It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Volcanic Idea to Reverse Climate Change

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Scientists believe that our warming world may face catastrophic changes to its natural environment, including droughts, rising oceans and fiercer, more frequent hurricanes.

Theoretically, it may be necessary to act globally to mitigate the damage. Initially, those efforts will probably take the form of limits on greenhouse gas emissions or forest preservation. But some scientists and policy-makers believe it might be necessary for scientists to take an active hand in engineering a solution to our climate problems.

Those potential solutions, collectively called "geoengineering," would use scientists' knowledge of the Earth's cycles to curb the rise in temperature, the melting of the ice caps and increasing weather volatility. Yet, very few studies have tackled the practical implications of such extreme measures, in part because of the controversy surrounding the prospect of "messing with" the environment.

"It's ground zero right now for understanding the climate response to geoengineering," said Cecilia Bitz, of the University of Washington. Bitz isone of a handful of researchers in the U.S. exploring the impact of geoengineering ideas. "There have only been a couple dozen papers in the literature, and you'll be surprised to know that it's a rarity to have an ocean GCM [general circulation model] in the model."

A volcanic idea

View full size imageBitz, working with University of Washington researchers Kelly McCusker and David Battisti the, analyzed the impact of the leading geoengineering solution, the release of volcanic aerosols into the upper atmosphere.

"The equivalent of Mount Pinatubo going off every year," Bitz said, referring to the eruption in the Philippines in 1991, the largest in recent memory.


LiveScience

How arrogant can mankind get? Instead of adapting to nature we would consider bending nature to our will by re-creating "The equivalent of Mount Pinatubo going off every year,". That sounds like a great idea.



Nearly 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide were injected into the stratosphere in Pinatubo's 1991 eruptions, and dispersal of this gas cloud around the world caused global temperatures to drop temporarily (1991 through 1993) by about 1°F (0.5°C).

USGS

The obvious flaw I see here is what if we do this and we have a few natural erruptions that cause the amount of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere to go much higher than our intended plans? Drop the global temperature too much and too fast and who knows what could happen.

At least these scientists sound like they are aware of possible problems.


Bitz hopes the solutions that she's exploring will never need to be tested. But, like an evacuation plan or a bomb shelter, it is comforting to know that if solutions are required, scientists have done the initial research and have a sense of the potential outcomes.

Robock said, "We may discover dangerous consequences we never thought of before. Or we may find that particular geoengineering scenarios reduce the risk of global warming more than the additional risks they present. This will allow us to make an informed decision some time in the future when we are faced with dangerous climate change."


One thing I wish this article mentioned was how these scientists envision carrying out a operation to seed the atmosphere with 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide. That would probably stir some things up around here.




posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
How "arrogant" can we get?

Well all the "natural" crops & livestock we eat are actually genetically engineered over the last 10,000 years to suit our purposes.

We routinely dam rivers, we are taking energy from the wind, we burn millions of tons of fossil fuels every year, we have cut down billions (??) of acres of forest to turn to "farmland", we are digging up minerals & generally altering the earth in a million ways every second.

Why jsut get outraged at this particular proposed activity??



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
I think man needs to keep out of Gaia's business, she's got this under control and is currently working to put things back in order that we've already put out of whack. Let's not piss her off anymore! Hmmmm?



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Why jsut get outraged at this particular proposed activity??


That stuff pisses me off too but its nowhere in the league of dumping 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmoshpere. That would be like comparing bullets to bombs and bombs to nukes. They are not equal.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Superb idea!!

I wonder where they find bright minds like this...


SO2 is linked with a number of adverse effects on the respiratory system.


Yeeey scientists!!



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SumerianSoldier
I think man needs to keep out of Gaia's business, she's got this under control and is currently working to put things back in order that we've already put out of whack. Let's not piss her off anymore! Hmmmm?


My thoughts exactly.


