CAJ - My opinion about geoengineering

When I first started to deal with geoengineering, I had a negative attitude towards it. I thought it was a crazy idea to control climate and pollute our planet by spraying chemicals in the air. In truth, I was not properly informed about the dangerous global warming effects. Therefore, I couldn’t evaluate the necessity of geoengineering. The more I read about it, the more I realised its importance. Firstly, I only looked at newspaper articles. It really made me frustrated that many arguments against geoengineering I found in these articles were not supported by any proper facts. So I started to read more academic texts. By doing so, I began to look at it from new perspectives. I thought about it many times and I finally can say that I have developed my own opinion about geoengineering.

I strongly believe that some revolutionary measures to prevent global warming have to be taken as soon as possible. There are several geoengineering techniques that aim to combat different aspects of global warming. Some of these are expensive and at the moment infeasible, others are quite cheap considering the significant cooling effect they could cause in a short period of time. If we weigh out the negative impact of global warming and of some geoengineering methods, we can conclude, obviously, that global warming is far more destructive to the planet. Therefore I think geoengineering should be implemented. However, most of the leading scientists in this field keep on saying that further research and some kind of a plan to realise it is needed. In order to prevent governments to misuse geoengineering as a weapon, for example, it is essential to regulate it properly. Geoengineering should only be used to combat global warming and ocean acidification. Since no other measure that have been taken to counter an aggravation of global warming were really effective, geoengineering seems to be the only way to make it stop.

CAJ - A Ted Talk with David Keith

A Ted Talk with David Keith 

David Keith giving a speech at TED

In September 2007, David Keith payed a visit to TED and gave a brilliant insight into geoengineering. Mr. Keith is a Canadian environmental scientist and has been actively involved in searching for ways to cool our planet. He is the president of Carbon Engineering and he serves as the Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics in the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) and Professor of Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. He was listed as one of TIME magazine's Heroes of the Environment 2009.

In his speech, he firstly presented some shocking facts about the current global warming stage. Throughout his speech he kept on saying that we hadn’t done anything to counter global warming. He continued by explaining that we could easily solve the problem. Wind power, nuclear power and CO2 capture are ways to counter global warming. These are techniques which are ready for large scale deployment. He also suggested the spraying of stratospheric sulphur aerosols. He then explained how photophoresis works and gave an idea of the cost. Using this method, we could make an ice planet with the cost of only 001% of GDP. What I like about his speech is that he looks at the technique of aerosols spraying in a critical way. He mentioned the side-effects such as the slight destruction of the ozone. He also raised the concern that if we know for sure that Geoengineering works, we will not be encouraged to cut emissions. In the end, he stated that there is still a lack of research and depth of knowledge in this study field. Scientists have to come up with more scenarios. Based on these scenarios, we could properly talk about the possible side effects of each geoengineering technique.

CAJ - A conversation with my sister about geoengineering

 

I had a nice, heated debate about geoengineering with my sister. I had already told her once before that I have to get absorbed into this topic for my CAJ and therefore, she knew roughly what it is about. I started the conversation by asking her what her opinion about geoengineering was. She was absolutely against it. She argued that it is a thread against nature and that people should not claim the right to intervene in the Earth’s climate system. She also mentioned God by saying that we should not change the way God created the Earth and all other creations. If we consider that geoengineering techniques involve placing mirrors to block sunlight, it is quite understandable that she was totally against it. I just leaned back to listen to her getting so furious about it. I realised that I had exactly the same opinion about geoengineering before I went more into depth with all the global warming issues. All my acquired knowledge helped me counter her arguments. I stated some actual facts concerning global warming, like the minimum sea-ice volume is falling continuously in the Arctic. I kept on telling that it is essential to come up with ways to protect our planet and that by this stage we should consider anything that could prevent global warming, even severe geoengineering.  She knew that already but she was sceptical about the Geoengineering techniques. I told her that these techniques, of course, could be risky. She then began to ask for more details about all the different geoengineering methods. I realised that I still lack information about them.

This debate opened my eyes in many ways. I learned that I can state proper facts when it comes to debates around geoengineering and global warming. The CAJ made me more aware of what is happening to our planet. But, on the other hand, I still need more detailed information about the different geoengineering techniques. I will work on it!

Note: I wrote this text before I dealt with the geoengineering techniques more in depth. By now I have, of course, expanded my knowledge about them.

CAJ - Abstract

Abstract of my CAJ

This CAJ is a collection of information about techniques to prevent aggravation of climate change, namely geoengineering. The aim is to make people aware that geoengineering will affect our lives, sooner or later. As the topic is all about science and, therefore, quite complicated, this CAJ concentrates on giving the readers a general understanding of all the aspects of geoengineering. The CAJ mainly focuses on academic texts and newspaper articles. To make it more clear to people, the CAJ provides an introduction to all the geoengineering methods which are designed to cool the earth. On this basis, the CAJ continues by looking at geoengineering from various angles. Therefore, some information about the side effects/consequences as well as about the usefulness of geoengineering can be found in the CAJ. Since the issue around Geoengineering became quite known through the movie “Why in the world are they spraying?”, the CAJ provides a review of it. By doing so, all the conspiracies associated with geoengineering are presented. In the end, the CAJ provides a summary of this topic and my own opinion on geoengineering.

CAJ - Is a spraying program currently underway to destroy the Earth?

Chemtrail conspiracy theory 

The reason why I chose geoengineering to be the topic for my CAJ is the documentary “Why in the world are they spraying”. The information I came across with in this documentary really left me speechless. It is about the effects chemtrails, which are long-lasting chemical trails left in the sky by aircrafts, have on the environment, especially on plants and trees. The documentary aims to reveal that the government is deliberately spraying chemicals in the air without the general public knowing about it. The people in this documentary, some actually have academic titles, keep on saying that the trails we see in the sky are not trails caused by the turbines of aircrafts, but chemical trails, also called chemtrails, that cause changes in weather patterns. As a result of these chemtrails and the altered weather patterns, plants and crops rot and dry out. They warn people from geoengineering, presenting the scientists in this field of study as some kind of illuminati figures. As for my part, I started to believe in this conspiracy since a lot of pathos was used. I have to admit that the information is very well presented and leaves the viewer with a feeling of fear and shock, especially those who have not dealt with this topic before.  

Thanks to the fear this documentary caused in me and the CAJ, I started to get absorbed in geoengineering. I began to collect some useful information and realised, not long after, that the documentary is really...bad and lousy! The documentary not only displays geoengineering as a illuminati conspiracy and a depopulation plan, but also spreads wrong scientific facts. For example, to illustrate how badly aluminum, which is contained in these “chemtrails”, has affected water, they have taken a sample from pond sediment, not from the water of it. What they have tested is basically the aluminum level of the soil and not the water. They have then compared this sample with clean normal water. Of course, the aluminum level of the “pond” was considerably higher, since the aluminum of rocks is already eight percent high. All of the analysis in this documentary are simply flawed or based on misconception.

The people in the documentary have mistakenly or purposely, we don’t know, misconceived what chemtrails are. What they have seen are contrails and not chemtrails. There is a major difference between those. While contrails are simply the white lines you see in the sky that “form upon condensation of water vapor produced by the combustion of fuel in the airplane engines” (a definition by Encyclopedia Britannica), chemtrails are trails consisting of chemical substances that aim to cool the Earth. However, the geoengineering technique of spraying sulphate aerosols into the atmosphere has not yet been implemented. We can still gaze in awe at the white lines that form beautiful patterns in the sky without any fear. Some people who believe in this chemtrail conspiracy argue that these two trail-types can be differentiated from one another by looking how long they can be seen in the sky. They claim that contrails fade away in a couple of minutes and that chemtrails remain in the sky for a long period of time. This, however, is wrong. It has been proved that contrails can persist for hours. Otherwise, the plan to destroy this planet must have been going on since the invention of jets!? 

I doubt that.

It is also claimed that chemtrails make people sick. This is a headline from an article: "Did Olympic Athletes get Chemtrailed?- Many sick with 'flu-like symptoms?". Maybe they just have caught the flu? Hilarious!

One precious thing I have learned from my CAJ is to stay away from conspiracy sources such as the documentary “Why in the world are they spraying” or David Icke. We should all acquire the ability to evaluate what sources are reliable and give proper facts. People tend to get trapped in conspiracies since they are, let's face it, interesting. Everyone tends to believe that some kind of governmental program to destroy the Earth is currently underway. But it isn’t. These conspiracies only prevent us from getting properly engaged with the boring truth.

CAJ - The negative side-effects of spraying stratospheric sulphate aerosols

The negative side-effects of spraying stratospheric sulphate aerosols

In order for you to get to know all aspects of this geoengineering technique and understand why it is such a heated topic, I like to present even the possible side-effects that may occur with the realization of it. Some scientists say that this strategy to counter global warming could reduce the amount of electricity which is produced through solar power. However, David Keith, one of the leading scientists around geoengineering, does not find this argument convincing and he believes that the creation of electricity through solar energy can only be  negatively affected when solar geoengineering is being used very heavily. Most of the arguments are based on an analysis of the volcanic eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. Injecting sulphate aerosols, as what happened after the eruption, may reduce the total amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Another fact attributed to the eruption and therefore can be seen as a side-effect of this geoengineering technique is the possibility of rough, widespread droughts. David Keith said that he has not seen a serious, direct analysis that supports this argument. Furthermore, this technique could alter weather patterns such as precipitation and increase acid rain. 

 

Another potential consequence of this technique is the increase in ozone depletion. The ozone hole over Antarctica is caused by a chemical reaction and introducing sulphate aerosols could increase the surface area on which these chemical reactions occur. As a consequence, the ozone hole would become larger and more ultraviolet radiation could reach the Earth.
One critical issue remains: Solar geoengineering does not reduce the danger of CO2 emissions. People/Countries/Cities/Companies would continue to live their lifestyles the way they have, creating too much CO2 emissions and thereby worsening global warming. Moreover, the spraying of sulphate particles does not solve the problem of ocean acidification which harms coral reefs and many other marine lives. 

However, studies that have been carried out have proved that crop yields could potentially increase in some regions, because plants grow more efficiently in diffuse light. Another interesting fact is that CO2 from the atmosphere could actually have a fertilising effect on crops. Isn't that fascinating?

CAJ - Stratospheric Sulphate aerosols

Stratospheric sulphate aerosols

The last Geoengineering technique in the group of solar radiation management is the spraying of sulphate aerosols into the upper atmosphere, also called the stratosphere.

So far, the strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions have not shown any effective results. The rate of emissions is actually even beyond the level which we thought is too dangerous a couple of years ago. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change foresees a rise of 2.0 to 5.2 or 11.5 degrees in 2100. Scientists expect this rate to become even higher since developing nations such as India or China will burn more coal and use more vehicles. Even if we all stop creating carbon emissions immediately, which will obviously not happen, the problem of global warming would still persist. A great deal of the heat-trapping gas is expected to remain for decades, even for centuries, in the atmosphere. Doomsayers among scientists say that whatever we do with the existing carbon emissions, we will still face the threat of a worsening of global warming. To avoid the planetary warming getting even worse than it is now, scientist keep on saying how important it is to finally take effective revolutionary measures, a plan B so to speak. This is where the geoengineering technique of spraying sulphate aerosols becomes attractive. By implementing this technique, we could easily solve the problem in a short period of time. The best thing about this technique is that the costs would be minimal. To be precise, it would not cost more than military spendings which means a few billion dollars annually. With this in mind, would it not be more useful to invest this money in something important such as in measures to prevent global warming? Shouldn’t humanity have already reached the point where we can evaluate what really is crucial for the future of the planet? Why throw money out of the window? Shouldn’t we do anything to prevent long-term consequences of global warming such as rising sea levels, increasingly severe storms and droughts, melting glaciers as well as permafrost? In fact, the idea of countering global warming with airplanes in the stratosphere, burning sulphur to make aerosols, goes back to the mid-1970s. How and why did a shift in our thinking about global warming occurred?

Let’s get back to the technique itself:

Sulphate aerosols are considered an important part of the Earth system in the stratosphere as well as in the underlying troposphere. These particles have been studied for a long time since they play an essential role in the chemistry of the the lower stratosphere and, when it occurs, after a volcanic eruption. Sinks of aerosols are so much stronger in the troposphere and they only remain in the troposphere for a few days. However, stratospheric aerosol stay in their layer for approximately a year. The fact that their lifetime is longer means that only a few aerosols need to be introduced per unit of time to create an aerosol burden and to have them dispersed over a large area. This dispersion has a global, not a local, effect which is a very important aspect of geoengineering techniques. Sulfate aerosols occur naturally in the stratosphere because of the transport of natural sulphur compounds from the troposphere. Much higher concentrations are introduced when a volcanic eruption occurs, such as what happened with the Mt. Pinatubo. This eruption results in a temporary cooling of the Earth’s system. The eruption causes sulfur dioxide (SO2) to convert to sulfuric acid (H2SO4) that condenses rapidly in the stratosphere to form fine sulfate aerosols. Winds in the stratosphere spread the aerosols until they cover the globe. Once these aerosols are formed, they remain in the stratosphere for approximately two years. They reflect sunlight and thus reduce the amount of energy that reaches the lower atmosphere, the troposphere, and the Earth's surface. On the other hand, they also absorb heat which is radiated up from the Earth. 

