Question 1

? What's the scientific argument of the MEER concept?

Accepted Answer

(needs supplementary info in Library: see final sentence)  The science behind global warming is complex.  The Earth is large, and its climate is influenced by numerous factors, many of which are not well understood. Additionally, drivers of climate change are typically non-linear; the rate of change to any factor is not steady, and a small change in one factor can produce very large changes to other factors, complicating estimations of future effects.  As sunlight warms the planet, some of the resulting heat dissipates out into space until a "balance" or "steady state" forms, so that over long periods of time, Earth's temperature fluctuates around a particular average. But since the Industrial Revolution, excessive greenhouse gases (GHGs) from fossil fuels have begun to prevent some of the heat from leaving Earth's atmosphere, so that heat builds up faster than it can leave the planet, resulting in the global warming we've been experiencing in recent decades. Earth's "energy balance" has become broken.  It's easy to imagine that by removing GHGs and reducing further emissions, the rising temperatures will stop or even be reversed. But that’s a bit like thinking that your lung cancer will go away if you stop smoking.  Reducing emissions, improving natural carbon sinks like forests, fostering regenerative farming and even cleaning the air with machines will help reduce GHGs to sustainable levels, but the effect on Earth's temperatures as a result of these measures has little immediate impact. Despite GHG management efforts, Earth’s temperatures will continue to rise, setting off self-reinforcing feedback loops, such as melting sea ice, that will further reduce Earth’s ability to reflect the warming sunlight, driving temperatures even higher.  The rising temperatures will cause crops to fail, bringing famine and mass emigration, destabilizing international politics and even leading to war. Sea levels will rise dramatically, putting many coastal populations underwater and creating further refugee crises. On top of that, numerous plant and animal species will continue to become extinct at an ever-increasing rate.  There are those who deny the time delay that GHG-management strategies involve. By referring to scientific models, some say that limiting or reducing GHGs has a rapid effect on temperatures.  Models are a favorite tool of scientists and are an excellent way to test a theory, or a solution to a problem. They aim to anticipate and measure results from hypothetical scenarios, but they have inherent limitations; they normally cannot take all of the relevant data into account and are prone to basic design flaws and limitations in their attempts to mimic what are often deeply complex natural relationships that are only partially understood in the first place.  But models aren’t necessary to appreciate the problem: Earth’s current energy imbalance indicates that average temperatures will still rise a full 1°C in the near-term no matter what happens to GHGs in the meantime. This is even after taking into account the temperature increase this imbalance has already caused. As a result, focusing only on GHG reduction is a fool's game.  More information about this subject can be found in our Library.

Question 2

Why can’t we just plant trees?

Accepted Answer

Although trees and other plants remove CO2 from the air, planting trees in order to remove the overabundance of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere is a strategy that will fail. Planting trees helps to sequester CO2, which is the main reason why it is often proposed as a solution to the problem of having too much CO2 in the atmosphere. Plants “inhale” CO2 and “exhale” oxygen. Everyone likes the idea of planting a tree. It is friendly, it is natural, it is easy, it is not expensive. Politicians and the biggest polluting industries in the world, like the energy and livestock industries, find this solution attractive as well because it removes them from the spotlight and allows them to potentially continue on with their own business as usual, to make money while continuing to destroy the conditions for life on Earth.   Far more important to helping to fight global warming than planting trees is to stop the destruction of the already existing carbon sequestering rain forests of the world, which are rich in biodiversity and foster life in a way that a sterile landscape of planted fir trees can never match.  We need to remove GHGs from our atmosphere quickly. One problem with tree planting is that it takes many years (decades) for a tree to grow to maturity when its effective sequestration power is maximized.  There is also a problem of scale: the number of trees needed to tackle this problem is beyond our ability to plant.  Another important factor complicating trees as a solution is that their ability to sequester carbon is unstable. If a forest burns down, the sequestered carbon is released back into the atmosphere. As global warming continues, making temperatures higher and removing water from our lands, the frequency of forest fires increases, as we are already seeing.  Finally, planting trees does not foster biodiversity. A human-made, artificial forest is not the same as a natural forest that supports a variety of plant and animal life and has a greater sequestration value. We desperately need forests, but cannot really create them; forests of a single tree variety result in fields of green not particularly amenable to the natural growth and flourishing of the type of biodiversity that natural forests support and that are far more beneficial to the total ecosystem.

Question 3

? Why should we care if average global temperatures only go up 1 or 2 or 3 degrees?

Accepted Answer

When climate scientists discuss temperatures on Earth, they usually talk about the changes to average global temperatures. This is very different from seasonal temperatures in a particular region, for example, and makes the answer to this question especially important.  The local temperatures at various places on Earth vary widely. There is always a city on the planet experiencing zero temperatures, for example, while in other cities on the same day it may be 40°C/104°F. So it makes little sense to refer to any particular place on Earth when we discuss global warming and the changing temperatures. Instead we talk about the average temperatures and changes to global average temperatures.   A 1°C increase in average global temperatures does not mean that average temperatures in Belfast, Miami, Tokyo or any other city increase by only 1°C. It instead implies a range of larger and smaller changes at different places on the globe, and at different times of the year. It means that a 1°C average increase globally could mean a 2°C change to average temperatures in Belfast, or a 4°C change to average temperatures in Tokyo, or a 6°C change in Miami. And because these changes are only average changes spread over an entire year, the changes in any particular place over a short period of time, such as a few days, could be much higher than the average change. So people in Belfast could also see temperatures in July go from their current July average of 20°C/68°F to 33°C/91.4°F for a few days, for example. By the same token, peak July temperatures in Miami could move from their average of 28°C/82.5°F to a whopping 47°C/116.6°F for short periods! And all with "only" a 1°C change in average global temperatures.  Additionally, we also have to think about other forms of life on Earth when we consider changing temperatures. People can withstand much higher temperature ranges than many other forms of life, which can be significantly harmed or even killed by changes to their ecosystems as small as only 1°C.

Question 4

Technology got us into this mess, how can you expect it to get us out of it?

Accepted Answer

There is a simple logical flaw in this line of thinking, the same logic that would tell us that since Jack spilled the milk, Jack cannot clean it up, or that if a house catches fire due to poorly installed wiring in the house’s electrical system (technology) we cannot call the fire department to come and put out the fire using their (technology) trucks and hoses.  When it comes to human-caused global warming, technology isn’t the problem, human ignorance, arrogance, selfishness and short-term thinking are the problems.

Question 5

How much heat can mirrors and other solar reflectors send out of the atmosphere?

Accepted Answer

Technically, it is light, not heat, that reflectors send away from Earth. While a negligible amount of heat from the sun’s rays warms the atmosphere as they pass through it, over 99% of the sun’s heating power from those rays of light is unleashed only after they hit and then begin heating up Earth’s surface, whether that is a field of grass, a body of water, rocks, the hood of a car, cities, and so on. Mirrors and other reflectors reflect the light, and also the vast majority of the resulting heating power of that light, back into space.

Question 6

? How many reflectors would offset one person’s average CO2 debt?

Accepted Answer

?

Question 7

? How much of the planet should be covered in reflective surfaces?

Accepted Answer

?

Question 8

? How long will it take before reflectors begin to reduce temperature in the biosphere?

Accepted Answer

Specular reflectors reflect light instantaneously. The real question is: How long will it take people to realize that this problem won’t go away, and to be committed to doing something about it even if it isn’t a profit-making endeavor? We can think of this another way: if we could have zero new GHG emissions tomorrow, Earth’s temperatures would still continue to rise for many years. But if we could have X% of the Earth’s surface covered with reflectors tomorrow, Earth’s temperatures would stop rising within X.

Question 9

Can specular reflectors actually cool an overheated area like a village or town?

Accepted Answer

Yes they can, but we have to qualify that answer. Village and towns are essentially collections of various buildings, to a large extent. If reflectors can be placed on top of a home, they can cool the structure itself and the air inside it. The same is true for other structures or areas, including barns, playgrounds, or virtually any surface or area covered by a reflector. A structure with multiple floors becomes more problematic, as the top floor directly beneath the reflectors receives the largest benefit. If the exposed sides of the building are not protected as well, the cooling effect on the structure overall will be limited. The unprotected air in and around the area will of course not be cooled. The impact of that uncooled air is difficult to accurately quantify.

