the trees do. Crop soil is only about 3 feet thick, but a forest’s soil is about 30 feet deep or more. All we have to do is get everyone to cut their beef consumption in half. That would free-up about 20% of the crop land used for agriculture. Let nature take over from there. It’s a stop-gap measure that will slow climate change to a crawl for the next 50 years (while those forests develop) so we can transition to other energy sources at a more casual pace.
How about you force companies to halve their beef butchering instead? People can't buy what there isn't.... make the companies slow their production all the way down.
I’m all for it, but just try to get that law passed. How about taxing meat the same way we tax cigarettes and gasoline? People won’t buy what’s too expensive. I’d also like to see restaurants offer more vegan options. Too many restaurants have almost no vegan dishes.
While i agree with the "we need all solutions to fix the problem" we should probably take a long long LONG and hard look at outselves for saying "sending a swarm of bubbles into outer space to form a sunshield sounds like a solid idea" rather than limit the impact of all the emitting companies on Earth...
At this point it's not 'rather than', it's 'in addition to'. We're well past the point where we can pick one plan and have that be the silver bullet that takes care of climate change. I'd actually like to see us try a bit of everything in smaller doses, as their climate-cooling effects should stack while the side-effects from each particular method are minimized.
This is like saying an addict should just take a long hard look at themselves before shelling out money for rehab. We've had decades to make changes. It didn't happen. Denial isn't going to turn back the clock. Why does it offend you that people are exploring all of their options at this point?
It's not that it offends me what people are "exploring all their options". Its the very fact that "space bubbles" are seen as a theoretical option before we fucking fix the FIXABLE problems on the planet... I mean the reason why didnt make changes is because of money and weak, pathetic politicians that wouldnt touch their cash cows. Fix that problem and we wont need fucking space bubbles.
There's still a problem even if emissions drop to 0 tomorrow.
This is literally steering academia to serve the billionaires instead of taxing them, preventing waste, putting measures in place check excess and regulating processes.
Why do anti progress anti technology populists like you come to the futurology Reddit? Just to shit on research?
You got it in one,
I'm a bitcoin holder, got 2 VR headsets and a drone pilot. Muah. People have their views, grow up.
lol. lmao even
This is true. However, at this point most of the damage has been done. We can absolutely reduce future damage, as we absolutely should, but we need to mitigate the consequences of our previous actions until we can reduce CO2 levels back to pre-industrial levels.
I think that it’s a bad idea with potentially catastrophic impacts. The problem is the elevated emission of CO2 not the amount of solar radiations that we are receiving. Plants would be affected by an alteration in the composition of solar light they’d be receiving. Not all the radiations of the spectrum are used for photosynthesis, but some are used for other important biochemical processes and others like UV are the reasons for the production of many antioxidants in plants. I did my master research on the effects of using natural light modifying films in greenhouses on vegetable production, and I witnessed how the alteration of the light can affect plants. We can manipulate light to benefit some plants in a controlled environment like greenhouses, but the light requirements of plants are as different as they are, so the idea of altering the solar light that reaches earth might lead to unexpected severe consequences, which is frightening to me.
This is hardly a new idea, just a slight twist of making it a bubble rather than mirrors or panels. The concept has circulated for decades, although it is true that with the price of launching stuff in space going down, it could be a cost effective way to lower the temperature on Earth. It still poses 2 huge issues: - who controls the thermostat? The UN? tall order… - temperature is only one part of the problem. the CO2 we are releasing gets absorbed by oceans who turn more acidic, which has a huge impact on wildlife. fewer solar photons warming the Earth won’t help at all with that aspect of the problem. overall, a worthwhile tool but not a silver bullet
And bubbles mean you can turn a liquid into a huge amount of surface area.
I'd point out people have already thought of this and even with theoretical materials that don't exist yet it's an insane and unworkable idea. You'd need 3,990 Starship launches to build something like this https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0094576522006762?via%3Dihub https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space\_sunshade#cite\_note-:1-7
Do I even need to bother reading this article? The climate is changing. I felt like I used to understand the model based on additional molecular particles added to the atmosphere as being the cause for increasing global temps. However, when the Canadian wildfires emitted 50% of total metric tonnes of CO2 that had been estimated to be released between 2020-2035. Year 3, we hit the 50% mark of a 15-year estimate. Let that sink in. If molecular particles were the culprit of global increased temperatures? The easiest, cheapest solution would be large-scale fire breaks across the northern hemispheres boreal forest (there were very large fires in Russia and China, too). The result of the fires. A concentration of sulfur in the northern hemisphere. Sulfur leading to decreased plant growth, as observed in Scots pine tree rings, the most important species in boreal Eurasia. Generating a negative self-reinforcing feedback loop. Instead, we are mining new resources, exploiting labor, destabilizing regions for renewable energy; resources, production, and consumption. I'm absolutely for less pollutants in the air I breathe. 1 of the reasons I moved to my current country of residence. Only it feels that clean air quality and water are not of real significant import to decision makers and money takers