Thank you Pete. I prefer the concept of Brightening the Earth rather than your phrase dimming the Sun. The point is to increase planetary albedo for sunlight reflection, recognising albedo is now falling by more that 1% per decade according to NASA. We have to reverse this planetary darkening and its dangerous acceleration of GHG heating. Brightening the Earth presents this in a positive way.
Jim Hansen argues in Global Warming in the Pipeline that Marine Cloud Brightening is the most innocuous way to start cooling the planet, partly because it is local, whereas stratospheric aerosol injection is necessarily global at latitude. His call for intervention with Earth’s radiation imbalance has potential to shift the debate.
A main reason MCB is more innocuous is that political agreement for MCB could be obtained within affected jurisdictions. That would show people the benefit of the concept of cooling, enabling a more receptive discussion of SAI. I would like to see Australia extend our testing of MCB on the Great Barrier Reef to the southern Indian Ocean. That would be optimal for reversing the local loss and damage from warming and would not affect any other countries.
That all seems quite reasonable. In terms of Brightening the Earth vs Dimming the Sun, both seem accurate for stratospheric aerosol geoengineering, but I guess it depends on your perspective. From an outside perspective the Earth would be brighter, but from the inside perspective we'd experience a dimmed sun. That said, brightening the Earth would also capture MCB.
We definitely have a terminology problem on this topic as "Solar Radiation Modification" and Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering" are pretty mystifying terms for the general public. In time, I think we'll need to adopt a more undertsandable alternative like: Sunlight Reflection Methods, Sun Dimming, Earth Brightening, Plantary Shading, etc.
Thanks Pete, I only just saw your reply today. Our team working with Stephen Salter are rebranding as Marine Cloud Rebrightening to reflect the observation that the planet has darkened significantly and that albedo loss is a primary cause of warming. Rebrightening is needed just to help restore the previous stable earth energy balance - working towards a primary climate goal of net zero heating before net zero emissions. Our website rebrighten.org is seeking funding for engineering interns to work with Stephen to test his design for submicron salt aerosol generation. We like the concept of rebrightening because it carries the triple meaning that a brighter world will be more reflective, smarter and more hopeful. Doug MacMartin has endorsed the rebranding of SRM as sunlight reflection methods. I like that a lot for the reasons you mention, that we need simple accessible positive language to reach a mass audience. Our team see MCB (or MCRB) as the best option for the reason Jim Hansen mentioned in Global Warming In The Pipeline, that it is the most innocuous starting point. Just on this sequencing argument, MCRB can be deployed locally, whereas SAI necessarily involves multiple jurisdictions which will be harder to get governance agreement for. If you would like to speak to our group please email me at robert at rtulip.net. Many thanks again.
Thank you Pete. I prefer the concept of Brightening the Earth rather than your phrase dimming the Sun. The point is to increase planetary albedo for sunlight reflection, recognising albedo is now falling by more that 1% per decade according to NASA. We have to reverse this planetary darkening and its dangerous acceleration of GHG heating. Brightening the Earth presents this in a positive way.
Jim Hansen argues in Global Warming in the Pipeline that Marine Cloud Brightening is the most innocuous way to start cooling the planet, partly because it is local, whereas stratospheric aerosol injection is necessarily global at latitude. His call for intervention with Earth’s radiation imbalance has potential to shift the debate.
A main reason MCB is more innocuous is that political agreement for MCB could be obtained within affected jurisdictions. That would show people the benefit of the concept of cooling, enabling a more receptive discussion of SAI. I would like to see Australia extend our testing of MCB on the Great Barrier Reef to the southern Indian Ocean. That would be optimal for reversing the local loss and damage from warming and would not affect any other countries.
That all seems quite reasonable. In terms of Brightening the Earth vs Dimming the Sun, both seem accurate for stratospheric aerosol geoengineering, but I guess it depends on your perspective. From an outside perspective the Earth would be brighter, but from the inside perspective we'd experience a dimmed sun. That said, brightening the Earth would also capture MCB.
We definitely have a terminology problem on this topic as "Solar Radiation Modification" and Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering" are pretty mystifying terms for the general public. In time, I think we'll need to adopt a more undertsandable alternative like: Sunlight Reflection Methods, Sun Dimming, Earth Brightening, Plantary Shading, etc.
Thanks Pete, I only just saw your reply today. Our team working with Stephen Salter are rebranding as Marine Cloud Rebrightening to reflect the observation that the planet has darkened significantly and that albedo loss is a primary cause of warming. Rebrightening is needed just to help restore the previous stable earth energy balance - working towards a primary climate goal of net zero heating before net zero emissions. Our website rebrighten.org is seeking funding for engineering interns to work with Stephen to test his design for submicron salt aerosol generation. We like the concept of rebrightening because it carries the triple meaning that a brighter world will be more reflective, smarter and more hopeful. Doug MacMartin has endorsed the rebranding of SRM as sunlight reflection methods. I like that a lot for the reasons you mention, that we need simple accessible positive language to reach a mass audience. Our team see MCB (or MCRB) as the best option for the reason Jim Hansen mentioned in Global Warming In The Pipeline, that it is the most innocuous starting point. Just on this sequencing argument, MCRB can be deployed locally, whereas SAI necessarily involves multiple jurisdictions which will be harder to get governance agreement for. If you would like to speak to our group please email me at robert at rtulip.net. Many thanks again.