Slashdot Mirror
Stop Global Warming With Smog?
lkypnk writes, "The AP is reporting that Nobel Prize winning scientist Paul Crutzen has suggested deliberately spreading a layer of particulate matter in the upper atmosphere to help reflect some of the sun's energy in an effort to combat global warming. He reminds us that the eruption of the volcano Pinatubo in 1991 cooled the planet by as much as 0.9 degrees; he believes his computer simulations show a similar effect from deliberate injection of sulfur into the atmosphere by humans. Whatever the feasibility of the idea, as the president of the National Environmental Trust has said, 'We are already engaged in an uncontrolled experiment by injecting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.'" From the article: "'It was meant to startle the policy makers,' said [Crutzen]. 'If they don't take action much more strongly than they have in the past, then in the end we have to do experiments like this.' ... Serious people are taking Crutzen's idea seriously."
This eerily reminds me of the dark sky in "The Matrix"...maybe life DOES imitate art
Infinite time means everything that can happen, will. You being you is absolutely incidental. You do not exist.
NOVA did an excellent episode about this. The theory is that pollution is greatly masking the effects of global warming.
Stop the increase of the climate change from CO2 pollution, with more pollution!!!!!!
Although there is probably some good science behind the idea, there was also good science behind the idea of using the Cane Toad to kill the Cane beetle, and that worked out well for everyone didn't it.
We're already doing this, though again, it's in an uncontrolled way. It's called "global dimming", and it's already an environmental disaster in some parts of the world.
Attack its weak point for massive damage!
A few weeks ago (here, on slashdot) they wanted to pour sulphur or something into the atmosphere, now smog?
What part of "the earth is 2/3rds water, which evaporates, naturally, the warmer the planet gets, covering the planet in CLEAN, NATURAL, REFLECTIVE, WHITE, FLUFFY, clouds of water vapour" do these brainiacs not get?
Ever been outside? On a hot day? And had a cloud drift over. Ever felt the blessed relief as you race your bicycle up a 12km, 7% incline, maxing at 22% and felt the cooling effect as the sky becomes more overcast, shielding you from the burning rays of the sun and providing a UV protection of up to 50% compared with clear skies?
Quit trying to add stuff to the atmosphere, it's where the problems started in the first place.
The only thing they should be adding to the atmosphere is the leaves of the trees they plant. And lots of them.
.. that's when we call in Godzilla.
> If you follow the link in the old Slashdot story, you'll find out that it's indeed about Paul Crutzen's idea as well.
Hell, we won't even read the current Slashdot story.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
FWIW, I came out for something like this last April.
Shading the Earth won't get rid of the direct effects of excess CO2, such as ocean acidification and preferential growth promotion of undesirable plants like woody vines vs. trees. But the beauty of injecting a few million or tens of millions of tons of sulfur in the upper atmosphere is that it spreads out much more widely, the effects will reduce drought and heat stress which are killing plants and turning land into desert, and you might even cut the original pollution by taking the sulfur from some existing source.
Cutting heating and stress on plants looks like it reduces the CO2 problem directly, by enabling better CO2 uptake. If you don't believe me, take a look at the Keeling curve and tell me what else could explain the flattening in the two years after Pinatubo. Take your time, I'll wait.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
Photochemical smog is the product of reactions between hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen and ultraviolet light. Smog contains ozone. This has almost nothing to do with smog.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
Global dimming either from this or other means (like sulphate aerosols) will only result in less light reaching the surface. Yes it will result in less warming. But also there's less photosynthesis, less crop production, and a reduction in fixation of CO2 from the atmopshere, causing CO2 levels to rise yet further. Instead of trying to fix the symptoms, we should be trying to fix the underlying problem and that is ceasing to burn carbon. The fix is simple. Replacing it with something else is the real problem and that is where efforts should be focused (like a decent fusion reactor and hydrogen economy but that's a whole new debate)
Reminds me of the old joke:
Two planets meet: "Hello, how are you?" - "Bad. I've got homo sapiens." - "Don't worry. That passes."
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Without light surely our plant friends won't be able to soak up the CO2 at ground level.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Or, put another way, it's simply harder to disprove long-term claims by the global-warming crowd since their scare tactic is based on something that even they say won't happen for a long time. For now I'll stay firmly in the 'no way we can tell what's going to happen' camp; which is not to say that pollution is acceptable, there are plenty of provable local effects (smog anyone?) which tell us that reducing the crap we spew into the atmosphere is a good idea.
I'm just not buying into the doomsday prohpecy or the draconial measures that the global warming PAC wants to apply to first world nations while completely ignoring the actions of third-world nations (kyoto). These types of things fly directly in the face of any claim that the issue is about global, rather than local, impact.
* I drive a prius, fwiw.
All these drastic actions that do more to mess with our environment are reckless. We barely understand that we don't really understand the complex feedback systems we've already upset. We have a much higher confidence that merely reducing our Greenhouse pollution will at least buy us time to learn what we can do to stay in the climatic "sweet spot" in which we've evolved our civilization.
Not to mention that producing all these extra artificial climate "enhancements" will produce a lot more pollution in their industrial processes. And use the existing political economics players, in manufacturing and energy, who have shoved us down the road to the Greenhouse with reckless abandon. They will screw up any complex/delicate procedure if it means more fast money, regardless of the worse consequences that they'll have to share (except the really old capitalists who'll die before their legacy is inherited).
Startling politicians, who understand Climate Change only as a buzzword tradeable on the open market, with visions of increasing pollution to fix the climate hazards that pollution has created is a terrible way to do business. It will just lock down their fear and greed. The reptile brains that survived the last climate change cataclysm, wrapped in mammal bodies. I don't want to go the way of the dinosaur, especially by voluntarily throwing myself to the Tyrannosaurus Rex who represents the fossil fuel industry.
--
make install -not war
Ever been outdoors on a clear spring or winter night? It's colder without clouds. Clouds hold in heat on the night side.
Low-level clouds shade the ground but the reflected sunlight just warms up the lower atmosphere on its round trip. Very high clouds have a cooling effect, though.
Fortunately, the work on climate change is being done by people who understand these effects and who observe and refine numbers for them.
I'm mildly surprised it's news at all to a science-minded website such as this one.
This website tends to derive its science mind by watching anime and playing Final Fantasy.
KFG
Well, nature is among the most complex systems we're aware of, so it's always extremely hard to claim an idea and easily see if it'd work. The obvious question this idea raises to me is for example: how would the reduced solar energy affect wildlife, and what chain effects would that have to nature, both as for animals and plants?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
it seems to me that the earth has already started to work on this approach on it's own.
over the past few years as the ocean temperatures have increased, so has the techtonic activity. the number of earth quakes have been on the increase. i would speculate that an increase in volcanic eruptions will be next.
the question will be what effect this will have on humans?
Questions about data handling for solar forcing
The remaining uncertainties and where they come from
This is much like Tylenol - lowers body temperature and temporarily removes pain, but doesn't cure the symptoms.
Simpy
Most green house gasses stay in the atmosphere for a long time (10-100 years). "Smog" stays up for a much shorter period of time so we would have to keep pumping ever larger amounts of it into the atmosphere daily to offset the green house gasses. That is very unlikely to tenable for a significant length of time.
Predicting climate is different from predicting weather. I cannot tell you whether Chicago will have a white Christmas (weather prediction), but I can tell you with a lot of confidence that Christmas will be colder than the 4th of July even a million years into the future (climate prediction).
Climate models are not tricks. The physics goes in. The climate comes out. It's not a trivial curve-fitting exercise the way you seem to think. We call them "primitive equation" models not because they are primitive, but because we *don't put the answer in* in any way. The model isn't told that Chicago winters are cold and Florida winters aren't. It *figures that out* from the physics.
mt
- Add Sulfur to atmosphere to maintain global temperature.
- Greatly decrease the pH of precipitation.
- Disrupt world plant ecosystems with soil pH modifications.
- People die.
Use a different material; create a different way for people to die.A parallel: patient is suffering from atherosclerosis. Do you:
- A: prescribe a change to the patient's current 50% fat diet, or
- B: prescribe medication to balance the muck that the patient is pushing into his vascular system?
