HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Refreezing Earth's poles ...

Sat Sep 17, 2022, 10:02 PM

Refreezing Earth's poles feasible and cheap, new study finds

The poles are warming several times faster than the global average, causing record smashing heatwaves that were reported earlier this year in both the Arctic and Antarctic. Melting ice and collapsing glaciers at high latitudes would accelerate sea level rise around the planet. Fortunately, refreezing the poles by reducing incoming sunlight would be both feasible and remarkably cheap, according to new research published today in Environmental Research Communications.

Scientists laid out a possible future program whereby high-flying jets would spray microscopic aerosol particles into the atmosphere at latitudes of 60 degrees north and south—roughly Anchorage and the southern tip of Patagonia. If injected at a height of 43,000 feet (above airliner cruising altitudes), these aerosols would slowly drift poleward, slightly shading the surface beneath. "There is widespread and sensible trepidation about deploying aerosols to cool the planet," notes lead author Wake Smith, "but if the risk/benefit equation were to pay off anywhere, it would be at the poles."

Particle injections would be performed seasonally in the long days of the local spring and early summer. The same fleet of jets could service both hemispheres, ferrying to the opposite pole with the change of seasons...


https://phys.org/news/2022-09-refreezing-earth-poles-feasible-cheap.html

30 replies, 1350 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 30 replies Author Time Post
Reply Refreezing Earth's poles feasible and cheap, new study finds (Original post)
867-5309. Sep 17 OP
Silent3 Sep 17 #1
Disaffected Sep 18 #15
albacore Sep 17 #2
madinmaryland Sep 17 #3
Thomas Hurt Sep 17 #4
highplainsdem Sep 17 #8
Thomas Hurt Sep 17 #9
highplainsdem Sep 17 #10
Richard D Sep 18 #18
Karma13612 Sep 18 #29
dweller Sep 17 #5
Retrograde Sep 17 #6
live love laugh Sep 17 #11
mia Sep 18 #22
Takket Sep 17 #7
Disaffected Sep 18 #16
NutmegYankee Sep 17 #12
VMA131Marine Sep 17 #13
Marcuse Sep 17 #14
Midnight Writer Sep 18 #17
Bayard Sep 18 #19
DFW Sep 18 #20
Duppers Sep 18 #21
speak easy Sep 18 #26
DFW Sep 18 #28
speak easy Sep 18 #30
Hermit-The-Prog Sep 18 #23
ecstatic Sep 18 #25
ecstatic Sep 18 #24
Karma13612 Sep 18 #27

Response to 867-5309. (Original post)

Sat Sep 17, 2022, 10:09 PM

1. On the one hand, we should be vary wary of geoengineering solutions like this

For all the work we've done trying to model climate systems, we probably don't know enough to understand what unintended consequences we could be unleashing.

On the other hand, we clearly aren't doing enough fast enough to bring down the global temperature, which will continue to rise for some time even if we immediately shut off all carbon emissions.

Rolling the dice on geoengineering solutions is probably going to start looking more and more appealing over the next decade or two.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Silent3 (Reply #1)

Sun Sep 18, 2022, 12:03 AM

15. Indeed.

It's looking more & more that geoengineering is about all we will have left since the world seems unable and unwilling to significantly reduce CO2 emissions.

One big advantage of a scheme like that is that the effects should be reversible within a reasonable length of time if things go haywire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 867-5309. (Original post)

Sat Sep 17, 2022, 10:15 PM

2. I read "Ministry of the Future" by Kim Stanley Robinson....

There was a scheme in the book to re-freeze Antarctica.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 867-5309. (Original post)

Sat Sep 17, 2022, 10:17 PM

3. Gives new meaning to "chemtrails".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 867-5309. (Original post)

Sat Sep 17, 2022, 10:19 PM

4. microscopic aerosol of what pray tell benzene, micro plastics...

why does this smell like raking forests

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thomas Hurt (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 17, 2022, 10:26 PM

8. The article they're referring to talks about sulfur dioxide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Reply #8)

Sat Sep 17, 2022, 10:32 PM

9. thanks, didn't see that in the text, must not have read it closely enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thomas Hurt (Reply #9)

Sat Sep 17, 2022, 10:37 PM

10. The Phys.org article in the OP doesn't say anything about SO2. You have to go to

the link provided under "More information" at the end of the article. The link in my previous reply.

I thought it was pretty poor journalism at Phys.org not to mention the aerosol they're focusing on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Reply #10)

Sun Sep 18, 2022, 01:48 AM

18. Isn't this what Al Gore said . . .

. . . would turn the sky orange?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Reply #8)

Sun Sep 18, 2022, 07:27 AM

29. Darn it!

I was applauding this scheme. I didn’t read the linked article’s linked article.

