Read Online The Best Australian Science Writing 2013 by Jane McCredie - Free Book Online Page B
Authors: Jane McCredie
Ads: Link
empireâ. I summon up the black cloud experiment here to flag the nascent military and strategic interest being stirred by geoengineering. The attention of the RAND Corporation has recently returned to climate engineering.
In 1993 the esteemed journal Climatic Change published a novel scheme to counter global warming by the Indian physicist PC Jain. Professor Jain began by reminding us that the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth varies in inverse square to the distance of the Earth from the Sun. He therefore proposed that the effects of global warming could be countered by increasing the radius of the Earthâs orbit around the Sun. An orbital expansion of 1â2 per cent would do it, although one of the side effects would be to add 5.5 days to each year. He then calculated how much energy would be needed to bring about such a shift in the Earthâs celestial orbit. The answer is around 10 31 joules. How much is that? According to Professor Jainâs calculations, at the current annual rate of consumption, it is more than the amount of energy humans would consume over 10 20 years, or 100 billion billion years (the age of the universe is around 14 billion years). This seems like a lot, yet he reminds us that âin many areas of science, seemingly impossible things at one time have become possible laterâ. Perhaps, he speculates, nuclear fusion will enable us to harness enough energy to expand the Earthâs orbit. He nevertheless counsels caution: âThe whole galactic system is naturallyand delicately balanced, and any tinkering with it can bring havoc by bringing alterations in orbits of other planets also.â
The caution is well taken, although the intricate network of orbital dependence has stimulated another geoengineering suggestion. The thought is to send nuclear-armed rockets to the asteroid belt beyond the planets of our solar system so as to ânudgeâ one or more into orbits that would pass closer to the Earth. Properly calibrated, the sling-shot effect from the asteroidâs gravity would shift the Earthâs orbit out a bit. Of course, if the calibration were a little out, the planet could be sent careening off into a cold, dark universe, or suffer a drastic planet-scale freezing from the dust thrown up by an asteroid strike.
Some of these schemes seem properly to belong in an HG Wells novel or a geeksâ discussion group, and too much emphasis on them for the delights of ridicule would give a very unbalanced impression of the research program into climate engineering now under way. Serious work is being conducted on schemes to regulate the Earth system by changing the chemical composition of the worldâs oceans, modifying the layer of clouds that covers a large portion of the oceans and installing a âsolar shieldâ, a layer of sulphate particles in the upper atmosphere to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the planet. There are some who believe that we will have no choice but to resort to these radical interventions. How did we get to this point? The simple answer is that the scientists who understand climate change most deeply have become afraid.
Promethean dreams
Everyone is looking for an easy way out. The easiest way out is to refuse to accept there is a predicament. Another is to hope that the problem is not as bad as it seems and that something will come along. The technofix of geoengineering is a third way out and an emerging lobby group of scientists, investors and politicalactors is giving it momentum. Yet the appeal of climate engineering runs deeper, for as an answer to global warming it dovetails perfectly with the modernist urge to exert control over nature by techno logical means.
Scientists, entrepreneurs and generals have long dreamed of controlling the weather. The development of computers and the accumulation of weather data using satellites have prompted a new and higher phase of dreaming. In 2002 the American
In 1993 the esteemed journal Climatic Change published a novel scheme to counter global warming by the Indian physicist PC Jain. Professor Jain began by reminding us that the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth varies in inverse square to the distance of the Earth from the Sun. He therefore proposed that the effects of global warming could be countered by increasing the radius of the Earthâs orbit around the Sun. An orbital expansion of 1â2 per cent would do it, although one of the side effects would be to add 5.5 days to each year. He then calculated how much energy would be needed to bring about such a shift in the Earthâs celestial orbit. The answer is around 10 31 joules. How much is that? According to Professor Jainâs calculations, at the current annual rate of consumption, it is more than the amount of energy humans would consume over 10 20 years, or 100 billion billion years (the age of the universe is around 14 billion years). This seems like a lot, yet he reminds us that âin many areas of science, seemingly impossible things at one time have become possible laterâ. Perhaps, he speculates, nuclear fusion will enable us to harness enough energy to expand the Earthâs orbit. He nevertheless counsels caution: âThe whole galactic system is naturallyand delicately balanced, and any tinkering with it can bring havoc by bringing alterations in orbits of other planets also.â
The caution is well taken, although the intricate network of orbital dependence has stimulated another geoengineering suggestion. The thought is to send nuclear-armed rockets to the asteroid belt beyond the planets of our solar system so as to ânudgeâ one or more into orbits that would pass closer to the Earth. Properly calibrated, the sling-shot effect from the asteroidâs gravity would shift the Earthâs orbit out a bit. Of course, if the calibration were a little out, the planet could be sent careening off into a cold, dark universe, or suffer a drastic planet-scale freezing from the dust thrown up by an asteroid strike.
Some of these schemes seem properly to belong in an HG Wells novel or a geeksâ discussion group, and too much emphasis on them for the delights of ridicule would give a very unbalanced impression of the research program into climate engineering now under way. Serious work is being conducted on schemes to regulate the Earth system by changing the chemical composition of the worldâs oceans, modifying the layer of clouds that covers a large portion of the oceans and installing a âsolar shieldâ, a layer of sulphate particles in the upper atmosphere to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the planet. There are some who believe that we will have no choice but to resort to these radical interventions. How did we get to this point? The simple answer is that the scientists who understand climate change most deeply have become afraid.
Promethean dreams
Everyone is looking for an easy way out. The easiest way out is to refuse to accept there is a predicament. Another is to hope that the problem is not as bad as it seems and that something will come along. The technofix of geoengineering is a third way out and an emerging lobby group of scientists, investors and politicalactors is giving it momentum. Yet the appeal of climate engineering runs deeper, for as an answer to global warming it dovetails perfectly with the modernist urge to exert control over nature by techno logical means.
Scientists, entrepreneurs and generals have long dreamed of controlling the weather. The development of computers and the accumulation of weather data using satellites have prompted a new and higher phase of dreaming. In 2002 the American
Similar Books