Question 10

? Do mirrors harm animal life such as insects and birds?

Accepted Answer

?

Question 11

? Will mirrors be blinding to people, animals or pilots?

Accepted Answer

Only to those dumb enough to look at them! (Answer needed)

Question 12

? What are the possible meteorological effects of mirrors on a region?

Accepted Answer

Small-scale mirror installations would likely have little impact on that area’s weather. But if a large enough total surface area of mirror installations were built so as to affect average temperatures all over the planet, the weather would certainly be impacted. Not only would the temperature be reduced, but…

Question 13

? How long can reflectors  be expected to operate?

Accepted Answer

Mirrors last indoors for centuries. Outdoor mirrors can last many years as well. The other reflectors MEER plans to use should also last for many, many years. Assuming the reflectors are not harmed by anything other than the weather, by dust or dirt in the air, bird droppings, and similar normal wear-and-tear, they should be able to function, with occasional cleaning, for decades. The mirrors recommended by MEER would be made of two panes of glass on either side of a reflective material. If the edges of the glass are sealed to prevent moisture from entering between the panes, the mirrors are essentially impervious to mould or other forms of gradual degradation that could otherwise ensue. The other reflectors MEER plans to use will have a similar robust character and longevity.

Question 14

? Do the reflectors need maintenance such as cleaning?

Accepted Answer

This is a good question. MEER's reflectors would not need nearly as much cleaning as one might think. Many of the installations would not be held “flat” or perpendicular to the ground, but rather would be angled to more directly face the sun in the particular region of each reflector, to capture more sunlight and improve reflective efficiency. When placed at an angle this way, the periodic moisture collecting on the surface, from rain or even from dew forming overnight, effectively cleans the surface as the moisture runs off. Wind also helps to keep dust and other fine particles from accumulating. Generally speaking, no matter what angle the reflectors will have, cleaning them will be neither as required nor as difficult as one may imagine. On larger installations, it is likely that automated cleaning will be used, such as the kinds of systems used by automobiles for their windshields, to periodically sweep debris away from the surface.

Question 15

Should reflectors be covered or brought inside during winter?

Accepted Answer

This is of course a question of the geographical location of particular reflective installations as much as it is about the properties of the reflectors. In many locations, the weather changes little throughout the year. But assuming locations where winter months bring heavy rains or even snow, the effect on the reflectors is of course more important.   It shouldn’t be necessary to cover reflectors or move them to a protected area during the winter months. The reflectors recommended by MEER would be made of two panes of glass on either side of a reflective material. If the edges of the glass are sealed to prevent moisture from entering between the panes, the mirrors are essentially impervious to mould or other forms of gradual degradation that could otherwise ensue. Other MEER reflectors will have similar properties. In areas with severe winter conditions, such as heavy snowfall, a proper design (even including minor heating of the mirror) would be needed so as to reduce the possibility of the weight of heavy snowfall from creating a problem.

Question 16

? Do we have enough materials to make the number of reflectors needed?

Accepted Answer

Yes. Mirrors and the other reflectors MEER plans for are simple, requiring only glass or a synthetic polymer, and a reflective material. Glass is made from sand, which is plentiful. Recycled glass is also available. However, the current heavy dependence on cement used for building all over the world also requires a large amount of sand, which is one reason why alternative building materials need to be used much more frequently than as we see today...

Question 17

Do we have enough energy to make the number of reflectors needed?

Accepted Answer

This is more a question of priorities. There is more than enough energy available to create and build the needed reflector installations, but it may be that we would spend less energy on certain other things in order to remain within our energy budgets. Any concerns about the availability of energy to make MEER possible need to be seen alongside questions about our energy consumption in general, such as “Do businesses really need to have the lights on in their buildings 24 hours a day, seven days a week? Do people really need to buy a new iPhone every other year? Do people really need 27 pairs of shoes? Do we really need thousands of fighter jets?”

Question 18

? Do we have enough time to make and install the MEER strategy to save civilization?