Let the earth repair itself and start lessening our impact instead of trying to counter it. Thats just my opinion.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
SO2 = sulfur dioxide btw.

Another snippet from the site...

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set national air quality standards for sulfur dioxide and five other pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment (the other pollutants are ozone, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead). The law also requires EPA to periodically review the standards to ensure that they provide adequate health and environmental protection, and to update those standards as necessary. Learn more about this process


These scientists must be topnotch.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
On a side note..

After reading something like this, are 'chemtrails' really that crazy of an idea?!



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by kn0wh0w
On a side note..

After reading something like this, are 'chemtrails' really that crazy of an idea?!



I thought the same thing but didn't want to be the one to say it.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Why just get outraged at this particular proposed activity??


That stuff pisses me off too but its nowhere in the league of dumping 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmoshpere. That would be like comparing bullets to bombs and bombs to nukes. They are not equal.


I think you have little understanding of the amount of pollution humanuty creates!!

From wiki the annual production, in thousands of tons is JUST FOR THE USA is:
1970 - 31,161
1980 - 25,905
1990 - 23,678
1996 - 18,859
1997 - 19,363
1998 - 19,491
1999 - 18,867

According to the same article China's emissions in 2005 were over 25 million tons!

This paper tracks/measures/estimates worldwide SO2 emissions from 1850-200 - it shows a peak of about 75 million tons perannum about 1980, decreasing to about 60 million tons today.

so at least it's coming down....and I agree that adding to it would definitely be a bad idea.

And as others have noted it's a bad pollutant - which is one of the reasons it's potential is debated in the geo-engineering world - there's plenty of links on the wiki page for stratospheric sulphate aerosols that you can look up to see the pro's and cons.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by kn0wh0w
On a side note..

After reading something like this, are 'chemtrails' really that crazy of an idea?!



It depends what you mean.

Could "chemtrails" be made now if someone want to do so? sure - technically it would probably be very easy.

But there remains not 1 iota of verifiable evidence that anyone is actually doing anything of the sort, has been since hte mid 1990's, or is using airliners making long white trails to achieve anything othe than the most profit possible from air travel.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   


The obvious flaw I see here is what if we do this and we have a few natural erruptions that cause the amount of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere to go much higher than our intended plans? Drop the global temperature too much and too fast and who knows what could happen.

That is one of the greatest arguments against most SRM strategies (apart from the possibility of unintended consequences). Once the stuff is up there it's up there for a few years at least.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I'm not saying chemtrails are real, i'm still very much on the fence.

But after reading such an idea to combat global warming, the idea isn't as farfetched as some here make it out to be.

Imho.

That's all i'm saying.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Wow the phage star post posse has arrived


No harm intended, but that was crazy fast



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeSpeaker
 


huh?

my post is all about how much man-made SO2 is already put into the atmosphere every year.

How is that OT in a thread about putting man-made SO2 into the atmosphere??



Originally posted by kn0wh0w
reply to post by Phage
 


Wow the phage star post posse has arrived


No harm intended, but that was crazy fast


Yeah well he's pointing out, as I have done, that the down sides for puting huge amounts of SO2 into the atmosphre are well known - at least some of them - and the idea is not a slam-dunk by any means.
edit on 30-8-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by kn0wh0w
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I'm not saying chemtrails are real, i'm still very much on the fence.


I didn't say you were anywhere else



But after reading such an idea to combat global warming, the idea isn't as farfetched as some here make it out to be.


And I'll repeat - teh idea of dropping stuff from aeroplanes is trivial to do - and hte idea that someone might do it for a purpose is also trivial (in the sense that it is easy to imagine, not that it is unimportant) - but that is actually completely irelevant as evidence of it happening.


edit on 30-8-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I was pointing out the exact same thing?
Or did you not read my posts?

I'm well aware of the potential dangers.

The mere suggestion of such an idea shows hoe much some people have lost it.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I believe we're on the same page



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join