Scientists have lined up new and ingenious way of combating global warming: use chemicals to disperse the sun. Whether we fight we can (and do everything) in the shade, research does not mean enough.
Since the world can not seem to agree on the reduction of & # 39; the CO2 emissions, because it does not address the problem at the end, scientists from Harvard and Yale submitted. The recently published study researchers suggest that the spraying & # 39; large amounts of & # 39; sulphate particles in the lower stratosphere of the Earth so that sunlight can literally reduce & # 39; reduce the effects of global climate change in & # 39; & # 39 middle and might; be cheap!
With all the excitement over the "hypothetical","highly uncertain and ambiguous, "Plan, m & # 39; there are no guarantees that in fact will not make things worse by & # 39; catastrophic way. There is a suspicious lack of & # 39; information that" can & # 39; jbaxxar sun "can & # 39; to make those of us who depend on it for basic things – such as growing food, or not freezing to death.
Instead, the study published in Letters & # 39; Environmental Research discusses the potential costs and technology needed to carry out the ambitious plan, if not hubristic. Researches discuss a variety of & # 39; possible ways to carry out large scale & # 39;Geo-engineering"Project: aircraft, balloons, or even chemical firing in the air b & # 39; big guns.
Scientists: We need to reduce the sun to avoid disaster on climate change
Me: It's gonna rain tomorrow?
Scientists: The weather is extremely complicated system, I & # 39; just give my best guess.
Me: Let the Sun fucking alone.
– Carpe Donktum? (@Carpedonktum) 23 & # 39; November 2018
Even further, a fairly serious problem with the proposal: currently no aircraft can & # 39; delivering the payload. Adaptation & # 39; existing version of the Falcon Heavy rocket & # 39; SpaceX has been excluded, and cited the cost.
The proposal suggests that the launch can & # 39; performed within 15 years, with an initial cost of & # 39; about $ 3.5 billion, followed by another period of & # 39; 15 years worth an additional $ 2.5 billion – a relatively low cost because of the scale and significance of the project, they argue. Initial Fleet & # 39; 8 vessels will initially expand to nearly 100 to use the required amount of & # 39; chemicals worldwide.
There are other less technical disadvantages to the proposal, as well. Among the most obvious is that the plan would require international coordination between several countries, including the United States – the President Donald Trump regularly expresses doubts about climate change b & # 39; in general.
Extended Brutal Cold Blast and can & # 39; shatter ALL RECORDS – You get & # 39; it happened to Global Warming?
– Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 22 & # 39; November 2018
Dr Phil Williamson, Honorary Reader in University & # 39; East Anglia, criticized the proposal, saying that the nations "continued to experience extreme climatic events"Can & # 39; then"considers that geo-engineering was responsible sun"And it should be compensated. In other words, the cutting of the world from the liveliness can & # 39; & # 39 be a matter of real-responsibility.
Others criticized the response strategy because they help the band ignores the actual causes of the problem.
If you love this story, sharing it & # 39; friend!