Change Albedo to offset annual CO2 increase

[LakeEffectKing]

If humans were to try and combat global temps via changing surface albedo (make rooftops white, engineer crops to produce lighter foliage, make roads/parking lots brighter, produce lighter cars, homes, etc.) how many sq miles per year would we have to alter to offset the warming induced by global CO2 increases (using the current thinking on sensitivity).

 

Hypothetically, let's assume the average increase in albedo achieved to be .5 (for all changes) and an average latitude (just guessing) of all changes to be around 35 degrees.

 

Math wizards.....GO!

[Jonger]

If humans were to try and combat global temps via changing surface albedo (make rooftops white, engineer crops to produce lighter foliage, make roads/parking lots brighter, produce lighter cars, homes, etc.) how many sq miles per year would we have to alter to offset the warming induced by global CO2 increases (using the current thinking on sensitivity).

 

Hypothetically, let's assume the average increase in albedo achieved to be .5 (for all changes) and an average latitude (just guessing) of all changes to be around 35 degrees.

 

Math wizards.....GO!

 

I hypothesized researching a chalk like power than could cover areas without harming wildlife or plants. It would be interesting to see the temp changes if the top canopies of the rainforest were white around the equator.

 

I would assume covering the treeless tundra in a similar chalk like powder would bring about massive temp reductions and the covering would be cheap and easy to deploy.

[Msalgado]

I hypothesized researching a chalk like power than could cover areas without harming wildlife or plants. It would be interesting to see the temp changes if the top canopies of the rainforest were white around the equator.

 

I would assume covering the treeless tundra in a similar chalk like powder would bring about massive temp reductions and the covering would be cheap and easy to deploy.

 

If the top of the rain forests were white you would kill the trees.  If no light is reaching the plants leaves then they're not going to photosynthesize.  Then there's the cost of making the rain forest white to begin with.  That would be fairly huge.

[Msalgado]

I work with a lot of remote sensing data, and there are two main issues to the idea of increasing the albedo of human created surfaces in order to offset global warming.  The first is that many of our surfaces already maintain a much higher albedo than the surrounding terrain.  Concrete is highly reflective.  Secondly, and more importantly, we make up a tiny fraction of the Earth's surface.  My understanding is that less than .5% of land is urban.  This percentage is only land and does not include the entire earth's surface.  When you factor in oceans we've used a tiny fraction of the earth's surface in urban land cover.

[Msalgado]

Here's some work that was done recently.  As you can see the level of cooling is orders of magnitudes lower than CO2 forcing.

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/2/024004/article

[ORH_wxman]

 

I work with a lot of remote sensing data, and there are two main issues to the idea of increasing the albedo of human created surfaces in order to offset global warming.  The first is that many of our surfaces already maintain a much higher albedo than the surrounding terrain.  Concrete is highly reflective.  Secondly, and more importantly, we make up a tiny fraction of the Earth's surface.  My understanding is that less than .5% of land is urban.  This percentage is only land and does not include the entire earth's surface.  When you factor in oceans we've used a tiny fraction of the earth's surface in urban land cover.

Yeah so much of the earth is covered by terrain that is impractical for us to alter.

[Jonger]

If the top of the rain forests were white you would kill the trees. If no light is reaching the plants leaves then they're not going to photosynthesize. Then there's the cost of making the rain forest white to begin with. That would be fairly huge.

I would probably balk at covering anything besides soil with white, but the tundra region would be a good start, there are major deserts that could be covered too. Minimal impact on wildlife.

Spreading a white powder coating over land would be rather cheap compared to geoengineering co2 from the atmosphere.

[LakeEffectKing]

Here's some work that was done recently.  As you can see the level of cooling is orders of magnitudes lower than CO2 forcing.

