Slashdot Mirror
Controversial Spraying, Sun-Dimming Method Aims To Curb Global Warming (cbsnews.com)
Scientists are proposing an ingenious but as-yet-unproven way to tackle climate change: spraying sun-dimming chemicals into the Earth's atmosphere. From a report: A fleet of 100 planes making 4,000 worldwide missions per year could help save the world from climate change. Also, it may be relatively cheap. That's the conclusion of a new peer-reviewed study in Environmental Research Letters. It's the stuff of science fiction. Planes spraying tiny sulphate particulates into the lower stratosphere, around 60,000 feet up. The idea is to help shield the Earth from just enough sunlight to help keep temperatures low. The researchers examined how practical and costly a hypothetical solar geoengineering project would be beginning 15 years from now. The aim would be to half the temperature increase caused by heat-trapping greenhouse gases. This method would mimic what large volcanoes do. In 1991, Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines. It was the second largest eruption of the 20th century, according to the United States Geological Survey (USGS). In total, the eruption injected 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide aerosols into the stratosphere. USGS said the Earth's lower atmosphere temperature dropped by approximately 1-degree Fahrenheit. The effect only lasted a couple of years because the sulfates eventually fell to Earth.
"We don't know who struck first, us or them, but we know that it was us that scorched the sky. At the time, they were dependent on solar power and it was believed that they would be unable to survive without an energy source as abundant as the sun."
While I don't think this idea is quite as extreme as the Matrix. I do wonder what the impact would be on solar power globally. Since the wind currents could also be affected, what issues could it cause for current wind power plant locations too?
Sincerely,
Tesla owners
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
Here's an interesting thought experiment: What if spraying all that sulfur in the atmosphere is exactly what lead to the sulfuric acid in Venus' atmosphere? Given the difference in gravity and distance to the Sun, obviously our mileage might vary, and even be successful. But just imagine for a minute that planet went through the same cycle, and its foolish inhabitants decided to try the same solution.
Now we would have two dead planets in the system and no other planet in a position for life to spring forth and hopefully avoid our two life bearing planets follies.
Food for thought and a Sci-fi novel.
It would be easier to build new nuclear reactors(and feasible)
Nuclear fuels, like fossil fuels, are limited in supply. To build enough nuclear reactors to meet present energy demands for all non-transportation needs you would need tens of thousands of new reactors of the very large type burning uranium dioxide or possibly plutonium fuels, which are themselves produced from refined natural uranium. Thorium is somewhat more abundant, but its use has not yet been proven to be commercially viable. In any case, at the present rate of energy consumption, we would exhaust the available nuclear fuel supply in a matter of decades, whereas we have centuries of fossil fuels remaining, so nuclear power would be a bridge at best to help us move beyond fossil fuels for non-transportation uses. Of course, this completely ignores the hazardous waste disposal and the nuclear proliferation issues which are themselves very difficult problems with nuclear and must realistically be solved before nuclear power can become more widespread. Whether it's feasible to solve these problems is a matter of opinion, but I don't believe that they can be solved realistically or economically at present time.
This is the sunspot cycle, which involves a "dimming" in total solar irradiance (TSI) of 0.1%
Aha, I see you do not know much about solar science, and you don't seem to realize what is happening - so I will help you understand.
This is not just "the sunspot cycle". Perhaps you missed the part where it was two years earlier than the cycle would have had it dip normally?
At times the sun enters what is called a Deep, or Grand Solar Minimum, and the drop in solar irradiance is far more than the number you gave.
If you read that article the scientist involved has a 93% accuracy in predicting the solar cycle strengths.
The article lays it out clearly:
even if the IPCC's worst case scenarios are seen, that's only a 1.5 watts per square meter increase. Zharkova's analysis shows a 8 watts per square meter decrease in TSI to the planet.
Now of course this is a prediction and her model could be wrong - just like most of the IPCC models to date (which is why they revise them frequently). But the consequences of her being right are actually dire, unlike a warming of 2-3C which is not very dire at all in comparison. In that case the rise we were supposed to see from global warming might just be enough of an offset to the solar minimum to keep most of us from starving.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley