10 ms·
Injecting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to counter global warming
- kalachoda 10y agohttps://voat.co/v/sports/1477423 https://voat.co/v/sports/1477423
- gajjanag 10y agoI first came across this idea in an excellent book by Olle Haggstrom: "Here Be Dragons: Science, Technology and the Future of Humanity", which talks more generally about large scale/long term problems for humanity. It is the only book I know of that takes a comprehensive view of a variety of such issues (climate change, extraterrestrials, strong AI, etc) and is written in a scientific manner with numerous citations, and little to no empty statements as is typically found in "popular" books.
- bhouston 10y agoThis is not new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols... https://www.technologyreview.com/s/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-p... http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060804-global-warming.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060804-globa... An academic friend of mine is pushing to publish a paper on this soon. It seems credible as a way to slow global warming, but there will be side effects (as there has to be with such significant modification of our environment) that are hard to predict, and probably some of those side effects could be harmful. The question is which path is the less harmful, and whether we have to risk unpredictable side effects (could be minor or large) in order to avoid global warming.
- vorticalbox 10y agoFrom what a read a major worry is that once you stop the earth will play catch up in regards to warming.
- curtis 10y ago> It seems credible as a way to slow global warming, but there will be side effects (as there has to be with such significant modification of our environment) that are hard to predict, and probably some of those side effects could be harmful. I think it's certain that some of the side-effects will be harmful, and it's largely a question of magnitude. Because sulfur dioxide has a limited lifetime in the atmosphere, however, it can be tested safely(1) at scale. From the article: The data from the Mount Pinatubo eruption tells us that sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere can cause cooling comparable to the global warming we've seen so far. But it tells us something else as well: The effects of stratospheric sulfur dioxide have a limited lifetime, on the order of just a couple of years. This is bad in the sense that to be useful, the injection program has to be sustained. But it is good -- very, very good -- in the sense that it reduces risk. The program could be scaled up, the impact could be measured, and, if the side-effects are too serious, it can be scaled back down again very rapidly. This greatly reduces the risk of the undertaking. (1) The side-effects shouldn't be any more harmful that what we've already lived through with the Mount Pinatubo eruption.
- throwaway5752 10y agoIt's all pointless. Massive photovoltaic infra could have been deployed decades ago but it would have harmed wealthy interests so they injected tens of billions of dollars into disrupting and controlling the political system of the US. Putting the continuation of this civilization as we know it at risk, all for a bit of money in a single person's lifespan. And it worked. In bad moments one wonders if it's better off they succeed.
- igravious 10y agoReferring to your bio info. "People will downvote a throwaway account much more aggressively than a non-throwaway. Liberating, but a little disappointing." You're meant to use it briefly and then, you know, throw it away. The clue is in the name! You've had your account for 1077 days, that's hardly temporary. All your account is is anonymous, not temporary.
- twic 10y agoIn a very real sense, all our accounts are temporary.
- astrodust 10y agoPeople who won't at least pretend to stand behind their remarks are going to get slammed more heavily than those who will be around to face criticism.
- throwaway5752 10y agoI don't care.
- codecamper 10y agoActually the cost of the Iraq war is 2 trillion. I think that is 2e12 usd! And these days you can deploy utility solar for $1.5 a watt. For 2e12 USD you'd get 1.5e12 watts. That's 1500GW solar generation capacity. Talk about a missed opportunity. Wikipedia says the US uses about 5e9 MWh electricity per year. How close is 1500GW solar generation from 5e9 MWh? Anyone know? (realizing that we'd need batteries too at some point)
- dfarts 10y agoWouldn't it be better to stop pollution and let the Earth recover on her own accord in time?
- jdavis703 10y agoThat's never going to happen. Americans will never give up their trucks. The Chinese won't give up their coal fired power plants. Developing nations won't give up slash and burn forestry programs. Why? Because we're all motivated by greed. Instead I think the solution is to make pollution expensive: some have proposed a carbon tax as one way of dealing with this. Perhaps there are other ways involving behavioral economics or something that could also be attempted.
