Now Reading
Business wants Solar Radiation Management

Business wants Solar Radiation Management

Authored by Serban V.C. Enache via Hereticus Economicus:

ISO, the International Organization for Standardization, a global industry-driven, non-profit group composed of 160+ member states, has produced a new draft of suggestions on climate action for businesses. The document leaves CO2 to one side, and focuses on the need to manage radiative forcing. Solar radiation management [SRM] is to be done via special cannons or aircraft, spreading aerosols into the stratosphere to deflect more of the sun’s heat back into space.

Climate realism tells us that keeping the present rate of warming would require a 60 to 80 percent cut in emissions worldwide; and it would still take decades for the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to stabilize. In other words, not even a radical, genocidal, neo-malthusian plan is going to halt warming, let alone cool the earth. I remember watching Animal Planet as a kid, and one message that played between programs insisted that global warming will still occur, even if humans shut down all industry and transportation. The Paris Climate Deal commits governments to halt warmth growth well below two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels in order to stave off the worst impacts of climate change. The Paris accord strives to stay within a safer limit of 1.5 Celsius. Without using aerosols in a limited manner, at least, and kicking off desert-greening projects [among other things], I don’t see how such a temperature objective can even be contemplated, let alone reached. Even the IPCC, in its October report from last year, claimed drastic cuts in CO2 may not be enough to stop potentially dangerous temperature rises.

The ISO draft, however, brings good news and bad news to individuals of various political and philosophical persuasions. The green ‘purist’ camp views it as a catastrophe; because geoengineering carries the risk of unintended consequences. In the case of SRM, it risks to destabilize global weather patterns and undermine food and water security – due to the change in difference between solar radiation and [growing] CO2 levels. By far, the biggest threat is that once started, it may be dangerous to stop [abruptly]. Use of this technology may turn into a vicious addiction. Some research shows that if the [global aerosol] sun shield worked, and the scheme was then brought to a halt, global warming would resume at up to 10 times the speed [assuming greenhouse gas emissions spike or remain unchanged in the meantime]. Drastic warming would have swift and devastating effects on economies and the environment.

But let’s look at the half full glass… Studies have shown that SRM could be extremely effective and financially affordable in stemming rising temperatures. SRM tech would cost a minimum of one order of magnitude less than emissions cuts. It’s estimated that one kilogram of well placed sulfur in the stratosphere could roughly offset the warming effect of several hundred thousand kilograms of CO2. It’s also estimated that [aerosols used in this manner] could provide a “grace period” of up to 20 years before major cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions would be required. The fossil fuel industry and the Deep State/s, of course, will want to squeeze every well of every drop, in their pursuit of profits, market share, and geopolitical chess. Much needs to happen in that “grace period” in order to replace antiquated tech and infrastructure with better ones: things like solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, 3rd generation atomic reactors, massive scale desalination, storage capacity – and, hopefully, fusion will become commercially viable sooner than later. I have high hopes for the small, spherical Tokamak design over the much larger ones. A company in the UK is developing such a reactor. Last year, during the first round of testing, their ST40 was able to achieve plasma temperatures hotter than the sun’s core. These capital-intensive projects need to be affordable, if smaller countries are to deploy them. Computer modelling of the effect of injecting tons of sulfate particles into the stratosphere indicate that as few as 200 planeloads of aerosol a year could halt global warming. SRM gives Mankind some options: what degree of warming relative to pre-industrial levels to entertain, or perhaps going below pre-industrial levels?…

One of the biggest fears is that the ISO guidelines will determine firms to prioritize geoengineering schemes over de-investing from fossil fuels and shifting to green power. Big oil has been sponsoring pro-SRM orgs for several years now, including the American Enterprise Institute. The latter organization, in a policy paper from 2013, judged that the case for SRM is stronger than emissions control. While the UN Convention on Climate Change measures each country’s contribution towards ‘fighting’ global warming in terms of emissions cuts, the ISO suggests this new yardstick of containing radiative forcing. Doubtless, the corporate lobby machine will have its away – and weaker state governments are bound to acquiesce based on bribes and or orders [blackmail], rather than greenlight SRM out of their own volition. I expect to see trans-national firms engaging in this practice in the coming years; and I don’t expect to see countries abide by UN directives on this issue, should these directives be prohibitive of SRM tech.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!

21
Leave a Reply

avatar
7 Comment threads
14 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
14 Comment authors
Badger DownLizzie DWBilbo BagginsBilbo BagginsThe Pangaea Panacea Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
BobValdez
Guest
BobValdez

Why the fuck do we NEED to COOL the Earth? Since 1896, when global temperature measurement started, the planet has increased temperature ONE AND A HALF DEGREES CELSIUS (CENTIGRADE)!! What’s the big bloody panic? Does anyone with 2 working brain cells believe that the North Pole, with MINUS 50+ degrees C temps will melt down because of 1 & 1/2 degrees of warming? Seriously?

Altergate
Guest
Altergate

What they measure is the change in global average. But some regions experience more warming than the global average.

