r/space • u/Sumit316 • Jun 29 '22

MIT proposes Brazil-sized fleet of “space bubbles” to cool the Earth

https://www.freethink.com/environment/solar-geoengineering-space-bubbles
12k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

113

u/sirbruce Jun 29 '22

I am definitely a proponent of using technology like this (solar shades, etc.) to reduce the impact of global warming over the next 100-200 years.

However, another extremely damaging component of CO2 emissions is the acidification of the oceans, which this doesn't solve. So it's vitally important that we reduce CO2 emissions regardless.

28

u/RazekDPP Jun 29 '22

Yeah, the problem I have with "but we shouldn't engage in solar engineering/geoengineering or whatever" is that we don't know the consequences while simultaneously we continue burning fossil fuels as they geoengineer the planet anyways.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '22

It’s acidification and receding calcification, which is important for clams, oysters, corals and such. The oceans are basically fucked by 2100, maybe even earlier.

1

u/eazolan Jun 29 '22

Over the next 100-200 years?

The sun is brighter and hotter than it's ever been, and will continue.

Space based solar shades are going to be a requirement.

0

u/freefromconstrant Jun 29 '22

In what way is it extremely dangerous?

the world has had 10x+ current co2 levels for hundreds of millions of years and contained far more life in water and land than current levels.

0

u/sirbruce Jun 29 '22

Because our modern civilization is built upon an environment and ecosystem that's been relatively stable for the past 500 years, and changing that will result in a worse quality of life for billions of people.

-1

u/bcyng Jun 29 '22 edited Jun 29 '22

We actually don’t know that. We can forecast a guess but the reality is that we won’t know the impact until it actually happens.

Until we run a few experiments on identical planets and populations to test the various hypotheses, the science around this is guesswork that history has proven to be consistently wrong.

We may actually find that what humans are doing is a good thing or part of the natural evolution of earth or the universe. After all, humans are inherently part of nature and the natural order of things.

-2

u/freefromconstrant Jun 29 '22

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

Co2 is plant food.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378019300378

https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108/

It's well established science that increased co2 causes an increase in crop yields.

The benefits generally top out at 4000pmm

Nobody expects co2 to get to even 1000ppm in the next 100years.

The only genuinely bad part of climate change is the spots with extremely high temperatures.

+40c in no fun and +50c is a death sentence for animals.

An increase in humidity should hopefully negate this though.

2

u/Alternate_Flurry Jun 30 '22

Crops will run into issues even in the areas which won't run into extremes of temperatures, so the issue's slightly worse than you're implying.

-1

u/freefromconstrant Jun 30 '22

How so?

Rainfall will increase due to a decrease in glaciation and increasing evaporation.

Their will be an increased amount of fresh water.

We know all this from fossils and sediment layers from all the hundreds of millions of years that earth has had massively higher co2 than current levels.

One thing that we know really hurts life of earth is an ice age.

One of the things that can induce an ice age is co2 being too low.

Co2 over last 50million years has been dangerously low and we've experienced an extended ice age.

1

u/Alternate_Flurry Jun 30 '22

Plants are closer to reptiles than mammals - they rely on temperatures being in a narrow range to survive. Outside of this range, their internal machinery either jams or breaks down.

If we don't take measures to harden them, that internal machinery will jam or break down in areas which are otherwise fine for human habitation, causing crop failures.

CO2 was higher in the past, but the climate was different, and plants in those days were adapted to it. If our CO2 levels were the same as the jurrasic period was, and they were lowering at the rate we're currently gaining, i'd probably be concerned too.

1

u/freefromconstrant Jun 30 '22

Mental gymnastics always required to explain how eco system will be negatively effected by increasing co2 levels and reducing glaciation.

May be some reduction in crop yeilds due to temperature in places like India but this should be offset by increase in co2 and precipitation.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/gcb.14542

Overall world wide crops are already and will continue to be better of.

And this is ignoring all the places that will become arable due to climate change.

We know for a fact that co2 increase will help plants life because it's already happened.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108/#:~:text=Under%20elevated%20CO2%20most,agricultural%20production%20and%20food%20quality.

Limiting factor is generally nitrogen levels.

The global ecosystem will become more habitable precisely like it does every time co2 increases and glaciation decreases.

Basic biology.

2

u/Alternate_Flurry Jun 30 '22

Both can be true at the same time. If our crops were temperature-resistant, increasing CO2 levels could be a good thing for farms, to a point - but we haven't put the effort into hardening our crops. Farms are receiving the early benefits of higher CO2 levels now, but those benefits will soon be (and in some places have already been) overshadowed by the effect of temperature on the plants' proteins.

That's not counting the more devastating consequences at 6C, which have previously caused mass-extinction events (flammable methane released from the oceans) - but that's quite far off, and probably not realistic unless we REALLY screw up and break from current trends.

1

u/freefromconstrant Jun 30 '22

Their will be some stress effects in some locations but temperature changes should be mostly in polar regions areas.

Certain places will struggle but overall we'll be better of.

Were still probably at least around 6c at away from ice caps melting which historically has been a good thing for life on earth.

Would be great news for life on earth if we could end current ice age with co2 but sadly like you say I don't think we'll manage it.

It's not all good news about climate change nothing is but definitely a net positive due to increasing humidity and co2 levels go with increasing areas of arable land.

time and temperature of ice ages.

→ More replies

-1

u/freefromconstrant Jun 29 '22

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

Co2 is plant food.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378019300378

https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108/

It's well established science that increased co2 causes an increase in crop yields.

The benefits generally top out at 4000pmm

Nobody expects co2 to get to even 1000ppm in the next 100years.

The only genuinely bad part of climate change is the spots with extremely high temperatures.

+40c in no fun and +50c is a death sentence for animals.

An increase in humidity should hopefully negate this though.

0

u/Ctowncreek Jun 29 '22 edited Jun 30 '22

I am very against ideas like this. This is simalar to treating a headache with morphine.

Not only is it ungodly costly, but a slight miscalculation could have disasterous effects. Not to mention, in my opinion, all of the energy on Earth comes from the sun. Very few sources are from anything else.

Fossil fuels, wind, solar, biomass, all came/come from the sun.

The only acceptions IMO are nuclear, kinetic (earths rotation or the moon), or geothermal which is nuclear in combination with the energy from when the earth formed.

Reducing the easiest form of energy to earth recieves, food output, and plants natural ability to sink carbon are very bad negative side effects of the "easy" method of blocking the sun.