The relative coolness of 1993 is thought to have been a response to the stratospheric aerosol layer that was produced by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1991. The volcanic introduction of sulphate aerosols, therefore, serves as a natural simulation to the geoengineering technique. The only difference is that the volcanic aerosols remain in the stratosphere for a few years, whereas the injected particles will have to be introduced regularly to balance the global warming temperatures. 

Just to give you an idea of how many aircrafts you will see flying  in the future if it really comes to the implementation of this geoengineering technique: For a total aerosol mass injection of particles per year, one million flights  and several thousand aircrafts need to be active continuously in the future. 

How can these aerosols be delivered into the stratosphere?

The methods and ways for how to actually introduce sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere have been neglected in the current geoengineering proposals. There are many challenges when it comes to creating a delivery system that can inject the right amount of aerosols. Earlier papers have suggested some delivery system that inject sulphur using artillery shells, high flying jets or balloons. However, among the dangers that exist with these delivery systems is an unequal and inadequate distribution of the aerosols .This could result in the formation of larger particles which are known to rain out quickly and have shorter stratospheric lifetimes. However, factors like particle size, location as well as lifetime of aerosols need to be taken into account when inventing delivery systems.

CAJ - Space reflectors

Space-based reflectors

Another theoretical geoengineering proposal to reduce the amount of incoming solar radiation are space-based reflectors. These are shields positioned in space to deflect and dim sunlight back into space or to filter it. The effectiveness of the shield could vary depending on its design, material, location, amount and maintenance. Some shield materials have already been suggested like lunar glass, aluminium thread netting, metallic reflecting disks or refracting disks. It was proposed that the space-based reflectors can either be one single mirror of 1,600,000 km2 or several smaller ones. These shields would be positioned in the low Earth orbit. This idea was first suggested by Lowell Wood, a physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. From his research he could draw the conclusion that by deflecting only 1% of sunlight, global warming could be stabilised. However, Wood considers this technique infeasible. He only suggested it as a last option, if nothing else helps to reduce global warming temperatures. In fact, launching a shield to fully combat global warming may cost a few trillion dollars. Apart from the high costs, the implementation would take over 25 years which is quite a long period of time. 

There has been a lot of debates going on about this geoengineering technique. Scientists keep on saying that further research is highly needed as the space-based reflectors technique is still not proven and is still at the theoretical or research phase. Based on the already existing research, many questions are left to answer. What are the steps for implementation? How would these reflectors be transported? Would reflectors alter the climate at a regional or at a global level? These and more questions remain still unanswered. 

CAJ - Albedo enhancement (Surface)

Albedo enhancement (surface)

In order to direct even more solar radiation back towards space, the reflectivity of other surfaces besides clouds should be increased. One of the most widely discussed targets for this project are urban areas. The plan looks like this: Enhanced albedo methods in urban areas could be applied by painting roofs and by paving areas completely white. This method could be highly effective when it is realised on a global basis. It is estimated that surface albedo enhancement would cost several billion dollars for material as well as for labor but would, on the other hand, save a considerable amount of energy costs. For example, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) succeeded in reducing building heating and cooling costs by approximately 70% annually. How did they manage that? Thanks to new installations of cool roofs, which are specially designed roofs to maintain a lower temperature than traditional roofs, in certain urban areas. Isn’t that incredible?

There are, as always, a few drawbacks when it comes to enhancing the surface albedo of urban areas. Firstly, people are concerned of the aesthetic appeal of such roofs and white paved areas. Should that really be of concern nowadays? Anything that helps to cool the Earth’s temperature should be considered. I actually quite like the look of white roofs. Secondly, a loss of reflectivity benefit of such roofs could be caused if the roofs are not well maintained. And lastly, which is the most understandable concern, the energy costs in colder climates for heating could increase as a consequence.

