Disinformation is circulating online after a recent announcement that the British government is going to finance the outdoor geoengineering experiences.
Geo-engineering refers to deliberate and large-scale interventions in the Earth environment to try to consider the effects of climate change. It takes two main forms: management of solar radiation (SRM), where a small part of the sun and heat is reflected in space to cool the earth and the elimination of carbon dioxide.
The United Kingdom focuses on the first, the government allocating some 56.8 million pounds sterling (67 million euros) to the project, according to reports. The experiments will work with particles reflecting the sun in the stratosphere and spray seawater on reflective clouds.
The Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA), which supports the plan, said that the tests will be on a small scale and that they will also examine how geo-engineering could be governed international.
It is believed that if geo-engineering is safe, it could be used to cool the planet and slow global warming, giving more time to fight against the climate crisis.
However, despite the statements that the United Kingdom plans are at the experimental stage, they have not prevented social media users from claiming that the country has already engaged in geoenginery for years without public consent as a means of controlling the population.
Affirmations also feed the Largely demystified “chemtrails” conspiracy theoryIncluding the believers insist that some steam steam trails contain harmful chemicals that are sprayed on the public across Europe or that others are used to mitigate the sun and block light.
Eurovenife put these concepts to the experts, who rejected them in a resounding manner.
“It would be impossible to carry out experiences of a large -scale meteorological modification in secret. This simply cannot be done,” said Jim Franke, researcher in the Department of Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago.
“The quantity of aircraft necessary to control this material where it must go, and the radiative effect would be easily obtained by information accessible to the public,” he added.
Wolfgang Cramer, professor of global ecology and researcher at the CNRS, the French National Center for Scientific Research, said that there are many valid criticisms of geo-engineering, it is evil to accuse governments of examining it with malicious intention.
“I am sure that governments like the United Kingdom and others have an honest goal, that there is a real wish to solve a problem of humanity,” he told Euroverife. “I think there is a debate on this subject, * and there are not necessarily bad guys and good.“”
They also refuted the claims that the announcement of the geo-engineering experience of the United Kingdom is a coverage for the fact that IT and other countries have already led the SRM in secret for years.
“It is a complete nonsense, there is absolutely no evidence for that,” said Cramer, noting that people should be careful not to confuse SRM experiences with cloud sowing techniques used in certain parts of the world to increase precipitation and produce rain.
“This is not what I am talking about when I talk about the management of solar radiation, because solar radiation in this definition is the long-term manipulation of the balance of atmosphere radiation,” he added.
ADVERTISEMENTFranke has asserted a similar point, noting that certain isolated and small scale experiences have been carried out in the past, in addition to the computer simulations of geo-engineering, but in the end, it is unreasonable to think that governments could have carried out so large procedures for so long.
“The articles are published (by renowned universities) on geo-engineering, so I am sure that this takes place in online spheres and is misinterpreted in any way interpreting these things,” he said. “There is generated material that can be introduced into this type of conspiracy.”
Why is geo-engineering so controversial?
The generally slow attempts of the international community to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have aroused wide frustration and have made a lot of way to turn to geoengineering in search of a weapon against global warming.
However, the scientific community is divided on the merits of technology, partly due to the perception that it would divert resources to tackle the deep cause of climate change and reduce motivation to decarbonise, and also partly due to questions about how these patterns would be governed internationally.
ADVERTISEMENT“Technically and financially, (SRM) would be possible,” said Cramer. “It would take a fleet of planes positioned around the planet in critical places that would mainly fly day and night and inject the particles into the atmosphere.”
“You can, depending on the model calculations, reduce the world average temperature by doing so,” he said.
However, he added that his main concerns about SRM geo-engineering are how long it would take into force, how many parts of the world would benefit from it and how it would be supervised.
“It will probably take about a decade before you can even see the effects,” he said. “And some areas would see more warming, others would see much less, perhaps even to the point where they would not even be satisfied.”
ADVERTISEMENT“You will clearly have winners and losers … The atmosphere is a very dynamic structure, and if you want to control the amount of radiation that crosses it at every moment and each point of space, due to the chaotic nature of the atmosphere, this cannot be done.”
Experts say that a global SRM program would demand that an international organization governed its implementation, leaving it vulnerable to political whims of the time. Any given country could in theory decide to withdraw at any time, thus harming the initiative and cancel the progress made.
The body should also last decades, even centuries, until global temperatures have been sufficiently reduced and SRM has slowly suppressed, requiring significant financial and technical resources.
On unwanted environmental effects, Franke said that Franke said that SRM geo-engineering could cause a slowdown in the hydrological cycle.
ADVERTISEMENT“If you reduce incoming solar radiation a little, you will reduce evaporation and atmospheric transport of water vapor, then corresponding precipitation,” he said. “Thus, this general slowdown in the hydrological cycle could have regional impacts with regard to reduced precipitation in certain regions.”
He added that the expectation of additional research, the extent and the extent of this is still very uncertain, and therefore if solar geo-engineering is beneficial in terms of water availability for people and plants around the world is an open question. *
Other side effects, such as harming photosynthesis in plants due to a reduction in sunlight, have also been raised as a potential problem, but they are not well understood and explain precisely why other research and experiences are necessary.
However, computer modeling so far shows that a moderate quantity of SRM “would reduce almost all key climatic risks,” said Franke.
ADVERTISEMENT“Choose the most relevant climate risk for your region: extreme temperatures of the wet bulb in summer; a kind of coastal erosion driven by sea level elevation; SnowPack; Fell Felting,” he said. “Whatever the fact that it is, for almost all, moderate solar geo-engineering this climate risk.”
“I am a pro-Research geo-engineer, I am not a pro-implementing geo-engineering,” added Franke. “The decision to do so must be taken by an international coalition of guiding organizations, and hopefully, the best research available to do so.“”
