Henning Wagenbreth
I get the impression that the author is serious.
Posted on 10/24/2007 8:44:33 PM PDT by neverdem
DESPITE growing interest in clean energy technology, it looks as if we are not going to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide anytime soon. The amount in the atmosphere today exceeds the most pessimistic forecasts made just a few years ago, and it is increasing faster than anybody had foreseen.
Even if we could stop adding to greenhouse gases tomorrow, the earth would continue warming for decades — and remain hot for centuries. We would still face the threat of water from melting glaciers lapping at our doorsteps.
What can be done? One idea is to counteract warming by tossing small particles into the stratosphere (above where jets fly). This strategy may sound far-fetched, but it has the potential to cool the earth within months.
Mount Pinatubo, a volcano in the Philippines that erupted in 1991, showed how it works. The eruption resulted in sulfate particles in the stratosphere that reflected the sun’s rays back to space, and as a consequence the earth briefly cooled.
If we could pour a five-gallon bucket’s worth of sulfate particles per second into the stratosphere, it might be enough to keep the earth from warming for 50 years. Tossing twice as much up there could protect us into the next century.
A 1992 report from the National Academy of Sciences suggests that naval artillery, rockets and aircraft exhaust could all be used to send the particles up. The least expensive option might be to use a fire hose suspended from a series of balloons. Scientists have yet to analyze the engineering involved, but the hurdles appear surmountable.
Seeding the stratosphere might not work perfectly. But it would be cheap and easy enough and is worth investigating.
This is not to say that we should give up trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ninety-nine percent of...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Henning Wagenbreth
I get the impression that the author is serious.
Holy Acid Rain, Batman, do you think they’ve thought this through?
I’ve always said this. Even if everything that Al Gore says about anthropogenic global warming is true, fixing it is just an engineering problem.
Dismantling the world’s economy to lessen global warming is like amputating your hands to stop smoking.
Or insane. All we need is for some looney tune to actually CHANGE our climate. Ice Age, anyone?
I think I have the solution to “cooling the earth”..everyone on earth should leave their refrigerator doors open..the cold air will so cool this helpless planet..Do I have to think of everything?????
Ninety-nine percent of the $3 billion federal Climate Change Technology Program should still go toward developing climate-friendly energy systems.
I suggest ceasing federal funding to the global warming we are all going to die industry and we'll probably find the idea of throwing soot into the atmosphere to block the sun is a really unnecessary idea.
Or insane.
Why does it have to be one or the other. Why not both?
Or we could nuc Iran big time...the resulting particulates would cool things for a while. Or maybe the SST puting particulates in the upper atmosphere was not a bad idea.
Maybe we could cremate a lot of liberals and scatter their ashes via rockets...the ideas are endless.
Aren't these the same dumb-shits who caused glo-bull warming when they over-corrected for their "coming ice age" in the 1970s...
The only problem is, some weather scientists think we may be on the cusp of an ice age.
Do we really want to toss a bunch of stuff into the stratosphere and then find out a few years down the line that, oops, we really screwed up and it’s getting very cold?
It’s like all the PC types saying that we need to control overpopulation, spreading free condoms throughout the world with your tax dollars, and then suddenly noticing, about 20 years too late, that populations are imploding and there aren’t enough workers to support the old folks, not to mention a hundred million Chinese males who will never have wives.
Oops, back to the drawing board.
I’m sure a scientist could come up with environmentally friendly chemicals that would cool the atmosphere. But that takes all the good stuff away from the global warming hysteria like all the harsh regulations, higher taxes, socialism, etc.
we’ll probably find the idea of throwing soot into the atmosphere to block the sun is a really unnecessary idea....
I vaguely remember back in the seventies that some scientists hysterical about the coming ice age proposed covering the poles in soot to retard the spread of glaciers, what is this fixation on soot?
Actually Edward Teller, the scientist behind the H bomb and SDI, came up with that idea many, many years ago. Military airplanes have been dumping Al2O3, and other, particles into the stratosphere for some 20 years now. Since this is a “black” program, we’re not told the results, if any, from man’s tiny attempts to alter the earth’s weather, global warming or not.
I think the author has been breathing too much carbon monoxide. Maybe a little lead was in that air, too. Something just ain’t right in his head.
I don't think the great ecologist is proposing sulphuric acid, maybe sodium sulphate or calcium sulphate.
We already make man-made clouds via waste heat at factories, jet aircraft, and ocean ships. We can cheaply make more. Why cool the whole planet when we just need to cool the narrow latitude where the temperature is 32 degrees Fahrenheit. Glaciers and polar ice cannot melt a drop if the temperature is a fraction below 32 degrees.
This is the right track. Instead of endless debate about what’s causing the planet to warm up, it’s way past time to shift the focus to learning how to control it, in both directions. I”ve seen the particle idea before, but alongside another, safer sounding suggestion to put some large reflector structures into orbit. The obvious relative benefit here is that such structures could easily be moved or brought back down again, if and when they were not getting the desired results. Collecting zillions of little particles would be a heck of a lot harder.
Do I have this right? Now, air pollution is good?
Yeah, that .117% of newly generated CO2 each year made by man is just terrible. /s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.