Sulfur dioxide? Is that stuff safe😲?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 867-5309. (Original post)

Sat Sep 17, 2022, 10:20 PM

5. That ought to

weaponize really nicely
😑




✌🏻

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 867-5309. (Original post)

Sat Sep 17, 2022, 10:20 PM

6. What could possibly go wrong? (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Retrograde (Reply #6)

Sat Sep 17, 2022, 10:43 PM

11. ✔️

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Retrograde (Reply #6)

Sun Sep 18, 2022, 03:28 AM

22. My first thought, too. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 867-5309. (Original post)

Sat Sep 17, 2022, 10:22 PM

7. better than nothing...

heard of this before, just as theories, but no real plans. this won't fix the problem like the changing biochemical makeups of the oceans caused by the CO2..... but it is better than nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Takket (Reply #7)

Sun Sep 18, 2022, 12:07 AM

16. It would make the ocean water CO2 problem worse

as cooling the artic regions will tend to increase the amount of permanent ice (or at least reduce its loss) thereby decreasing (or slowing the increase of) the volume of ocean water.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 867-5309. (Original post)

Sat Sep 17, 2022, 11:27 PM

12. I hope they call the aerosol CW-7...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 867-5309. (Original post)

Sat Sep 17, 2022, 11:29 PM

13. This essentially mimics a large volcanic eruption

at polar latitudes. Volcanoes emit large quantities of sulfur dioxides and we have plenty of data correlating cooling of the atmosphere in the wake of the eruptions. Further, global cooling has been observed in the wake of supervolcano eruptions like Krakatoa and Tambora.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 867-5309. (Original post)

Sat Sep 17, 2022, 11:46 PM

14. Ozone holes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 867-5309. (Original post)

Sun Sep 18, 2022, 12:24 AM

17. Won't that cooler air from the Poles drift over into China, then China's hot air drift to the Poles?

I'm not a scientist, but that's what I've heard would happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 867-5309. (Original post)

Sun Sep 18, 2022, 01:48 AM

19. I don't much like the idea of putting more crap in the atmosphere

What would be in these, "microscopic aerosol particles?" Doesn't sound like it would be good for the lungs. And cheap is not the best criteria.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 867-5309. (Original post)

Sun Sep 18, 2022, 02:41 AM

20. I am by nature wary of simple solutions to complex problems.

At least two things could be predicted. First, dried apricots at the poles would retain their orange color instead if turning dark red, since sulfur dioxide is the preservative used to do that. Second, any fish or plankton living near the poles might consider alternate temporary living quarters, as sulfur dioxide is a main ingredient in “acid rain.” They might consider having dermatologists that treat marine mammals on standby, too, in case the increased acidity in the water starts causing skin lesions as well as endangering their food supply.

MAYBE none of that would happen, but it sounds like a coin toss to me. Heads we win, tails our grandchildren are the last generation? I’d like to know just who is weighing the odds on the outcome? Whatever happened to good old reducing carbon dioxide emissions? Too inconvenient?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #20)

Sun Sep 18, 2022, 03:04 AM

21. Thanks you!



Whatever happened to good old reducing carbon dioxide emissions? Too inconvenient?



Seems to be. People simply don't want to change their livestyle. They rejecting the dire outcomes...even some here.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #20)

Sun Sep 18, 2022, 05:26 AM

26. What happens when a volcano explodes?

What does it eject into the atmosphere in far greater quantities than this proposal? Even the year without a summer didn't kill the earth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to speak easy (Reply #26)

Sun Sep 18, 2022, 07:26 AM

28. Random natural occurrences are one thing

Systematic, targeted playing around with the atmosphere is another.

Nature doesn't commit suicide, agreed. Homo stupidens is another question entirely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #28)

Sun Sep 18, 2022, 08:19 AM

30. " Systematic, targeted playing around"? Yes. Suicidal? No.

The physics are well understood.
https://www.usgs.gov/programs/VHP/volcanoes-can-affect-climate

Whether such a program would be a sensible use of resources is another thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 867-5309. (Original post)

Sun Sep 18, 2022, 03:34 AM

23. Large solar panels in geosynchronous orbit over the equator -- shade and reflector.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hermit-The-Prog (Reply #23)

Sun Sep 18, 2022, 05:18 AM

25. +1. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 867-5309. (Original post)

Sun Sep 18, 2022, 05:17 AM

24. I don't like this idea

Unintended consequences come to mind... Keep thinking and coming up with new ideas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 867-5309. (Original post)

Sun Sep 18, 2022, 07:22 AM

27. Wow!

That seems encouraging, in my limited understanding of things.

I read the rest of the article. Thanks for the link!

I was especially interest in the positive impact on slowing sea level rise. Think of all the coast line that could breath a little easier.

Mind you, I think this should be done IN ADDITION to continued global efforts to curb global warming and reduce carbon emissions, not instead of.

We need to keep pushing on all fronts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread