Posting in Environment
Scientists are considering drastic measures, like deflecting sunlight, to save our warming climate. What would be the impact on our food crops?
We are now in the times of drastic measures to halt the warming climate. For instance, scientists are seriously considering trying to deflect the sun’s rays from hitting the Earth, also known as sunshade geoengineering. But often trying to fix complicated issues leads to a bigger mess. Removing sunlight would threaten our food and water supply. Right?
Well the opposite might be true. New research out of The Carnegie Institution for Science published yesterday in the journal Nature Climate Change finds that deflecting sunlight away from Earth may just help increase crop yields.
Inspiration for the concept of sunshade geoengineering came from erupting volcanoes that shade the planet with small particles. But within a year the particles fall and the planet re-heats. So one option for replicating this natural phenomenon is to use high-flying airplanes to keep replenishing small particles in the stratosphere in order to scatter sunlight.
The Carnegie scientists used climate models to test the impact of shading the planet. They simulated climates with the CO2 levels of today as well as those with double the level of CO2 levels. Should we continue to burn fossil-fuels at today’s rate, it is the double levels of CO2 that we'll be dealing with in about three decades. The researchers then simulated what it would be like if we added a layer of sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere which would deflect 2 percent of sunlight from reaching Earth. And these changes were applied to crop models used in predicting future yields.
And they found that such deflection of sunlight would lead to increased yields in most regions for both projected levels of CO2. But why? How? Deflecting sunlight reduces temperatures but not CO2. Reducing temperatures is a good thing for the plants, but they get a further boost with the higher concentrations of fertilizing CO2.
To be sure, however, the models also predict that some areas might be harmed by the slightly darker days. Some experts also worry that such a drastic measure doesn’t solve the issue of ocean acidification, which is causing massive deterioration of coral reefs and basically impacting every corner of sea life. Plus there are plenty of political issues regarding high-flying planes traversing the Earth spewing aerosols.
"The climate system is not well enough understood to exclude the risks of severe unanticipated climate changes, whether due to our fossil-fuel emissions or due to intentional intervention in the climate system," said Julie Pongratz of Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution, in a press release. "Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is therefore likely a safer option than geoengineering to avert risks to global food security."
Jan 23, 2012
Only just seen this, It does have some merit, and it's not the final answer.. BUT the best way would be for the greedy fat-cat bankers to use their ill-gotten funds to better use than just fattening their balances, we might get somewhere!
Has anyone else noticed that the scientists who benefit the most from government funding for warming research are the people who would make the most money in this scheme?
Of the sun being blocked ...you do not need to be a member of facebook to view this album https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.2414072400349.2110382.1507470217&type=3&l=aa0826a4b4
OK Folks....here's a little education for those that haven't noticed. LOOK UP. That's pretty much it. Want more? See those planes? The one's criss crossing the sky? Watch their path. Watch what YOU CALL "contrails". Watch them spread. Watch your blue sky turn murky and grey. Watch them block the sun. If they aren't up there blocking the sun then what the heck ARE they doing?
Phytoplankon could remove billions of tons of CO2, addressing the warming factor, but much, much research is needed first - we need to get started. Please see http://randz.wordpress.com/ or http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/08/10/764816/-Should-we-Seed-the-Oceans,-to-Reverse-Runaway-CO2-Rates-w-POLL
Hi To worry about global warming and treat that so that we can burn more and add more co2 is misguided.. Remember when you burn and take up an O2 molecule to give off a CO2 molecule, you reduce the volume of O2 availabe for us animals to breathe. The only answer to global warming AND too much CO2 AND diminishing O2 is to plant green -trees, plants, rain gardens and keep the plants alive If everyone would plant their global warming footprint in plants each year and keep them alive, then we could solve the problem of global warming which is a symptom of too much CO2.
... that doesn't help in the long run. It just puts dealing with it off for a while. And in the meantime it doesn't help the issue of ocean acidification at all.
...already did it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnlTo0Q10y4
i can't imagine that the guys that can't predict the weather tomorrow are going to improve the earth by reflecting sunlight away from it !!! bad, bad, bad, bad, bad idea !!!!
Where the heck did that come from? Where in this article did they mention anything about anyone making any money? You know, when you worry more about who's getting rich it's obvious that your objections are more based in ideology than they are in science.
Oxygen makes up 21% of the atmosphere, or about 209,460 parts per million (ppm). CO2 currently makes up about 400 ppm, but was around 250 ppm at the start of the industrial revolution. After burning significant amounts of carbon for about 150 years, we only reduced the O2 in the atmosphere by about 150 ppm through creating CO2. This is such a tiny amount of the total O2 in the atmosphere that it doesn't matter. Even if we burned all the carbon stored in the earth, we still won't significantly reduce the O2. If there is any danger, it's from killing the plants on land and in the ocean which produce O2. Oxygen is so reactive that if all the plants disappeared, the oxygen in the atmosphere would eventually combine with iron and other elements and disappear.
At the Copenhagen, Mexico and South Africa Global Warming conferences the same group of scientists, many of them are the same people behind the warming research, proposed this very plan. 3 times. The bottom line was PAY US TO FIX THIS. Do you ever read the conference notes, or just quote the sound bites?
... has everything to do with you considering global warming a scam in the first place. Climate science is solid and well supported. Many of the things climate scientists have said would happen are happening, faster than they said they would. I don't give a damn what Al Gore says. I've never seen his movie or read any of his books, just a couple of short essays. This isn't about who is profiting, it's about science.
The best con artists are the ones who get you to pay them to identify a problem only they can see AND get you to pay them to fix it. Al Gore and company are no better than the snake oil salesmen of old.
Not all climate scientists are proposing this. In fact I suspect very few of the major climate scientists would support it. Yes, there is a group that does make the proposal but I don't pay that much attention to them. The proposal to seed the stratosphere with SO2 is [b]NOT[/b] A FIX FOR GLOBAL WARMING! At best it just buys some time and it we ever stop doing it all of the global warming that's been held back will hit with a vengeance. As I said, when you worry more about where the money is going than the science it's obvious your objections are ideological, not scientific.