tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5066455796527100553.post4104868076732137084..comments2017-07-23T08:22:23.706-07:00Comments on Geoengineering: a crumbling world or a bright future? : Mirrors: not for just looking at your appearance?Maria Christofihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17691421487635204262noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5066455796527100553.post-53159542747042864392015-11-20T12:32:58.876-08:002015-11-20T12:32:58.876-08:00HI Caitlin, thank you for your comment! I am glad ...HI Caitlin, thank you for your comment! I am glad you enjoyed this blog-post. I believe it may be perceived as high-fetched, however, if you think about it we are more than capable to send satellites and spacecrafts so why not some kind of mirrors? However, I agree with you! The negative implications are quite high (although not as bad as aerosols) and it may not be the best of way of reducing global temperatures.Maria Christofihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17691421487635204262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5066455796527100553.post-46560166341107505762015-11-20T05:35:38.331-08:002015-11-20T05:35:38.331-08:00Hi Maria, I think that you've provided a reall...Hi Maria, I think that you've provided a really informative overview of the potential power of mirrors to stop global warming. I think I agree with Celia, it's quite a far-fetched notion however I think the theory is does make sense... but in terms of implementation I can't see a future for mirrors in space! I think that despite the potential of this SRM method the fact that it could have negative implications over the hydrological scale which could plunge those in poor climatic and environmental situations further into darkness, there is a significant ethical element obstructing it's progress for the future! <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01957225695585655707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5066455796527100553.post-77998272568047062972015-11-11T10:36:49.354-08:002015-11-11T10:36:49.354-08:00I agree with you that geoengineering should be use...I agree with you that geoengineering should be used with renewables. <br /><br /> In regards to if they are being distracted away from viable energy alternatives I'm not completely sure if I agree. as there is a lot of potential in my opinion yet the risks need to be eliminated with geoengineeringMaria Christofihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17691421487635204262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5066455796527100553.post-83513125164061816252015-11-11T08:47:09.755-08:002015-11-11T08:47:09.755-08:00I just think they are probably a bit over the top ...I just think they are probably a bit over the top and impractical - I dread to think how much energy it would take to install them in the first place! <br />I think perhaps a combination of geoengineering and renewable technology might work, but it depends on the cost and legitimacy of the geoengineering method. I just feel like the focus on geoengineering is distracting scientists away from viable energy alternativesAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01525489430647168375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5066455796527100553.post-39596265135910882832015-11-10T14:36:32.241-08:002015-11-10T14:36:32.241-08:00I believe that we are at a point where a change is...I believe that we are at a point where a change is needed as carbon dioxide levels are constantly increasing. I agree that we are still not at a point where global temperatures need to be reduced rapidly. However, if we want to decrease impacts as soon as possible we cannot wait to the last minute. If we want geoengineering processes with low risks and less environmental impacts without degrading the biosphere, we should start soon, as the affects of these processes will take longer to become evident. Hence, if we are using small scale processes of geoengineering, we should use both SRM and CDR to see some change at slightly faster rates. Although, as I have already said previously, I think geoengineering should be used with a combination of renewable processes to reduce climate change impacts and not completely on its own.Maria Christofihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17691421487635204262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5066455796527100553.post-67841201431832197222015-11-10T02:41:45.089-08:002015-11-10T02:41:45.089-08:00See, I would disagree with you there - I think the...See, I would disagree with you there - I think they can definitely be exclusive. Whilst the most effective way forward for simply reducing global temperatures may be to use a combination, we are not yet at a point where we need to reduce global temps so rapidly as to throw other environmental concerns out the window. We could use low-risk CDR without SRM easily at the moment to help mitigate climate change, whilst still protecting the other components of the biosphere and taking low risk options. <br /><br />The ultimate goal of all of this is to stop climate change altering the biosphere in ways which are negative for humans. So why should we do this by methods (whether they be SRM or CDR) which just degrade different parts of the biosphere we're trying to protect?Ben Siggeryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04339976326204118499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5066455796527100553.post-49570657951614552402015-11-09T17:23:18.408-08:002015-11-09T17:23:18.408-08:00I totally agree with you! However, I think that SR...I totally agree with you! However, I think that SRM and CDR are not mutually exclusive. I believe in order to be successful one must include both, as it may be more effective decreasing CO2 levels yet also decreasing average temperatures (even though CDR may be more successful than SRM). <br /><br />Nonetheless, all these suggestions are formulated through modelling highlighting the high degree of uncertainty within these processes.<br />Maria Christofihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17691421487635204262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5066455796527100553.post-26819007641368164742015-11-09T16:34:38.627-08:002015-11-09T16:34:38.627-08:00In general I'm more open to CDR geoengineering...In general I'm more open to CDR geoengineering rather than SRM, as it makes more sense to remove CO2 than to try and limit radiation. Removing CO2 is only working within limits (lower co2 ppm) that the earth has already experienced and can equally help to bide time whilst we find more efficient methods to reduce CO2 emissions, and indeed prevent levels from rising to 500ppm and above.<br /><br />By contrast, SRM allowing CO2 to continue to rise whilst reducing radiation pushes the earth into a state we really don't know a lot about. We really don't know for sure what the feedback mechanisms could be if we have an even thicker greenhouse layer but less insolation. We've only seen decreases in incoming radiation to high degrees in association with catastrophic events in the past, which has only been short term - who knows what long term impacts can be. I think its risky for a lot of reasons and as I said before, ultimately flawed by trying to treat the symptoms without the cause.Ben Siggeryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04339976326204118499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5066455796527100553.post-41077379631128526312015-11-09T16:23:39.839-08:002015-11-09T16:23:39.839-08:00Thanks for your comment Ben. I totally agree with...Thanks for your comment Ben. I totally agree with you in terms of cost. I agree that SRM may be perceived as flawed, however the greatest concern is the global increases in temperatures. SRM would not help solve the reason temperatures are rising yet maybe it can give some time to find efficient methods to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Though, I believe, this method should be implemented if there are no environmental impacts that may occur. What do you think on the matter in general?Maria Christofihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17691421487635204262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5066455796527100553.post-84260757263757431562015-11-09T16:19:16.834-08:002015-11-09T16:19:16.834-08:00Hey Celia, thank you for your comment! In what way...Hey Celia, thank you for your comment! In what way do you believe are mirrors far fetched? (in terms of seeming too technologically advanced?) To be honest, I am not completely convinced with SRM mirrors, yet the impacts on the hydrological cycle are far less than climate change. I totally agree with you that geoengineering solely is not the solution however it could help climate levels to stabilise and slowly reduced through the use of renewable energy. What do you think in regards to a combination of renewable technology and geoengineering?Maria Christofihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17691421487635204262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5066455796527100553.post-17772492790102071122015-11-09T14:29:50.917-08:002015-11-09T14:29:50.917-08:00As Celia mentioned, the thing I find most shocking...As Celia mentioned, the thing I find most shocking about all this is the cost! If people even considered spending that amount of money investing in renewable technologies, the world would be an entirely different state.<br /><br />Space mirrors do sound a bit silly, but I agree with you that they are probably less environmentally damaging that some other SRM methods. However, SRM is still fundamentally flawed in treating the symptoms without the cause and really should not be something we even consider, in my opinion.Ben Siggeryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04339976326204118499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5066455796527100553.post-48327581833296350062015-11-09T04:20:45.438-08:002015-11-09T04:20:45.438-08:00Hi Maria, interesting post as usual! :) Using mirr...Hi Maria, interesting post as usual! :) Using mirrors as an SRM seems a bit far-fetched to me, and so costly! I think instead of spending trillions of dollars on this method, we need to attack the cause and not the symptom. What about investing more in renewable technology? <br />Also I agree with you - hydrological changes may cause conflicts between nations, especially (I'm assuming) it's going to be developed countries such as the US enacting this scheme without much consideration regarding the effects in lower-income countries. In my opinion, it's not worth it! Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01525489430647168375noreply@blogger.com