A little bit of both, one might say. Well, that is a very costly and risky ("Warning: side-effects may include nausea and death.") approach, which may well become necessary when there is no other option. The reason we typically get to that point of no return is because we consistently refuse to be proactive and solve the problem early and in the right way. "It's just too hard to change my diet." "It's just too hard to cut our emissions. Jobs will be lost. Oh, dear me. Oh! We can start an industry that pumps counterpollutants into the atmosphere. More jobs. More money! More! More!"Genius.
I live in Australia, here are some recent anecdotes:
We are currently experiencing the "worst drought in 1000yrs", the Murray-Darling Basin has dried up, our major cities have permenant water restrictions and some rural towns are being abandoned. This years forecast grain harvest has been reduced by 50% (-12,000,000 Tonnes), our dairy herd has been culled by 20%, and half starved livestock have flooded the markets in expectation of an even drier summer.
We had a record heat wave in october (37C) followed by two cold snaps with snow falling on bushfires and hail the size of cricket balls. The unseasonal frost killed, apples, pears, grapes and other temperate fruit crops that flower in spring. Oh yeah, a cyclone wiped out our bannana crop earlier this year.
As for TFA: The Earth is not a fucking toaster, the last thing it needs is a "darkness knob".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Good grief, where the hell have you been. I thought that level of ignorance was peculiar to the 1990's.
Weather != Climate: Climate is the long term statistics of weather.
Computer models: The computer chip that allows you to display your ignorance would not be possible without computer models.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
If you'd like to do some of the experiments discussed in the article yourself, the EdGCM project has wrapped a NASA global climate model (GCM) in a GUI (OS X and Win). You can add CO2 or turn the sun down by a few percent all with a checkbox and a slider. Supercomputers and advanced FORTRAN programmers are no longer necessary to run your own GCM. Disclaimer: I'm the project developer.
Space and Computers.
..as we alternate year over year with using Sulfur in odd numbered years and Baking Soda in the even number years. This would also enhance the general SMELL of the place, keeping it fresh and preventing food odors from mixing on a global basis.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
Just launch lots and lots of weather balloons - they should be white/silver enough to reflect all that light back out to space. And if arranged correctly, they could be used to create advertising visible from space, offering unlimited advertising opportunities.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Dr. Crutzen, the atmospheric chemist that proposed the idea of deliberately spreading a layer of particulate matter in the upper atmosphere is himself "not enthusiastic about it," and that it was meant more for shock value. That's what is interesting about the scientific community. Sometimes if an idea could work it will still be suggested no matter how far out it seems. It's only a hypothesis that is placed on the table to be tested and researched if there is interest. Who knows, it could slow down our problem, it could speed it up.
u s_climate.html) In this article (replace anywhere where it talks about continental drift with plate tectonics as that is more accurate) the author outlines atmospheric CO2 levels corresponding to global temperature in the "Global Temp. & Atmos. CO2 over Geol. Time" graph. We are today most like the carboniferous period with our temperature and CO2 levels. The mesozoic had all the dinosaurs and look at the CO2 levels. Large animals eat small animals that eat plants that thrive on CO2. Plant life was incredibly abundant to soak up all that CO2.
Politics, however, can drive some scientists to look for a question instead of an answer. They already have the answer they want. I like to think that doesn't happen too often. The greater mixing of science and politics here is, when a scientist (and hopefully a scientist that is actually a specialist in the field they are reporting on) reports possibilities to uninformed officials they can take one of the possibilities, or predictions, for prophecy. Science is never 100% certain. It can get close though.
Yes global warming is real. The earth changes over time. We have not always been this temperature and we all know that. CO2 levels have also greatly fluctuated through time. (Similarities with our Present World URL:http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carbonifero
The problem now is that we don't know what will happen next. We aren't sure if history will repeat itself as we are now getting warmer by getting incredibly more warm, or if this interglacial period will only continue into another full on ice age. Yes, volcanoes and other natural phenomena add to climate change (earth's interaction with the sun; and even though on average volcanoes only emit at most 3% of a years CO2, large single eruptions like Pinatubo can emit at least the amount of CO2 produced by the US in a single year: those volcano numbers are a little fuzzy so feel free to correct me on them), but we are adding to it with our industry. We've had to rely on fossil fuels till now because we didn't really have much better choices for the last few centuries. But now we have do. We can certainly change our ways and cause much fewer harmful emissions, but unfortunately it may come down to whether moneymakers think it is worth the effort and cost to switch away from todays fuels (which will definitely be a costly and world changing effort).
