"Cloud Brightening" to reflect heat (an article in SFGate.com)

[CreekDog]

I worry about the unintended consequences.

I also predict that those most supportive of doing this are the ones who have posted the most skepticism about global climate change.

http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Looking-to-sky-to-fight-climate-change-4170475.php

Looking to sky to fight climate change
James Temple
Updated 8:48 am, Sunday, January 6, 2013

...

The concept of "cloud brightening" dates back 22 years, when British physicist John Latham first proposed it in a little-noticed paper in the journal Nature.

But as the threat of global warming rises, it and other "geoengineering" strategies have shifted from the scientific fringes into mainstream debate. Geoengineering is a broad category for techniques that could remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere or reflect away more heat, including things as innocuous as painting roofs white and as controversial as spraying sulfate particles into the stratosphere.

The basic idea behind cloud brightening is to equip ships with mechanisms like the ones Neukermans' team is designing and aim them at the relatively low-lying clouds that hug the western coasts of continents. It would probably require hundreds - if not thousands - of vessels (see related story).

...

Critics, however, argue that scientists are talking about tinkering with a system they don't fully understand. Altering the clouds could affect rainfall patterns, with potentially devastating consequences, they say.

...

Wil Burns is dubious.

The director of the energy policy and climate program at Johns Hopkins University terms himself an "extreme skeptic" of cloud brightening. Even if it works, he's not convinced scientists will be able to easily identify or deal with any unintended consequences.

There's also the touchy question of social equity. Cloud brightening might cool global temperatures on average, but what if it leads to deforestation in South America or affects monsoon patterns in Asia? If the world is better off on average - particularly in the relatively temperate first world - is it acceptable that some nations suffer?

[phantom power]

1. It's eminently sane to consider unintended consequences, but...

I'll point out (yet again) that we've been doing massive geo-engineering "experiments" with unintended consequences for at least 200 years - we typically refer to these experiments as "The Industrial Revolution."

So, I think investigating possible geoengineering approaches to mitigate those unintended consequences we've already incurred is a good project.

By way of analogy, doing CPR on a victim frequently breaks ribs. But I was taught to not let that slow me down, since the victim will generally be glad enough to be alive with their broken rib.

[TheKentuckian]

3. A space borne array would be less risky, more manageable, more consistent, and

could double as an energy collection array.

I imagine white roofs would go a really long way as would lighter and more durable concrete as opposed to asphalt for roads without any high tech or nature altering solutions.

All in all the temperature is probably the easiest piece to counter. The acid oceans, extinctions, and the air are bigger pickles.

[phantom power]

4. I do think one important property is being able to "turn it off" -

for example I've read of proposals to launch things like dust, or chemicals, into orbit, or the high atmosphere. The thing about that is, if you decide later something is going wrong, there's no way to undo that :/

[Nihil]

5. And *that* is a critical point, ...

> I do think one important property is being able to "turn it off" -
> The thing about that is, if you decide later something is going wrong, there's no way to undo that

... one that is very rarely seen mentioned in all of the "TechnoGod will save us!" proposals

I wonder why?

[Javaman]

2. 1 million dentists agree! nt