Prof Frink
Guest
Prof Frink

And some regions experience much less, even negative global warming.

Tim
Guest
Tim

That means that other regions receive cooling in the same proportions. What’s your point?

Bilbo Baggins
Guest
Bilbo Baggins

“That means that other regions receive cooling in the same proportions. What’s your point?”
Other regions do experience cooling, but not the North pole! That’s my point.

Tim
Guest
Tim

You have no discernable point. Stating that some regions receive warming above the global average means that other regions receive cooling to the same extent, thus the average, or mean, stays the same. Do you even know what the word “average” means?

Nitpickers Anonymous
Guest
Nitpickers Anonymous

Wielding a semantics club to argue a point doesn’t impress anyone.

Bilbo Baggins
Guest
Bilbo Baggins

@Tim The globe’s average temperature is one thing. The temperature in specific regions is another. The temperature in the North pole is going up. The average DOES not stay the same, hence the phenomenon of global warming! The globe has registered a net increase in temperature compared to pre-industrial levels. The north pole has registered more growth in temperature than the global average. The climate is an open system, it’s not a closed system that you read about in high school, in which no other forces are at work. If you haven’t grasped this fundamental nuance, there’s no hope for… Read more »

Jane Karlsson
Guest
Jane Karlsson

There has been no warming at all if the effects of el Nino are removed. And there is evidence that el Nino is caused by undersea volcanism. Nobody listens to the geologists, but they are the ones that know.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/22/study-tropical-hotspot-fingerprint-of-global-warming-doesnt-exist-in-the-real-world-data/
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/25/science/hot-vents-in-the-sea-floor-may-drive-el-nino.html
http://www.plateclimatology.com/further-proof-el-nios-are-fueled-by-deepsea-geological-heat

Bilbo Baggins
Guest
Bilbo Baggins

Arctic warming is causing changes to sea ice, snow cover, and the extent of permafrost in the Arctic. In the first half of 2010, air temperatures in the Arctic were 4° Celsius (7° Fahrenheit) warmer than the 1968 to 1996 reference period, according to NOAA. Satellite data show that over the past 30 years, Arctic sea ice cover has declined by 30 percent in September, the month that marks the end of the summer melt season. Satellite data also show that snow cover over land in the Arctic has decreased, and glaciers in Greenland and northern Canada are retreating. In… Read more »

Prof Frink
Guest
Prof Frink

Once upon time, there were vineyards in Newfoundland.

Bilbo Baggins
Guest
Bilbo Baggins

False equivalency? Go troll someone else.

The Pangaea Panacea
Guest
The Pangaea Panacea

Sure, when it was joined with Morocco at the hip. 🙂

Much Ado About Something
Guest
Much Ado About Something

Oh Bobby, you’re such a ‘scientist’. The question is about feedback loops that may be unleashed from those few degrees of warming. Land based ice melt, shifts in ocean circulation, oceanic methane hydrates and permafrost methane release. The chances of a ‘perfect storm’ of multiple feedback loops are pretty high. That said, might as well learn to live with it, since can’t see anyone doing any significant diddleysquat about it. Mass migrations aren’t a new thing, after all.

Lars Per
Guest
Lars Per

Oh dear, dear… “not even a radical, genocidal, neo-malthusian plan is going to halt warming, let alone cool the earth.” Antarctica is cooler then the Arctic. Why is it so? Why do we have there 4 km high towers of ice when the Arctic melts 40-50% each year? Is it because of the CO2 or because of the ocean currents? What is your take? The air is dry in Antarctica, CO2 can unfold there all its immense IR heating power, almost without water vapor interference. Can you feel the heat? I would volunteer climate alarmist to a trip to the… Read more »

Richard Keller
Guest
Richard Keller

Various small nuclear reactors have been design & built, but are not being allowed to be put in service in an America bent on destroying its economy in its battles against unending false problems.

Prof Frink
Guest
Prof Frink

20 years later, they are finally admitting to Chemtrails. The good reason for it is “Global Warming”. The REAL reason for it is …. ?

Kolokol
Guest
Kolokol

So who do I get to sue when my pipes freeze? When my crops fail? When they miscalculate?

Bilbo Baggins
Guest
Bilbo Baggins

You sue the Government for that. But you have to prove in a court of law that their policies caused your misfortune.
At any rate, catastrophic insurance should cover it.

Lizzie DW
Guest
Lizzie DW

The author needs to get information from different sources. It is getting cooler, not warmer. The CO2 emissions are negligible and not relevant. In fact, we need C02. Trees and plants USE C02 as part of their growth cycle, and themselves then emit 02, which we breathe. Then,,,,remember ….we EXHALE C02. In any event, the C02 is minuscule compared to the effect of the sun and it’s spots (or lack of them). At this time, in the sun cycle #24, we had many months of ‘0’ or few sun spots. We are due, in cycle 25, starting now, to also… Read more »

Badger Down
Guest
Badger Down

Just look at the pictures:
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Copyright DRN Media PLC 2019. RSS: http://theduran.com/feed

Scroll To Top