Accepted Answer

Yes, there is enough time now, but the clock is ticking. The scale of the total reflector installation surface area needed is large enough to require the kind of massive effort as is seen when countries go to war to kill people, rather than save them. Somehow, we always manage to find the money and the energy to go to war, so perhaps saving life on Earth is not out of the question? Prioritizing life is required to shift the necessary resources from other uses, especially wasteful uses such as on the military, to projects like MEER in order to avoid the mass extinction of nearly all life on Earth.

Question 19

? How much does MEER cost?

Accepted Answer

MEER's concept is by far the cheapest alternative to every other solution or strategy proposed.  It makes sense to consider why the question of total cost is being asked, and to remember that our endeavor to fight global warming is not the same as going shopping for a new television, where there are an abundance of TV sizes and qualities such that the main thing we need to think of is how much we can afford in order to buy a TV that fits our needs.   If there were numerous strategies available to us in order to bring global temperatures under control in a short time, the cost of each different strategy would be one of many questions that would help us to select which strategy, or strategies, we should engage in. Obviously, we wouldn’t be wise to pick the most expensive strategy unless there were a good reason, just as we wouldn’t do well to choose the most time-consuming, the most environmentally damaging or the most risky strategy. One thing, however, is certain: the cost of the MEER strategy is not so high as to make the project unfeasible. Again, we find ourselves needing to ask: What are our priorities? Is it more important to save money, or to spend it on luxury items, wars, investments in space tourism, or to live?  MEER uses reflectors that are relatively inexpensive. MEER’s strategy, when it comes to cooling the entire planet as opposed to providing local relief to heat stressed communities, would need a vast number of mirrors, which of course would cost a lot of money. Economies of scale would reduce the cost of mirror installations but making accurate estimates of savings through the process of achieving economies of scale for any item requires certain information about the actual designs planned that we don’t have now. However, we can make a very rough estimate of the total cost of the two primary types of reflectors themselves. There is a considerable difference in the cost of MEER glass mirrors, and MEER polymer reflectors, so any total cost estimate should include an estimate of the total amount of each reflector type used. Additionally, the cost of installation must be estimated. Assuming a current price per square meter for MEER mirrors, and for MEER polymer reflectors, the total surface area estimated to be necessary to do what? We arrive at $X.   What use having that number available to us now is a much more important question to ask, as the answer might very well be that knowing this number is of no use at all, because we cannot use that information to “plan a purchase” the way we might plan to buy a new TV. Our options in fighting the rising temperatures caused by global warming are extremely limited. We do not have the luxury of choice. There are no real options on the table. Planting trees won't work, managing GHGs won't work, and although there are a few other solar reflector mitigation strategies being researched, they are all considerably more complex, and contain greater uncertainties, in addition to being much more expensive, than the strategy MEER proposes.   We also do not have the luxury of doing without. Nobody really needs a television, although they can be nice to have. The alternative to paying what is necessary for a continuation of life on Earth is rather grim, and not something anyone should ever consider as an option.

Question 20

? Can I make my own MEER?

Accepted Answer

MEER works with communities and others interested in installing solar reflectors, and at some point the technology and know-how will be easily transferable to communities and other organizations. Private individuals interested in installing their own reflectors need to consider the project carefully.  While the concept of placing a reflector, such as a mirror, on a rooftop or in an open space to reflect sunlight away from Earth seems easy enough, there are many things to consider. The angle of the reflector should ideally face the sun so that light is reflected close to perpendicularly away from the planet. Reflectors with automated angle-tracking systems ensuring that the reflector moves with and tracks the sun's movement during the day would be even more efficient, although of course far more costly and technically complex.   Another consideration is the installation itself. How will the reflector be installed? Simply placing a reflector flat on the ground is not ideal for many reasons. Safety is an issue with any installation. Installing reflectors on rooftops raises particular concerns because of the potential for them to be blown away during storms, potentially causing damage or injury.  We envisage the creation of do-it-yourself reflector kits, but at this point these are not available.

Any questions?

"New research confirms what we have been saying for more than 2 years: cooling aerosols produced by burning fossil fuels masks at least 0.5C of warming, so we are effectively past 1.5C of warming without any additional FF emissions."