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/2/024004/article

Yeah, I knew that (re: "whitening uban areas:)

 

But, outside the box thinking....I think there are other ways to increase significantly our ability to increase albedo, (bioengineering plants/flowers that produce light/white leaves/flowers that can grow in various climates, for long periods of time....spread the seeds in uninhabited regions via planes, bioengineer "whiter" algae that are just as or more efficient in photosynthesis and introduce them into the oceans to reproduce, ect.)  Not sure it would jump up an order of magnitude or not vs. the numbers from the article, but of all the ways that humans could effect the climate, albedo changes (on a large scale, and working with nature to aid us) would seem the most doable from a cost effective view. 

[Msalgado]

Well, the only geoengineering solution that I've seen gain even limited traction or acceptance is to do this but to do it in the stratosphere with aerosols.  Of course, when I say traction or acceptance its very very limited because its seems extremely costly and the repercussions could be unknown and huge.  While lowering albedo might lower the temperature it might also have adverse effects in other places such as crop yields (because of lower light).

 

These possible solutions will probably be looked at in the future when we're beyond a point of simply limiting CO2 emissions as then we will have no choice.

[Msalgado]

I would probably balk at covering anything besides soil with white, but the tundra region would be a good start, there are major deserts that could be covered too. Minimal impact on wildlife.

Spreading a white powder coating over land would be rather cheap compared to geoengineering co2 from the atmosphere.

 

I'm not sure why you would think this.  How would you do that effectively and cheaply?  From the air?  Going to be hard to get a good cover from a very high altitude.  Covering large pieces of land with anything is going to be extremely expensive.  Just getting a plane to fly overhead to take aerial photos or LIDAR data is already very expensive and you're talking about doing that but dispersing a powder.  How is it going to stay there?  Weather will have something to say about that.  

 

Saying its cheap is very obviously wrong.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Well, the only geoengineering solution that I've seen gain even limited traction or acceptance is to do this but to do it in the stratosphere with aerosols. Of course, when I say traction or acceptance its very very limited because its seems extremely costly and the repercussions could be unknown and huge. While lowering albedo might lower the temperature it might also have adverse effects in other places such as crop yields (because of lower light).

These possible solutions will probably be looked at in the future when we're beyond a point of simply limiting CO2 emissions as then we will have no choice.

How would lowering the albedo reduce temperature?

I know a few smart particle physicists (way above my level) who want to electromagnetically capture CO2. I'll send a few texts and see if I can get more info on their research, but I know it's on the quantum level. You can make particles do seriously crazy things today.

[Msalgado]

I mispoke - raising the albedo not lowering it.

[Sundog]

I would think the easiest (easy being a relative term) way to offset CO2 is by building a giant mirror in space and have it reflect a tiny amount of light.

[StudentOfClimatology]

I would think the easiest (easy being a relative term) way to offset CO2 is by building a giant mirror in space and have it reflect a tiny amount of light.

The thing is you don't want to do too much. Orbital parameters right now (Obliquity, Precession, Eccentricity) suggest that glacial inception would be occurring had it not been for AGW. In fact they're more gung-ho than many previous inceptions.

If we inadvertently alter the global circulations and start an ice age, it might be impossible for us to stop that feedback loop. We're walking a fine line as it is with our CO2 emissions, so why risk screwing things up further?

[Drz1111]

I understand that increasing albedo works, and is cost effective - on the order of hundreds of million of dollars in cost per year, which is less than more exotic stuff and frankly tolerable - but it involves causing some other sort of environmental disaster, because you effectively have to sacrifice all photosynthetic life in a large region. Something as simple as rolling sheets of newsprint-type paper over a big chunk of the North American and Siberian tundra probably gets you there. But you're going to kill a lot of critters in the process.

[PhillipS]

The fundamental flaw in this, and all other geoengineering schemes, is that they are 'band-aid' approaches - they counteract a symptom instead of dealing with the fundamental problem.  Change the albedo to ease Earth's TOA energy imbalance?  Okay, how does that help ocean acidification?  Or any of the other negative consequences of AGW?  And with all of the geoengineering schemes there is the very real possibility of unintended, unforeseen, consequences making things worse.

