[ad_1]
The challenges posed by climate change are very real, but the political will to confront them does not exist at present. Doing it "the right way" involves substantial changes in our modes of travel, energy production and food culture to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's a lot of work, though. A new study is examining proposed changes to the atmosphere through a process called geoengineering. Researchers say this may be feasible, but others are concerned that this shortcut has unknown drawbacks down the line.
We all now know the fundamental mechanisms of climate change. Humans have begun to extract energy-dense hydrocarbons from the soil to feed the world. This means that there is much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than plant life can absorb and that the heat accumulated in the atmosphere is increased to increase global temperatures, so-called Greenhouse.
Most efforts to combat climate change are aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, according to some estimates, we are turning the vessel too slowly to avoid the catastrophic consequences of climate change. Scientists have proposed (half serious) that we can mimic the effects of a massive volcanic eruption by putting reflective particles in the atmosphere. This form of geoengineering helps combat climate change by reducing the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth. So there is always a greenhouse effect, but everything is equal in the end.
Data from NOAA show that the last few years have been significantly warmer than average.
One of the main problems in geoengineering is that some regions may experience a deterioration of the situation. The new analysis by researchers at Harvard, Princeton and MIT suggests that any negative impact on the climate would be extremely minor. The team has developed a model that involves the release of enough sulfur dioxide to counter half of the warming effect of carbon dioxide. According to the results, only 0.4% of the ice-free land would be adversely affected.
The team members make sure that this analysis does not mean a green light for geoengineering. There are many issues to consider before undertaking such action. For example, who has the power to change the atmosphere shared by the whole world? Who would even pay for it? Geoengineering on this scale could cost hundreds of billions of dollars a year. At this point, is not it better to use that money to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Nobody will start pumping sulfur dioxide into the air tomorrow, but it may happen someday.
Now read:
[ad_2]
Source link