https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/EM_GeoE_Meeting_Report_final.pdf

It's fun to think that a 15 MW wind generator can pump 400 olympic swimming pools of water every day, upwards 50 stories, and atomize it near an arid coastal region. That's 2.5 cubic kilometer of cumulus cloud. I think it's worth debating as scientists. The salt is heavy so it would fall out within 1-2 kilometers. I want to build that just for scientific reasons to study local atmospheric geoengineering.

There are more And More attacks against Geoengineering because of The Fear of unknown, and These skeptics would rather face climate catastrophe that would be as bad as dinosaur killing asteroid, Killin 90% of Life on earth and making species extinct. But Geo engineering is some sort of palitive chemotherapy that controls the cancer or shrinks the tumor, in This case, reducing the temperature of earth into More balanced state, and While it has side effects, it is better to deal with those than with climate catastrophe. It buys our time. When scientists darken the sun, there would be an CO2 removal machines that might save the planet at least temporary if not permanently. Life would continue and there would be Less floods, tornadoes and other severe winds. So that is how I see Geoengineering, it keeps planet stable and prevent climate catastrophe for Long time, and More CO2 removal machines get installed the better.

1. Harvest Ice Bergs from the Southern Ocean transport the ice bergs north along the west coast of south America to the Galapagos Islands to melt along the trip to transfer the ocean heat into the melting ice bergs to cool the eastern pacific to enhance the cool phase of ENSO and possibly how long the phase is active

2 floating wind farms north of papua new guinea along the equator up until west papua and as north as Guam to capture the energy from the wind to stabilise the walker circulation

I recently started working with a few people who are pushing OIF (Ocean Iron Fertilization) very very hard.

I talked to them and I have a few takeaways.

1. You need a mechanism to get the carbon sequestered in the plankton bloom away from the surface. Need downwelling

2. There are only a few downwelling areas in the ocean that are ripe for fertilization.

3. The science seems pretty straightforward.

Fertilize the ocean in an area where the plankton don't remain in the food web. The bodies of the plankton become marine snow. Marine snow is for all intents and purposes not a problem re: global warming.

I can link documents amd articles if necessary but I gotta know if they're blowing smoke. Please help.

I have an idea for a geoengineering project, but I'm not sure how or where I can propose the idea to.

It involves using the azolla fern (or the related duckweed plant) to draw down mass amounts of carbon. The issue is that it would require lots of land and permits.

I don't know how feasible this idea is. I guess that is part of my question. (And I'm not advocating; calm down.)

Reading an article in The New Yorker... It describes the importance of feedback loops, including the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC, pronounced "ay-mock").

It describes the water flow from south to north, with the heavy cold salty north water sinking and the warmer south water being drawn north. At full strength, total flow is 20 "sverdrups", 100 times flow of Amazon. Variations in the flow (and salinity) cause variations in cooking/heating.

Anyone know more about this? Ever heard of Geoengineering proposals dealing with the AMOC?

I'm writing my thesis on the governance of SRM, and I've noticed some debate on the approach to take. Some advocate for a top-down strategy, arguing that SRM's global effects require centralized governance rather than relying on individual countries as the effect will be global. Conversely, others suggest starting with the scientific community self-regulating and pressuring nations to enact laws, eventually leading to a cooperative international governance structure. I'm curious to know which approach you support more?

View Poll

18 years old brazilian freshman in geography major here.

What suggestions and routes should I get to work in the geoengineering field in Europe or US in the future?

COP Press Conference is frightening so blocked on TikTok https://youtu.be/P7mVI8o6xKc?si=xP0eqkUU7eeG2rBu

In some countries, mirrors or high albedo materials can be placed on top and sides of cars reducing the absorbed heat, thereby reducing the need for air conditioning, which would slightly reduce the carbon released and it would also be surface albedo modification. Not easy to implement though

I am wondering if carbon capture and storage could be applied to burning something like Miscanthus giganteus and that would be a viable and scalable form of negative emissions?

It seems, that some plants are already quite efficient at carbon sequestration so burning them and storing the carbon would be easier than building direct air capture technology? Plus, these plants also store a significant amount of carbon by themselves in their underground roots regardless of capture.

Is it something that is considered seriously already? I don't know enough about the economics, but Miscanthus giganteus seems to have a high energy density per acre (comparable to renewables) so that could make the economics of carbon capture viable?

It would need of course to have advanced locks and rail road for the contents but in my theory it would be a catalyst to lift Africa, remove any dependency on Russian gas/oil ? Thoughts ?

Look up Woods Hole Oceanographics plan to dump metric tons of caustic Lye into the ocean off of Martha's Vineyard, a pristine island

Not exactly climate-change related and admittedly a very green and not too well thought out idea. The presence of Saharan dust over the Atlantic interferes with the production of tropical storms. I wonder if it would be possible to easily kick up dust in the Sahara to enhance the amount of dust flowing westerly towards the Caribbean and Southern U.S. Are there some human land-use practices that are usually avoided because they create dust that would enhance dust over the Sahara ? (in a responsible way, of course)

The ground track of a geosynchronous sunshade would be a north-south aligned narrow figure of 8. But the path of the shadow would be, I think, an arc. Suppose the maximum northern excursion was to 50 degrees north and 100 degrees west, the Kansas Nebraska border about halfway across those states. Then the arc might go from Miami to Nebraska to San Diego, maybe.

If the shadow were big, like maybe the size of Rhode Island, it would have a big impact on the area under the arc. Solar panel power reduced, drastic temperature swings, traffic accidents in the daytime darkness. Property values maybe lower, or maybe higher if the daily temperature drop helped agriculture.

How could this be prioritized?