Thinking About A Cooler Planet…
- 4
- Add a Comment
Over on MSNBC, an article by an unknown author gives ideas. put forth by the scientific community.
Volcanic Dust
Proposal: Using balloons, jet engines, and artillery, to put millions of tons of sulfates into the stratosphere to mimic the cooling from volcanic dust.
Problems: Expensive, tens of thousands of pounds needed per month to produce enough cooling; no effect on carbon dioxide; could cause drying of the Mediterranean and Mideast.
Solar Umbrella
Proposal: In 20 million launches over 30 years, deploy 16 million refracting disks in orbit between the Earth and the Sun.
Problems: Cost could be $4 trillion; no effect on carbon dioxide.
Carbon Capture
Proposal: Capture carbon dioxide from major emission sources and deposit them into salt formations, depleted oil and gas reserves, or the ocean. Current commercial systems can reduce the carbon dioxide emissions up to 90 percent per kilowatt-hour, but waste is not currently stored.
Problems: Expensive; leakage a risk to humans, ecosystems; entire volume of ocean may change.
Artificial Trees
Proposal: Use industrial size artificial trees to filter 90,000 tons of carbon dioxide from the wind per year. Each tree could filter 6.6 pounds of carbon dioxide per second.
Problems: Separation, transport, and disposal costs high; leakage a risk to humans, ecosystems.
Geritol Effect
Proposal: Dump iron ore dust into the ocean to create an algae bloom that would absorb carbon dioxide and sink.For each ton of iron oxide dumped into the ocean, 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide would be absorbed by the resulting algae bloom.
Problems: Could change sea temperature; political implications in international waters.
Hmmmmm…
Let’s think about each of these for a moment. ‘Solution’ #1, Volcanic Dust injection, reverses what we have been trying to do for the last thirty years. Reducing sulfur has removed the major contributor to acid rain and all that it causes. This one doesn’t even pass the Homer Simpson ‘Doh’ test.
On to ‘Solution’ #2, Solar Umbrella, wasn’t this the theme of an Outer Limits episode? ‘Nuff said.
‘Solution’ #3, Carbon Capture, sounds almost plausible until one realizes the colossal expense, and the idea of ocean storage is something any 1st year biology or chemistry student would not put forth. Carbon dioxide mixed with water forms carbonic acid; it is a very weak acid to be sure, but the net effect on the pH of the oceans of the world would make the current destruction of the Great Barrier Reef look like the experiment of a five year old boy by comparison. Oops!
‘Solution’ #4, Artificial Tree construction, with removal by sodium hydroxide, and then storage. Sodium hydroxide is, for the uninitiated, a very destructive compound, that when the pelletized solid absorbs moisture from the air forms lye, and does still more nasty things. Handling of this stuff would indeed be costly. And what about those trees? Can you say, ‘destroys the natural landscape’, boys and girls?
‘Solution’ #5, Geritol Effect, this has the same net effect as ’solution’ #4, only worse. There would be untold amounts of carbonic acid in the ocean, a multitude of iron compounds, not all yet known, because this type of experiment has never been done in a ‘live’ environment, and yes, other countries could get really upset when we ruin the waters for fishing, or conceivably, travel. Algal bloom in natural waters is why phosphates were removed from detergents in the 1970s, as it was seen how poorly the ocean’s ecosystem responded to this type of growth.
When is some serious thought going to be given to these problems? This ‘public isn’t smarter than a 3rd grader’ nod to problem solving is simply wasting time.
As the Rolling Stones put forth in song, ‘Time waits for no man, and it won’t wait for me.’ Time is, regardless of your political affiliation, running out.
Tags: msnbc, political affiliation, greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, science, solutions, algal bloom, rolling stones

4 Comments
Dr. Francis T. Manns
May 31st, 2007
at 2:34pm
It is just crazy to suggest modificational of a multi loop muptiple input and output system that you just do not understand. Please leave our planet alone.
theoracle
May 31st, 2007
at 4:50pm
Francis, thanks for the comment. You however don’t point out the fallacy in any of my comments. Remember the major talking points were not mine, I simply said they are impractical, would not work, or are a step backwards. I think that putting out this type of ‘fast and loose’ pseudoscience is worse than saying nothing. It tends to give creedence to the claims of the political right, who say the ecologists have no clue about the science they study.
textvirus
July 17th, 2007
at 9:24am
For those of who want to learn about climate science without studying it at university, I suggest a great deal of caution.
There are a great number of sources of disinformation out there!
First of all seek-out a reputable scientific organization.
Note ‘reputable Scientific organization’ SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES ALL THE ORGANIZATIONS FUNDED BY FOSSIL FUEL INTERESTS, or listed by www.exxonsecrets.org or included in http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
You will see a small number of scientists’ names appear repeatedly. It is suggested that you treat their work and opinions with extreme caution. Mostly their work does not appear in peer-reviewed journals, it normally is published in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and Time, where it will be seen by the politicians and it doesn’t get peer-reviewed!
Reputable Scientific organizations would include
The National Academy of Sciences of the G8
The Union of Concerned Scientists
The American Institute of Physics
The American Geophysical Union
The American Meteorological Society
The American Association for the Advancement of Science
e.g. The Royal Society is the UK’s national academy of science.
Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20742
Climate change controversies: a simple guide http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/trackdoc.asp?id=4085&pId=6229
Guide to facts and fictions about climate change
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/trackdoc.asp?id=1630&pId=4761
Other reliable sources
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
From here, you can discuss your queries with climate scientists, but as usual, you should read the FAQ first.
Coby Beck’s How to talk to Global Warming Skeptic
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
New Scientist: Climate Change: A guide for the perplexed http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
RealClimate: Response to common contrarian arguments http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/#Responses
NERC (UK): Climate change debate summary http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/climatechange/summary.asp
UK Met Office: Climate Change Myths http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html
Scientific Consensus over man-made GW
The scientific consensus over man-made GW is overwhelming. Not one contradictory article out of the 928 peer-reviewed scientific articles climate change were published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, ref. ‘The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change’ by Naomi Oreskes. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/1686.pdf
Conspiracy Theories
There are some smear campaigns doing the rounds, that suggest that man-made GW is a leftist / communist anti-American conspiracy, to destroy industry, or something like it. No-one has produced a shred of evidence to support this theory, as far as I am aware.
The ONLY conspiracy is that between the fossil-fuel interests and the large scale energy users to fund one or more of the small number of scientists that will support their cause. There are a number sources of evidence that PROVE this.
www.realclimate.org/irea_letterJul06.pdf
www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
The energy companies want the controversy about man-made GW to continue indefinitely, so that they can indefinitely postpone carbon-emission-limiting legislation, which they fear will reduce their profits.
So read the facts, please note that these sites are heavily referenced, so you may well have a lot of reading to do! Once you understand, then you can make-up your mind, unlike the many who have already decided what to believe before learning the facts! Mmm!
Have fun!
Remain Sceptical.
waterkoeler
July 18th, 2007
at 3:06pm
waterkoeler…
Hi, good post, waterkoelers Amsterdam…