Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Earth
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, the injection of sulfur particles into the atmosphere cooled the planet. Taking inspiration from nature, some scientists have begun studying whether a man-made injection of such sulfate aerosols might stave off the worst of global warming. But could the technology also be used more locally to beat the heat?
That's the question explored by three U.C.L.A. scientists in a manuscript submitted to the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Back in 2006, California endured a heat wave that lasted more than two weeks. The scientists ran a computer model to determine whether putting particles 12-kilometers up could cool the Golden State under such conditions.
The answer appears to be yes. Afternoon temperatures declined significantly in conjunction with the amount of particles boosted to the stratosphere. For example, emitting aerosols at rates of 30 micrograms per meter-squared yielded temperature decreases of roughly 7 degrees Celsius during the hottest part of the day.
It's unclear how exactly the sulfate aerosols would get to the stratosphere absent a volcanic eruption. There would be effects downwind in the desert Southwest, including potentially even less rain. And the sulfates might eat away at the protective ozone layer.
So the researchers suggest that we might want to forestall worse heat waves in the future a different way—by cutting back on the greenhouse gas emissions causing global warming.
—David Biello
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentArticles like this are a concern. The fact these warmists are even contemplating yet again, artificially engineering the atmosphere means they are seriously considering this insanity an option, as indicated by the last article about doing nearly the same thing to artificially make a new atmosphere humans can control.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about we let real volcanoes erupt whenever nature causes it to happen and you warmists just stay away from attempting to engineer the biosphere. You people are unbelievable arrogant to believe you know enough about the planet and its atmosphere to do this insanity and by the way your computer models are NOT a simulating of the real atmosphere. Those models simulate your theories and beliefs about the biosphere and any attempt to try to artificially make the real planet conform to your computer models is just not a reasonable option. The sad thing is you warmists probably believe you could do it if you just take enough money from everyone.
Though global warming is real I sincerely hope this is just a thought experiment. Past efforts in terraforming have had drastic learning curves that result in localized disaster. Something at this sale would probably render the earth uninhabitable before we actually learned enough to not make a mess of things. How about working on global population control and low carbon technologies that will allow earths natural processes to bring this imbalance back into line gradually and without another disaster!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a simple and cheap way to cool down the Earth immediately: just add a little (more) sun dimming aerosol to the upper atmosphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself but in the hot state." --Dr James Lovelock, August 2008
By the way, mankind will soon be dramatically and rapidly cutting their GHG emissions due to this new clean, very cheap, and super abundant energy technology LENR:
"A volume about the size of a #2 pencil eraser of water provides as much energy as two 48-gallon drums of gasoline. That is 355,000 times the amount of energy per volume – five orders of magnitude." ( http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/New-LENR-Machine-is-the-Best-Yet.html ).
This phenomenon (LENR) has been confirmed in hundreds of published scientific papers: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf
"Over 2 decades with over 100 experiments worldwide indicate LENR is real, much greater than chemical..." --Dennis M. Bushnell, Chief Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center
"Total replacement of fossil fuels for everything but synthetic organic chemistry." --Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, NASA
By the way, here is a survey of all the companies that are bringing LENR to commercialization: http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/08/the-new-breed-of-energy-catalyzers-ready-for-commercialization.html
I agree, the discussion of geoengineering in science magazines is disturbing, as its consequences could be irreversible. Weather systems are non-deterministic, so and no rational scientist could possible tell you about the long term effects of this sort of madness. The addition of sulfur could, for example, poison essential nucleating bacteria in the atmosphere - even during a small scale experiment - plunging regions of the Earth into drought. Or worse, a "rebound" effect from cooling, causing even more warming than predicted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn John von Neumann's 1955 article “Can We Survive Technology?” , he eloquently cautions on the uses of geoengineering as an impending "climatic warfare“. He outlines many concerns that are even more valid today.
To what extent are these geoengineering efforts be funded by military groups? "Operation Argus", declassified in 1982, is proof that we are already experimenting, and, indeed, the military is a driving force (perhaps the largest). (His article can be read here: http://ut.ag/6fc )
What's more, there is a very real danger that the far more important "combating of causes" - that of greenhouse gas emission reduction and sequestration - will be neglected, simply because 'supposed rescue systems‘ are casually bandied about in science blogs and magazines. I would propose that the existence of geoengineering articles such as this one have already, and possibly measurably, hampered progress in carbon emissions reduction.
"...its (geoengineering) consequences could be irreversible."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe geoengineering approach mimicking a volcanic eruption would put SHORT LIVED sun dimming aerosol into the upper atmosphere. Such a treatment would be SHORT LIVED, so the consequences would be reversible as the sun dimming aerosol left the air. Frankly, I don't understand the disconnect - you fry if you don't use geoengineering, and it is easily reversible if you do use it - my definition of a no brainer. Besides, with LENR emerging we are going to cut our GHG emissions big-time to save money, so it isn't like we would be using geoengineering for ever, it would only be temporary.
you tell 'em priddseren! We don't need no steenking scientists and their stupid theories. You know what they did? They must have changed everything so ice melts when the planet cools down, that's how they got rid of the ice in the Arctic so they could start yelling about how bad that is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts a good thing smart people like us are around who can see through world wide conspiracies like this where they get almost every scientist in every country in the world in one discipline like climate science and they all go bad at the same time and start spouting some stupid theory type thing to get grant money.
the air force publicly states it wishes to have total control of the weather by 2025 http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal warming is only an illusion. Surface temperature rises as cloud cover decreases since sunlight is not blocked as much. But decreasing cloud cover is really due to global cooling, which decreases evaporation from oceans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur temperature measurements do not include cloud cover measurements, and so the measurements are faulty. Therefore, curing "warming" by cooling the planet will not work. Instead, it will make the problem worse!
"Long-time greens are painfully aware that the arguments of global warming skeptics are like zombies in a '70s B movie. They get shot, stabbed, and crushed, over and over again, but they just keep lurching to their feet and staggering forward. That's because -- news flash! -- climate skepticism is an ideological, not a scientific, position, and as such it bears only a tenuous relationship to scientific rules of evidence and inference." --David Roberts, The Nation, 24 February 2008
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe science of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere serving as a greenhouse gas was well established by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, so there is no valid argument that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not cause global warming. It has become well established that other gases, such as methane, in the atmosphere also are greenhouse gases.
CO2 already stops all 15-micron photons, and so CO2 cannot cause more global warming. Even as CO2 concentration increases, CO2 cannot cause more warming. Dr. Hertzberg has a file about the lynching of carbon dioxide, which can be viewed at http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/hertzberg.pdf. Methane cannot cause warming since water vapor already totally blocks those infrared photons that methane blocks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDavid Lewis: Compare the grant money scientists get compared to the profits of fossil fuel companies. Which side is the most tempted by money? If your theories about scientists being corrupt was right, all scientists would work for fossil fuel companies....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne form of geoengineering that is already applied is biomass pyrolysis, which removes CO2 from the air. Small biorefineries have been constructed in canada and when enough have been built around the world atmospheric CO2 levels will decrease, and climate change with it. But that is no excuse for continuing to burn fossil fuels. Countries like the USA are responsible for ruining the world's ecosytem's delicate balance. The US will be the country to suffer most as a result.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"CO2 already stops all 15-micron photons, and so CO2 cannot cause more global warming."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are a trip Blakely - I admit that is a new global warming denial theory. It is sort of like wack-a-mole, where you knock down one hair brain denial theory, and they just come up with another.
"Methane cannot cause warming since water vapor already totally blocks those infrared photons that methane blocks."
Yeah, double down buddy. What a hoot. I wonder why Venus is hotter than Mercury if your "theory" is correct? Must be all that water vapor, huh?