Combatting Global Warming With Artificial Volcanos?

An anonymous reader writes, "Some scientists are suggesting that a short-term solution to global warming could be to inject sulfate-based aerosols into the stratosphere as a 'sunlight-reflecting, cooling foil.' Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research says that adding just 5 million metric tons of sulfur dioxide annually to the stratosphere 'would have a significant influence.'" From the article: "Constant aerosol production also could mean we wouldn't have blue skies anymore, and it could reduce incoming solar radiation enough to hobble such imperatives as replacing fossil fuel with solar energy technologies."

Comments

please don't mess more

[yagu]

Anyone who needs evidence science is an inexact science need only remember Carl Sagan and his wrong prediction on the Kuwait oil fires (emphasis mine):

Sagan famously predicted on ABC's Nightline in 1991 that smoky oil fires in Kuwait (set by Saddam Hussein's army) would cause a worldwide ecological disaster of black clouds resulting in global cooling. Retired atmospheric physicist and climate change skeptic Fred Singer dismissed Sagan's prediction as nonsense, predicting that the smoke would dissipate in a matter of days. In his book The Demon-Haunted World, Sagan gave a list of errors he had made (including his predictions about the effects of the Kuwaiti oil fires) as an example of how science is tentative.

And that prediction explicitly about the effects of something on our atmosphere, ostensibly by one of our most noted intellects. The notion that we have any notion of what the effects of this effort would ulitmately be is indeterminant, and could introduce far more disastrous and devastating unforeseen results.

Re:please don't mess more

[bradkittenbrink]

Wow, Carl Sagan made a prediction in a field that he wasn't an expert in and he was wrong. All that example proves to me is that astronomy and astrobiology are inexact climatology.

Re:please don't mess more

[dbIII]

They were both wrong - which goes to show that people who study one feild do not usually know as much as people who study another and actually look at the evidence. It wasn't the end of the world but it was bad enough to turn snow black way off in the Himalayas for weeks after the fires started.

As for sulphur dioxide - when it gets wet you get acid rain, which is why there is so much effort in removing it from flue gasses whenever a lot of stuff is burned.

Re:Acid rain

[bcattwoo]

Not that this idea isn't totally half-baked but they are talking about "injecting" it into the stratosphere, which is above the level where rain is formed.

Re:Similar to a proposed "solution" to nuclear war

[Chris Burke]

1) Wouldn't do anything for bombers or other delivery methods.
2) Would forever close off space exploration, thereby stranding us here and cutting us off from sending out probes, etc.

The worst thing is, some considered the second a small price to pay to guarantee their safety.

To me the worst thing is that they'd make the decision to sacrifice access to space for safety... but then completely ignore point #1, meaning they aren't sacrificing access to space for safety, but for an illusion of safety.