Scientists: Pollution could combat global warming

[Yarrah]

Crutzen's position is that this is a sort of last resort strategy -- reducing atmospheric greenhouse gases (and Curt's right: CFCs are greenhouse gases, extremely strong ones at that) just isn't working and we've got to do something.

Most countries haven't even tried to reduce their emissions or failed to do so.

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

There has not been that many volcano's going off, which pump stuff into the Atmosphere to cool it. Kind of like the Volcano that want off in 1816, that caused the year with out a summer. We will need to pump about as much; each few years as that. Can we?

[Yarrah]

Matt, you do know that the vulcanic eruption you're talking about, casued some serious food-shortages and a lot of other problems. All the ash in the air would make flying impossible, for example. I really don't think blocking off the sun would be a good idea, since we kinda need it.

Also, vulcanoes pump a lot of CO2 into the air, which would just worsen global warming.

[DrCloud]

Crutzen is apologetic, even embarrassed, at having suggested something like this, but it's his assessment that we need to do something, and this is the only feasible fix.

Because this would involved direct injection of the right-sized aerosols directly into the stratosphere (at a controlled altitude), it wouldn't have the messy by-products of volcanoes (ash, CO2), and it wouldn't need to be quite such a large step function in forcing as Krakatoa or other volcanoes that have had a direct and dramatic climatic impact. But it would need to be a long-term commitment to continual launches, because even small particles high in the stratosphere have short residence times compared to CO2.

The senior people in the community are debating this -- with many appalled by the idea -- and there will likely be a session at the AMS meeting in San Antonio. Stay tuned. HPH

[Aquawind]

Seems like he is forcing the panic button with such an idea.. One has to wonder if this was politically motivated to him to suggest sucha large scale climate control concept without serious debate prior. We can't get unified compliance to stop CFC's suggesting we could to increase them sounds far fetched. I will be interested to hear the debate on this issue but thnk this is just a political panic button ploy. I do agree we need to continue to try to address the issue.. but "something" is not scientific at all..

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

At least we can say we tryed, we used what we had to try to reverse something(Global warming). I like DR.CLOUDS idea's, he seems very knowledgeable on this subject. If we can work on something that would be cleaner, then we can force a reverse.

Hey, if global warming is really going to kill us; we must try. So how long before they start talking seriously about this.

Here is something, I think we need to do. Incase in I'm not saying this will go wrong, because theres some very smart people that will be working on this. But I think it would be a good idea to build a outpost on the moon that can hold at least 20,000 people. With ways to turn what is on the moon into air, a farm to grow food,. Just a idea from me. It could very well be a long time. You always have to have a plan B incase something go wrong

[curtadams]

Technically Crutzen was only suggesting we *study* the idea to see if it's practical and can be done cost-effectively, so he's not being irresponsible. DrCloud is correct that injecting the sulfates into the stratosphere keeps them up longer than the low-tropospheric method (smokestacks) used now and in the mid-century so you could reduce the amount of acid rain you get for a given amount of cooling. I was a little boggled at the quantities involved - Pinatubo threw up 20 million TONS of SO2. That's far in excess of the US production, which is under 700,000/year. http://www.the-innovation-group.com/Che ... ioxide.htm

[DrCloud]

Seems like he is forcing the panic button with such an idea.. One has to wonder if this was politically motivated to him to suggest sucha large scale climate control concept without serious debate prior. We can't get unified compliance to stop CFC's suggesting we could to increase them sounds far fetched. I will be interested to hear the debate on this issue but thnk this is just a political panic button ploy. I do agree we need to continue to try to address the issue.. but "something" is not scientific at all..

There's enough confusion here that I'm not sure I can untangle it, but I'll try.

First, Crutzen is making the suggestion to generate debate. There has been no prior debate because no one (at least no one with any real credentials) has suggested it before. This is the "prior debate" in the sense that nothing will be done without it.

Second, there seems to be some confusion (quoted here and in a previous post) about CFCs. CFCs are chlorofluorocarbons, freon and its cousins, gases. This is about aerosols made of sulfur, particles.

And, for crying out loud, of course "something" is highly unscientific -- but that's precisely the point. Whatever steps are taken to mitigate the effects of atmospheric greenhouse gas loading -- those effects being global warming -- need to have a scientific basis. Even the Kyoto Accords' (attempts at) greenhouse gas controls really don't do much, global-warming-wise -- they're mostly the political results of an international group hug. Hell, some people out there are asserting that the "something" should be prayer. Right. HPH

[Aquawind]

As I said we should continue to address the problems with GW and for good reasons, but this is an embarrassment imo. There is nothing about this outlandish concept that interests me more than his premature panick button style with no science. Irresponsible claim from a noted scientist or more politics either or it's nothing more imo.

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

NASA looks at plan to blot out Sun
The Sydney Morning herald ^ | November 20, 2006

THE idea seems like something out of a Superman comic: a machine or missile shoots tonnes of particles into the atmosphere that would block the Sun's rays, cool down the overheated Earth, and reverse global warming.

But at the weekend scientists gathered in a closed session organised by NASA and Stanford University to discuss researching such a strategy. The idea is called geo-engineering: using technology to tinker with the Earth's delicate climate balance.

Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, said his modelling showed the idea worked. "We found that if you blocked 20 per cent of the sunlight over the Arctic Ocean it would be enough to restore sea ice," he said.


(Excerpt) Read more at smh.com.au ...


I kind of support this idea, why you may say? I want to see a foot of snow every winter again; besided a few inches. I can hope this would bring more snow for my area, and nothing go wrong.

[Yarrah]

I think that something like the plan described above would alter the climate too fast, causing some major disasters and a lot of human suffering and enviromental problems, i.e. not a good idea.

Why bother trying all these space-age ideas while the most simple solution is just to consume less? Is it really that hard?

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

America has the highest stardards on this planet, we have the most for what is burned. I don't think you want to cut what America makes any more at the moment; that would destroy the world economy. On the other hand you can look at some real dirty country's like China,India; which have citys 5 times the size, which are clouded with the stuff.


Unless we switched to clean nuclear power, for the cities. Then we could cut the stuff in half. But then China,India will over take anything we do by far.

[curtadams]

China produces far more *visible* pollution than we do - but that doesn't stay up for long. In terms of CO2, we produce by far the most. That chinese pollution is very bad for the Chinese but it doesn' have big long-term climate effects. It's true that China and India will have to be part of any long-term effort to control CO2.