 

There is an old saying, "When you're digging yourself into a hole, the best thing to do is stop digging".  We know what is causing climate change - we are dumping gigatons of GHGs into the atmosphere every year.  We've know that for a long time and our political leaders (of all parties) have known that at least since Dr Hansen's testimony before Congress in 1988.  So there is really no excuse for continuing policies which have hurt the county and will continue to hurt the country.  Transitioning to a sustainable economy is not going to be easy, and there will certainly be social and economic disruptions in some areas, but nobody has proposed a viable alternative.  We've procrastinated and wasted a quarter of a century, can we really afford to waste another 25 years?

[LakeEffectKing]

The fundamental flaw in this, and all other geoengineering schemes, is that they are 'band-aid' approaches - they counteract a symptom instead of dealing with the fundamental problem.  Change the albedo to ease Earth's TOA energy imbalance?  Okay, how does that help ocean acidification?  Or any of the other negative consequences of AGW?  And with all of the geoengineering schemes there is the very real possibility of unintended, unforeseen, consequences making things worse.

 

There is an old saying, "When you're digging yourself into a hole, the best thing to do is stop digging".  We know what is causing climate change - we are dumping gigatons of GHGs into the atmosphere every year.  We've know that for a long time and our political leaders (of all parties) have known that at least since Dr Hansen's testimony before Congress in 1988.  So there is really no excuse for continuing policies which have hurt the county and will continue to hurt the country.  Transitioning to a sustainable economy is not going to be easy, and there will certainly be social and economic disruptions in some areas, but nobody has proposed a viable alternative.  We've procrastinated and wasted a quarter of a century, can we really afford to waste another 25 years?

Many prominent climatologist believe we are:  A.  Past the tipping point anyway and B.) The proposed CO2 reduction/tax increase schemes fall well short of significant, impactful changes needed.  So, if indeed CAGW is progressing, we are left with dealing with finding alternative solutions to each facet created by the increases in CO2.  Albedo changes could at least save polar bears.

[Jonger]

Many prominent climatologist believe we are:  A.  Past the tipping point anyway and B.) The proposed CO2 reduction/tax increase schemes fall well short of significant, impactful changes needed.  So, if indeed CAGW is progressing, we are left with dealing with finding alternative solutions to each facet created by the increases in CO2.  Albedo changes could at least save polar bears.

 

The arctic will melt out eventually, that's the only major change I see coming. If we coated the treeless tundra with a white sand covering, it would create a major temp reduction. The dark soil heats up dramatically in the high solar, 24 hour sunlight during the summer. When south winds blow over the ground, it carries the heat into the arctic. Cover the soil in white sand, it wouldn't move and it wouldn't hurt wildlife. 

 

Some people are annoyed at finding any alternative solutions in the meanwhile, they fear it will give us a peace of mind and slow down the fossil fuel to renewable transition.

[WinterWxLuvr]

We'd better be careful with anything we do.  To me, man doing something like the things being mentioned here is more dangerous than just living with global warming.  It's unlikely IMO that any change we see will be so rapid that we can't adapt to it.

[Sundog]

The thing is you don't want to do too much. Orbital parameters right now (Obliquity, Precession, Eccentricity) suggest that glacial inception would be occurring had it not been for AGW. In fact they're more gung-ho than many previous inceptions.

If we inadvertently alter the global circulations and start an ice age, it might be impossible for us to stop that feedback loop. We're walking a fine line as it is with our CO2 emissions, so why risk screwing things up further?

I would think the mathematics involved in calculating how much insolation needs to be reflected to offset the average amount additional heat absorbed by the excess greenhouse gases would have been worked out by the time we were able to build a giant space mirror. Plus the mirror can be adjusted on an ongoing basis to accommodate for whatever changes occur on Earth. We can always just turn the mirror away if we wanted to call the whole thing off

Some of these other solutions are not only extremely unlikely to pull off but very difficult to adjust after they've been put in place.

[Jonger]

The mirror idea seems impossible, do you realize how big it would have to be. Cover the treeless tundra in white sand.... Now you have winter albedo.

Normal sand has an albedo of .45. The tundra has an albedo of .25 as of now.

White sand would probably be closer to .60, almost the same as old snow.

[Msalgado]

Covering the tundra in sand is impossible.

[sokolow]

Covering the tundra in sand is impossible.

Well it would take only, ah, approximately 25 million runs with a firefighting 747.

[AvantHiatus]

In my opinion, there is enough "leeway" in the climate system according to paleo studies. Some of the geo-engineering strategies discussed here would have adverse environmental effects.

 

A more prudent choice would be to adapt and draw-down CO2 naturally through weathering and reforestation. The geography and continental configuration is more effective at drawing out CO2 than 50 million years ago.

 

We could safely live with 800 PPM CO2, which is where the IPCC has us "maxing out". Albeit, it would be a massively different planet in the short and long term. However, not sure if an ice age is less favorable for civilization than 3-5C warmer conditions.

 

The real danger is not CO2 increase alone, but also habitat and forest/plankton loss or some deep feedback mechanisms initiating that override the natural CO2 draw-down rate.

 

If not for SLR (Sea Level Rise), AGW would be a non-issue for areas away from the equator. This is why I'm not surprised people have come off as non-chalant and selfish at times on here and elsewhere. We have too much economic investment along the coast, worldwide.

 

The unfortunate or unfair truth is that the countries responsible for the GHG increase will not suffer to the degree of third-world nations.

[StudentOfClimatology]

We could safely live with 800 PPM CO2, which is where the IPCC has us "maxing out". Albeit, it would be a massively different planet in the short and long term. However, not sure if an ice age is less favorable for civilization than 3-5C warmer conditions.

- 800ppm is much too risky, in my opinion. It's possible the developed, rich, mid-latitude countries have the economic firepower to adapt to SLR, but some the poorer nations closer to the equator will be screwed royally under an 800ppm scenario. If we let things get that far, we'd be a candidate for "world's dumbest species".

- An ice age would be the worst possible outcome for man. We would have famine on an incomprehensibly large scale. Europe, Russia, Canada, and the US would be unable to harbor any significant agriculture.

The truth is, we're toast in the long run, and there's nothing we can do about it. Why? After fossil fuels run out in a century or two and the globe has warmed 4-6K due to our idiocy, our orbital parameters will continue sliding into a state that favors glacial inception (lowering Obliquity and post-Aphelion Precession). So about 2000-4000 years from now, we'll be in an ice age regardless.

We're essentially going to put Earth through climate-whiplash. We may be care-free now, but we'll pay for this in the long run.

[Ginx snewx]

Lol

[AvantHiatus]

Lol

Requires a long time to remove 800 PPM CO2 from the atmosphere, lol indeed. That would be more like 200k years untill a return to the icehouse Earth. With feedbacks, even longer.

 

Global Warming will be a unprecedented paleo event, on the same level as the KT extinction event. Hopefully it does not have the same effect as a massive asteroid impact.

[Jonger]

Requires a long time to remove 800 PPM CO2 from the atmosphere, lol indeed. That would be more like 200k years untill a return to the icehouse Earth. With feedbacks, even longer.

Global Warming will be a unprecedented paleo event, on the same level as the KT extinction event. Hopefully it does not have the same effect as a massive asteroid impact.

We split an atom 73 years ago, if it's that big of an issue, we will suck it out of the atmosphere. I'm not saying it will be easy, but it's already possible now, just hasn't been implemented on a large scale.

[AvantHiatus]

We split an atom 73 years ago, if it's that big of an issue, we will suck it out of the atmosphere. I'm not saying it will be easy, but it's already possible now, just hasn't been implemented on a large scale.

Massive algae blooms and reforestation combined with massive irrigation using water vapor harvesting. O2 levels would skyrocket.

 

We would all need to live in small dome cities in order to reduce our land use.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I can assure everyone that sucking Co2 out of the atmosphere at great cost ain't happening when almost a billion people go without food on a daily basis.

 

With the amount of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons out there as well as delivery systems.

 

It would be extremely wise for NATO to start pouring billions in AI defense systems to hopefully be able to detect any building, moving or use of these weapons some how some way.

 

When **** hits the fan the United States and all of it's riches will be target #1