Scientists Plan "Artificial Volcano" Climate Experiment

First time accepted submitter tonyt3 writes "Scientists plan on conducting an unusual climate experiment at a Norfolk airfield next month. They plan to spray water into the air about 20 km high to mimic volcanic particles, hoping that their findings could lead to a solution to global warming. From the article: 'Pouring 10 million tonnes of material into the stratosphere each using 10 to 20 giant balloons could achieve a 2C global drop in temperature, the scientists believe. Sulphate emissions from the Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines in June 1991 reduced world temperature by 0.5C for two years.'"

Comments

It's like using deoderant instead of soap

[bennomatic]

Sometimes you're on a crowded bus and you can tell that the person next to you decided they didn't have time to actually get clean, but thought they could mask their odor with deoderant. Unfortunately, in some cases, what you get is a retch-inducing mixture of BO and deodeo.

Solutions like this to the climate issue remind me of those folks on the bus. If there's a real problem and if there are real things we can do to address the cause, let's do them. If, instead, we don't address the cause but do something else to mask the issue, then it seems likely that we'll just end up with an even bigger mess. I can just imagine scientists from another planet examining the burnt out husk of Earth and saying, "There's no life there; the atmosphere is an unlivable mix of carbon dioxide and sulphates!"

Re:It's like using deoderant instead of soap

[ElectricTurtle]

You've unwittingly described the climate that gave rise to life in the first place. It wasn't until organisms started photosynthesis that a new type of life came along and radically altered the atmosphere, killing almost everything else that came before it in the Oxygen Catastrophe of the Siderian. Which in turn allowed all the animal life we know to come to exist.

This is the fundamental problem with green ideologues, they think that the biosphere is static and that life is impossible if it changes. You need to wrap your head around some facts. Mass extinctions created the current biosphere. If you think mass extinctions are bad, you must by extension think that the current biosphere you currently hold next to sacred is also ultimately a perversion of the state of life before said extinctions.

Life can spring back from virtually nothing. During the greatest mass extinction, 90% of ocean-dwelling species perished completely. Have you noticed how they're not still empty? More importantly, have you noticed how there are a lot more species in the oceans now than in the Permian? Over time, biodiversity has always increased, regardless of how severe any event has been over short periods.

The Chinese have a saying: 'Jiu de bu qu xin de bu lai' which means 'If old things don't go, new things will never come.'

Of course my heresy against green dogma will be properly downmodded.

Re:It's like using deoderant instead of soap

[sjames]

I don't know about you, but I think it'd be kinda nice if *I* am not on the extinction list at this time, thank you very much.

Re:It's like using deoderant instead of soap

[Fned]

This is the fundamental problem with green ideologues, they think that the biosphere is static and that life is impossible if it changes.

This is the fundamental problem with gigantic bipedal primates whose capacity for rational thought isn't as strong as their desire not to change their favorite habits; they think that when the biosphere changes, they'll be among the chosen species to survive.

You are way, way huger than anything that survived the greatest mass extinction, and this is not a fat-guy-in-mom's-basement joke. No human would have survived that event.

Re:It's like using deoderant instead of soap

[EvanED]

I'd be surprised if we go extinct. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a famine sometime in the next century with casualties in the billions.

Re:Not much air

[Anonymous Coward]

Water vapor is a MUCH more potent greenhouse gas than the carbon dioxide that has all the environmentalists' shorts in a bunch.

First off, go fuck yourself.

Second of all, the persistence of CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere are completely different. Which you either don't know (in which case you're a dumbass), or you do know (and you're being a trolling little shit). Either way, it's because of shitmonging little fuckheads like you that we will be forced to make these experiments into actionable plans, you microphallic little fuck.

Lastly, go fuck yourself.

Re:Isn't water vapor a greenhouse gas?

[Anonymous Coward]

Greenhouse gases raise Earth's temperature from from 260 K to 288 K. If CO2 is responsible for 10% of that, it's responsible for a 2.8 K temperature change. If we assume the temperature change is linear with the amount of CO2 a doubling of the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere will result in a 2.8 K temperature increase. Which is within the range of temperature change climate scientists predict for a doubling of the CO2 in Earth's atmosphere.

So why do you think your little factoid is an argument against global warming?

Re:Not much air

[Smidge204]

Water vapor is a MUCH more potent greenhouse gas than the carbon dioxide that has all the environmentalists' shorts in a bunch.

Under certain conditions, yes. Studies suggest that thick, low-lying clouds provide net cooling effects thanks to shading and reflecting more than blanketing.

But this experiment isn't trying to use water vapor to provide a cooling effect - the ultimate plan is to use some other material. The test uses water 'cause it's cheap, abundant and environmentally benign. The "real" plan might use water as a carrier agent for whatever it is they actually send up.
=Smidge=

Re:It's like a smoker ...

[sjames]

It's like a smoker using air filters to clean up second hand smoke.

A socially responsible approach that has the potential to answer every genuine complaint?

The bias is quite evident

[Quila]

Any scientist who is a proponent of AGW theory is pure as the driven snow, honest, no ulterior motives, and with no allegience to those writing the paychecks. His goal is purely the science.

Any scientist who is a skeptic of AGW theory is an evil troll, dishonest, greedy, wants to destroy the Earth with his SUV and other wasteful habits, and will produce any result those who are funding him dictate.

At least that's how it appears the true believers see it, the ones who have lost the ability to be skeptical.

Re:Not much air

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, when someone implies that climate scientists don't know how to account for water vapor (which guess what, they do) AND is dismissive of those who are at least not fuckheaded enough to dismiss the conclusions of those much smarter than themselves, then I consider it my duty to call that person out as being a dripping festering cunt. So any rage problem I have might just be attributable to the large population of cuntdom out there.