So did we really tip the iceberg? or was the earth going to do this anyway. You tell me.
If you want to combat global warming by getting less sunlight on Earth, I'd much prefer the NASA way where they'd put a variable size dark disk in orbit at a Lagrange point between the Earth/Sun, because you can always click "undo" on that, or just tell it to shrink the umbrella to nothing realtime. Injecting more crap into our atmosphere will just make things more complicated, and taking the stuff back out is not at simple, let alone getting realtime control on the effects.
Ack! Please stop talking about this! The last thing we need is ignorant, suburban SUV drivers thinking that they're actually helping the planet!
Ozone in atmosphere = good
Ozone at street level = doubleplus bad!
I know this, you know this, but soccer dad thinks "oh, I'd better turn on the air conditioning to help global cooling!"
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
Second, he did a further analysis of a practical mechanism to introduce SO2 into the upper atmosphere. I think he settled on balloons or artillery shells, and the cost was something like tens of billions of dollars a year. Since the stuff only stays up there for months, it would be a reoccuring cost.
Finally, it has the unpleasant side effect (per earlier replies) of raining down on the planet in the form of acid rain. Since the ocean is already getting more acidic due to increased CO2 levels (which combined with water get you carbonic acid-i.e. soda water), this might be a fatal drawback. The one thing worse than global warming is an oxygen deprived ocean, which ironically leads to sulfur coming back up as hydrogen sulfide (which at least once killed over 90% of the life on earth during a particularly spectacular episode of runaway global warming called the "Great Dying.")
Anyway, we probably won't have time or money to develop or impliment such a idea (nor another idea using a space shade to partially block the sun hitting the earth) because of abrupt climate change: when the climate is forced, it doesn't respond smoothly and gradually. Instead, proof in the form of ice core samples show that the climate at first resists changing, then abruptly changes to another stable state. In other words, it is predictable that within a decade or two our climate will abruptly change from the mild Holocene of the last ten thousand years, to a hotter dryer climate that has resulted in mass extinctions many times in the past. Here is a link to an article I wrote if you want a further explanation http://www.planetsave.com/ps_mambo/Independent_New s/Science/Abrupt_climate_change_predicted_within_2 0_years_200609117794/
We won't have the resources to launch SO2 into the upper atmosphere, particularly repeatedly, especially if it didn't make an immediate dramatic difference. Furthermore, we aren't going to pull the hammer back by getting an "SO2" program all ready to pull the trigger if things get really bad. Instead, typically we'll wait until catastrophe hits, then we'll be looking for the silver bullet yesterday. Neither a SO2 program, or the space shade program will be seriously on track until after the resources are unavailable. Any resources will be used up for consequence management, not to institute some expensive technologically spacious global warming pie-in-the-sky program that won't have immediate results for years and years.
On the other hand, I have an alternate suggestion (the advantage is it wouldn't need a great deal of resources, a large team of scientists, or a great deal of time to impliment):
It is unreasonable to expect that mankind will so dramatically reduce their greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) fast enough to avoid abrupt climate change. A fast growing population combined with growing per capita energy use, plus trillions of dollars in fossil fuel infrastruction means we are on track to double our CO2 emissions by 2050.
Furthermore, a warming earth means that carbon sinks will become carbon emitters bigtime. In other words, it is predictable that soon the earth will start emitting far more GHG than humans, at the same time it is able to absorb less of mankind's CO2 pollution. Nature absorbs about half of mankind's 8 billion tons of CO2 emitted each year. By 2030 it is predicted that nature will only be able to absorb 2.7 billion tons a year.
The only solution for global warming is to remove the CO2 from the air after it has been emitted. I suggest using genetic engineering to improve nature's ability to absorb CO2. Perhaps seeding a GMO into the ocean.
Bullish Machine Tzar