So, the basic premise here is that rather than trying to combat global warming by taking extensive and ubiquitious measures throughout the economy, ecosystems, and personal lives to curb CO2 emissions, methane emissions, and other greenhouse gases, that we simply look to permanent solutions to climate problems in the form of geoengineering. The fact of the matter is, we're equipped with abundant supplies of simple sets of gases that are well known to have global warming and global cooling effects. So why not just balance it out - build a global thermostat so we don't have to worry about having as small a footprint as possible, but rather simply be aware of it, and account for it?
This here's the kind of stuff that gets me interested :) Really, a big part of why I got into science and a central part of my current career is based in a fascination with nuclear fusion as a power source. That stemmed from frustration with what I saw as a widespread reaction to problems with current technologies to retreat from them - people didn't like carbon emissions or soot or nuclear waste, so the solution was a bizarrely Amish drive to run back to our windmills and solar mirrors, and try to hide humanity amongst nature out of fear that we'd leave a mark. Nuclear fusion is a forward-thinking solution, rather than a backward one - a new power source that's even more advanced and is simply engineered not to have those problems.
SO2 seeding strikes me as a similar idea with greenhouse gases. Rather than addressing the problem with a retreat that's not only technophobic and regressive but actually completely ineffective (if we're actually afraid of global warming, even a complete zero-carbon society wouldn't solve it - the carbon's already in the atmosphere, and it's got a several-century halflife. If we want to solve it, we have to REVERSE carbon emissions, not just reduce or even stop them). It's a way forward - it's a way to solve problems by mastering nature, not hiding from it, which is something that inherently strikes me as the way to go.
What do you guys think about it?
Change of topic: how would you feel about pumping SO2 into the stratosphere to reverse global warming?
i doubt it will make much difference. The earth's climate has always changed and always will. i think the idea that humans can do much about it is a fantasy.
Change of topic: how would you feel about pumping SO2 into the stratosphere to reverse global warming?
Um. If you mix SO2 and H20 don't you get sulfuric acid?
Nah, lets just have a nuclear war, the nuclear winter and global warming will just cancel each other out :)
*Damn, and I was only joking to
No offense, but this has to be one of the most retarded ideas of all time. SO2 (and SO3) is tightly regulated because it causes acid rain like it's going out of style. They had a lot of problems with acid rain in the earlier parts of the industrial revolution before they figured out what was going on and started regulating it.
Something you might look into is particulate matter (PM). It's still a pretty wild idea without the obvious drawbacks.
No, but we should pump ozone up into the atmosphere.
That does sound quite smart actually. But it is somewhat dangerous because you'd have to no exactly how much SO2 to use to balance the C02. You know when you are trying to cook something using a recipe but you accidentally add too much of one ingredient so you need to compensate by adding something else and then it comes out botched?
My background is math and in one differential calculus class we talked of systems of equations that are used to model just about anything from the spread of disease, the populations of predator/prey species to a buses shock absorbers. Anyway, the intial parameters are important. And slight variations can cause the models to collapse and end, become unstable and oscillate between one extreme and another, or to be in a balanced equilibrium state.
What you seek is a balanced equilibrium state. If you are sure this is possible and can model it without error then maybe you can save the atmosphere/ecosystem (if it actually needs saving). But if you err it may cause serious problem worse than the original problem. It's like playing God, as is having back surgery. Your back can self heal with excercise and stretching/massage better than any surgeon's scalpel.
God gave us trees, which naturally convert C02 to O2, and they are quite pretty to look at as well. :-) So why can we not plant more trees and let nature do it's thing? Well probably because we are actually cutting down more trees than we can re-plant, and then we use the land to live off of and and make food etc. The real problem is that there are too many people on the planet with too many needs. It is not nice to say but it is true.
So how do we limit the world's population without just killing off a bunch of us? Well one theory would be to bring the developing nations more up to our level through infrastructure help and education etc. and this will temper their breeding activites. [In fact in the developed world the breeding has gotten so low the only reason we can maintain a population level is to allow substantial immigration from those other countries.] I believe this is what is being discussed in Copenhagen right now. In reality I don't think we need a climate conference to tell us we should help poorer nations because it is our God given mandate to help those in need. But I seem to have veered wildy off course here. Maybe because it is 4AM.
Anyway, I think you are smart. And if you want to try compensetory measures with S02 then I think it could work. But just promise me you'll be careful. Double check those numbers! :-)
Well, in Australia scientists thought it would be a good idea to import cane toads to eat cane beetles, which were brought her with sugar cane (an imported crop).
It worked realy well. The toads ate all the beetles. Only thing, once the beetles were gone, the toads were still hungry and they are bigger and meaner than most native animals ...
Nowadays, many local governments pay a bounty on the toads because of the devastation they cause to the environment.
Nothing is simple in nature ~ we need to be careful it's not a case of the operation being successful but the patient dying.
Cheers :-)
Woudlnt that cause a reduction in photosynthesis as well ?
A company called IV has already proposed using an extremely tall tube/hose to do just this as reported in this article:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Aheadof鈥?/a>
Its going to change no matter what we do, in 50 years, where I live will be under water, but I'm not worried, I'll be gone by then.
I almost think you ask these questions here, as opposed to in the science sections just to show off.
Call me sceptical, but I don't think politicians care, just so long as they look good. Cutting Carbon would probably get them more votes than being smart and using science. People hate science, it makes them feel stoopid. I think global warming probably has some other political use i'm just ignorant to, like controlling developing nations.
Mastering nature is one thing, but playing with it is another. If this would really work, why not. But if you ruin the world. i want millions in compensation.
I would be more inclined to support investment in green technologies and carbon pricing in an effort to combat climate change. Your proposal makes a good last resort, though. I don't think any elected officials would be willing to publicly support it, and I dare say that trust for climate scientists is at an all-time low.
Instead of being ridiculous and shooting chemicals into the atmosphere, that can cause health problems (and yes, sulphur dioxide in the presence of nitrogen dioxide or another similar catalyst, can cause acid rain.)
Why don't we focus on doing better things for the earth like biking/walking more, composting, having small gardens (yes, you can even garden in the city, people), eating local products, eating less meat, shutting down factory farming (one of the biggest polluters, even more so than cars)...
We only get one planet, lets not keep f**king it up