Apart from painting roofs and paving areas white, there are additional techniques considered for enhancing the surface albedo. One proposal is to modify plants through genetic engineering to highly increase their albedo. Sugar beets with their broad leaves, for example, would actually reflect 26% of solar radiation. Studies showed that an implementation could, in case of doubled CO2 and 3 ºC warming, lead to 0.1 ºC cooling globally. Another study showed that 20% increase in crop albedo could cool  Europe's summertime temperature to 1%. The effect could actually be locally and seasonally even larger. During summer, the enhanced albedo crops would help to keep soil moisture at high levels. This could be, as a result, beneficial to agricultural productivity as well. The implementation costs for this proposed method  is considered relatively low. However, it will take at least one decade for such enhanced albedo plants to be commercially available. The question arises whether it will already be too late at this stage? 

One last proposal for enhancing surface albedo is to cover oceans with reflective surfaces. This project raises the concern about the potential negative impact on aquatic life this reflective surface could have and about where this surface should be placed. 

The conclusion is: Any big surface with a colour can be geoengineered :-)

CAJ - Albedo enhancement (Clouds)

Albedo enhancement

As I have mentioned in my plans before I would like to present all the Geoengineering techniques more in depth. To discuss the more controversial techniques in the beginning, I would like to start with SRM methods.

Albedo enhancement, also called cloud reflectivity modification or marine cloud brightening, is a proposed Geoengineering method to reflect sunlight back into space. In combination with greenhouse gas emissions reduction, the albedo enhancement could create a considerable global cooling effect. Scientists aim to primarily modify marine stratocumulus clouds (SC) since they tend to be warm and significantly reflect incoming solar radiation back to space, especially when they are white. Enhancing the albedo of marine stratocumulus clouds could be done via cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) which increases the cloud droplet number concentration and the cloud albedo and thus make them appear whiter. Even the clouds' longevity could potentially be enhanced without changing their natural precipitation. It has been estimated by several researches, most prominently John Latham and Stephen Salter, that a 4% increase in the cloud areal coverage or, on the other hand, only a 0.06 increase in the cloud albedo of marine SC can stabilise the warming in the atmosphere which is caused by CO2 emissions. This could have a huge effect on the Earth’s atmosphere system considering that SC cover vast areas of the ocean surface, one-third to be precise. In fact, injecting these chemicals is more effective over the ocean than over land since levels of dust and pollution at sea has resulted in a deficit of CCN.

Ways to do so:

There are several ways and schemes proposed for this Geoengineering technique. One suggested scheme is to spray seawater into the atmosphere and as a result increase the albedo of clouds. Sea-salt climate engineering (SSCE) might be the most plausible and feasible possibility of all. Specially designed unmanned boats would plow the seas, spraying salt water into the air. The water would evaporate and leave behind sea-salt particles which could be lifted into the clouds and therefore increase their albedo. The created CCN by the spray will change the distribution of the droplets in already existing clouds to make them appear whiter.

The leading scientist Salter, a professor at the University of Edinburgh, has proposed a scheme that aims to deploy remote-controlled, unmanned, wind-powered vessels which are capable of generating (via turbines dragged through the water) the electricity required to create a mist of seawater and injecting the droplets 1,000 meters into the atmosphere. This scheme could even reverse a doubling  of CO2 in the future. 

 

Another model developed by Salter includes an unmanned yacht and Flettner rotors, which are perpendicular rotating cylinders to the direction of the airstream for propulsion. These cylinders would be placed on the deck of the yacht spraying the sea water droplets into the SC to enhance their albedo and thus their reflectivity. Underwater turbines would act as power sources for the rotors and the ship. 1,500 of ships like these would be required for this scheme to have a significant effect on the planet’s climate. However, this techniques  requires far less energy compared to other geoengineering techniques.

What are the positive and negative aspects of albedo enhancement?
When it comes to the advantages of the proposed geoengineering technique albedo enhancement, the best advantage is that it uses natural resources like sea water and wind with already existing technologies. Apart from that, it is considerably cheaper compared to to other geoengineering techniques. Cloud albedo levels could be monitored via satellite and therefore the sea spraying mechanisms could adjust to the data. Another advantage is that this geoengineering method can be controlled and localised. This helps to implement albedo enhancement only in places where it is needed. Even the debate about the optimal global temperature could be solved in this way. 

Advantages cannot exist without disadvantages right?

As with all other geoengineering techniques, there exists the fear that the actual results after the implementation happened may differ from the predicted effect and that the albedo enhancement of clouds may not be effective enough to counter climate warming.

CAJ - Arguments in favour of Geoengineering

To give you an insight into all the different opinions about Geoengineering, I would like to present some of the arguments in favour of Geoengineering. They should help to illustrate the necessity of Geoengineering, so here you go:

One strong argument in favour of Geoengineering says that it’s probably the only way to save summer sea ice in the arctic. Once ice goes away entirely, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to get it back. Once summer ice melts to open water, the albedo, which is the fractionof solar radiation reflected back into space as I have mentioned it in my introduction before, would drop from 0.6 to 0.1. This could accelerate rapid warming in the Arctic.  In fact, some scientists believe summer sea ice may disappear in the arctic by 2015 since the minimum sea-ice volume is falling continuously. I strongly recommend typing "Summer sea ice level dropping" into Google and looking at the results. It's quite shocking to know that these predictions might become reality soon, only 50 years from now.

This is a graph taken out from a NOAA report

They also argue with the following facta: Approximately one third of emitted carbon dioxide is already absorbed by the oceans, which became more acidic as a result. Oceans are already 30% more acidic today than they were in preindustrial times. If current emissions continue, most coral reefs could be gone by the end of the century, along with them all the ecosystems they support. Another fact is that carbon dioxide levels throughout the northern hemisphere have risen in April to 400 parts per million for the first time in history.The WMO (World Meteorological Organization) actually expects the concentration to be above 400 parts per million in 2015/16.

Furthermore, most scientists believe that reducing emissions of greenhouse gases is the safest way to prevent global warming, but they claim that this not enough to stabilise global temperature and consequently reduce global warming. Even though it’s unknown what level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere need to be reduced for a stable climate and a reduction of ocean acidification, scientists say that it is still important, if not essential, to minimise this level as much as we can. The fact itself that we do not know exactly how the climate system could react to growing greenhouse emissions is a reason to counter against it.  Therefore, Geoengineering would be the best way since it could solve the problem much quicker. It could forestall the consequences of emissions by protecting vulnerable natural ecosystems such as the arctic, or coral reefs, from damage.

Most scientists say that we should consider anything that could prevent global warming, including Geoengineering. Given our current situation where greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are continuously growing, we should not leave any prophylaxis out of  consideration.

Scientists highly encourage further research in this field too. They claim that not sufficient geoengineering research have been conducted. In fact, scientists are reluctant to do so because they fear that knowing how to engineer the climate would encourage people to do it for power purposes. Only proper studies show what can be changed to improve suggested Geoengineering techniques and how Geoengineering side effects, that may be detrimental to the ecosystems in the process, could be prevented. Only by having good research can we counterargue against Geoengineering.

They argue that if indeed climate-change predictions became suddenly reality and people became at risk, the population shouldn’t be ignorant about the ways to prevent it. Without proper research, nobody would know what can come out of a crash implementation of Geoengineering.

In addition to that, scientists who advocate in favour of Geoengineering keep saying that the costs of Geoengineering techniques are much cheaper than the costs of reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere. Particularly SRM techniques, which basically aim to reflect sunlight back into space, are cheap and convenient. A few grams of sulphate particles cost about a dollar per kilogram and considering that it could balance the warming of a tonne of carbon dioxide, this technique seems to be quite effective. In fact ,the current global warming level could be reduced at least one hundred times cheaper than by emissions cuts. A recent analysis of Geoengineering costs by McCennan concluded that the climate could be balanced with exisiting technology at a cost of less than 8 billion dollars per year. 

All in all, scientist advocate in favour of Geoengineering by giving proper facts about the current global warming situation. This makes their arguments more credible compared to the arguments against Geoengineering.

How do polaroid cameras work? - An explanation for everyone who wishes to have one

How do polaroid cameras work?

Once you press it, the rollers move the reagent and the photograph through the several layers. The reagent causes the four chemicals to react as well as the silver compound layers to process. From there, the photograph begins to develop. Out of the polaroid camera appears a grey image creating a chemical reaction before our eyes.Everybody is familiar with the look of a polaroid instant camera and knows that by pressing the shutter button, the picture appears almost instantly. But how do polaroid cameras produce physical pictures within such a short time? The secret of polaroid cameras lies in the film that is being used. In order to understand this process better, it is beneficial to know the basic physics behind traditional photography. Normal films consist of a plastic base that is covered with particles of a silver compound. In comparison to black and white films, which have only one layer of silver compound, colour films contain three layers of silver compound. Each of these are sensitive to different hues of light. The top layer is sensitive to blue light, the second layer to green and the bottom layer to red. When the film is exposed to light, the sensitive particles of the different layers react to the colours and form a colour pattern. To create an actual photograph out of this pattern, the film has to be developed further by using special chemicals. The film of traditional cameras has to be processed separately, meaning outside the camera. Here is where the secret of polaroid cameras comes to light. The instant film that is being used in polaroid cameras already provides all the necessary chemicals for developing a photograph. These chemicals can be found in additional layers which are placed underneath each colour layer. This specific arrangement of the many layers is highly important since a chemical chain reaction takes place when the “reagent” is set off. 

 

The reagent is a mixture of elements including white pigment, acid neutralizers and light-blockers. Before the button on the polaroid camera is pressed, the reagent material remains in the traditional white frame of polaroid photographs. This way, it is kept away from all of the developing chemicals until the shutter button is pressed. Once you press it, the rollers move the reagent and the photograph through the several layers. The reagent causes the four chemicals to react as well as the silver compound layers to process. From there, the photograph begins to develop. Out of the polaroid camera appears a grey image creating a chemical reaction before our eyes.

[373 words]

CAJ - Opinions against Geoengineering 2

Here I present you further arguments of scientist who advocate against Geoengineering

“To err is human” is a saying scientists who oppose Geoengineering use to make an argument. Humans could make mistakes such as in the manufacturing or the design of Geoengineering techniques and this could have unknown consequences. They use Chernobyl as an example of the effect if, theoretically, something went wrong.

According to a book called “A Combined Mitigation/Geoengineering Approach to Climate Stabilization”, there is a risk of rapid warming if the deployment of Geoengineering stopped promptly. It would be much worse than gradual warming and would have a bad effect on our ecosystems considering the fact that global temperatures would return to levels of 250 years ago with Geoengineering.

One of the most shared argument against Geoengineering is the following:  If scientist really found a way to fix global warming, people would be more reluctant to change their ways of living. They would continue to produce carbon emissions since it would no longer impact their lives negatively. Also, large corporations which exploit the Earth’s resources could gain advantage of Geoengineering and go on with their exploitation, maybe even worse than before.
Shouldn’t we care about our planet anyway? What is the excuse for what we are doing?

What is the optimal global temperature? This issue could come up if Geoengineering was to be implemented. We know by now that the northern world countries like Russia or Scandinavia could gain an advantage of warmer temperature as it could increase the growing season. India, on the other hand, could need lower temperatures. Should the degree remain like it is now? Is there a possibility of future wars around this issue? These are all questions scientist would rather not find an answer to.

They are also concerned that Geoengineering techniques may not achieve effective cuts in greenhouse gas emissions to avoid dangerous levels of global warming.

This is the answer of James Fleming, the author of “Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weather and Climate Control”, when he was asked if Geoengineering could save climate change:

“In short, I think it may be infinitely more dangerous than climate change, largely due to the suspicion and social disruption it would trigger by changing humanity's relationship to nature.”
- Interesting thought.

All in all, many scientist consider the implementation of Geoengineering to be a slippery slope as it is hard to predict what it could cause.

How to kill Hitler? - Instructions hm..

How to kill Hitler? - Instructions

Material required: Functional time machine, fully loaded gun (filled with more than one cartridge in case you miss the first shot), a sandwich

Time necessary: approximately 20 minutes

1.) Obtain a functional time machine from your scientist friend.

2.) Enter the time machine and set the date back to the 10th May, 1933. The place you want to go back to is Berlin, Germany. The setting will be the place where Hitler gave a speech. 
 

  Don’t forget to bring a fully loaded gun and a sandwich with you.  

3.) Wait until you find yourself in Berlin. In the meantime, eat your sandwich to boost up your energy.

4.) When the time machine stops, open the door and step out.

5.) As soon as you step out, station yourself amongst the crowd in front on the stage.
Here’s a tip: Get in the first row to get a good view on the stage.

6.) While Hitler gives his speech, be fully attentive. When he pauses to take a breath, take your gun out quickly.

 

7.) Point your gun properly so that you aim for Hitler’s heart or head.

Here’s a hint: Don’t aim for his leg or hand! A shot in these regions of the body might not kill him immediately.  

8.) Pull the trigger.

Be aware of the recoil when you shoot.

9.) If you hit him, run as fast as you can back to your time machine.

.

10.) Set the date again to the 14th May, 2014, as quickly as possible.

Good luck with your mission!