- eloff 10y agoI think you're right in that any lasting solution must come about because it's in our best short term economic interests - because, by and large, it's how we make our decisions
- LargoLasskhyfv 10y agoLookie, lookie! Isn't it spooky? Just now: http://atomicinsights.com/will-china-convert-existing-coal-plants-nuclear-using-htr-pm-reactors/ http://atomicinsights.com/will-china-convert-existing-coal-p... Recently: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF-Irradiation-trials-of-HTR-PM-fuel-completed-0501154.html http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF-Irradiation-trials-of-... A while ago: https://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/Meetings/2014/2014-04-08-04-11-TM-NPTDS/2_Li01.pdf https://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/Meetings/2014... & http://atomicinsights.com/htr-pm-nuclear-heated-gas-producing-superheated-steam/ http://atomicinsights.com/htr-pm-nuclear-heated-gas-producin... Once upon a time, a road not taken: http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2008/10/primer-on-nuclear-safety-25-defense-in.html http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2008/10/primer-on-nuclear-s... So, despite all the knowledge surrounding this, only China seems trying to implement this currently, after the Germans failed miserably. Search for skyshine here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVR_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVR_reactor and mishandling mechanics here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300 So, who again insists on staying with coal power? (Pick your poison)
- dfarts 10y ago> That's never going to happen. Americans will never give up their trucks I love how liberals on HN always slant any global problem as associated with Americans and/or Republicans and/or Christians. How about all the pollution causes by China? No, instead let's attack [those merican's and thir pick ups and their dang dogs and white trash chicks too].
- leeoniya 10y agowith Trump's new cabinet, that would be putting it mildly
- purplelobster 10y agoMaybe because the average American pollutes 10 times more than a Chinese
- spikels 10y agoThat's an exaggeration. As of the 2014 per capita CO2 emissions in the US was 2.2 times Chinese (16.7mt vs 7.6). And this gap is rapidly closing: Chinese per capita emissions are up 150% in the past 10 years while US are down 15%. China could easily exceed the US by this metric inside of a decade. Keep in mind that China already emits twice as much CO2 in total as the US. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_... http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?locations=CN http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?locations... http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?locations=US http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?locations...
- purplelobster 10y agoI'm not sure those number take into account all the stuff that China is manufacturing for the US, that is not consumed locally. Yes, that CO2 is released in China but it's paid for by USD.
- LargoLasskhyfv 10y ago
- FreeFull 10y agoEven if we stop global warming, what do we do about the carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans making them more acidic than they should be?
- fragsworth 10y agoBaking Soda? We'll just dump chemicals everywhere.
- s_kilk 10y agoWe'll use Snakes to solve the Rat problem, then we'll send in Boars to take care of the Snake problem. Of course, we'll need Bears to deal with the Boars when they get out of control.
- soVeryTired 10y agoOnce winter rolls around, the bears hibernate and the problem disappears.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- astrodust 10y agoTell me you're running for office. That's logic so air-tight who could not vote for you.
- protomyth 10y agoWhat is the equivalent solution to use in the oceans?
- jkh1 10y agoby destroying forests ? Sulphur dioxide is what causes acid rains (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain) which kill trees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Triangle_(region) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Triangle_(region)).
- curtis 10y agoI didn't cover it in the blog post, but the amount of sulfur dioxide needed is less than what we're already emitting into the lower atmosphere. From Wikipedia[1]: According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the amount of sulfur dioxide released in the U.S. per year was: Year SO2 1970 31,161,000 short tons (28.3 Mt) 1980 25,905,000 short tons (23.5 Mt) 1990 23,678,000 short tons (21.5 Mt) 1996 18,859,000 short tons (17.1 Mt) 1997 19,363,000 short tons (17.6 Mt) 1998 19,491,000 short tons (17.7 Mt) 1999 18,867,000 short tons (17.1 Mt) also[1]: As of 2006, China was the world's largest sulfur dioxide polluter, with 2005 emissions estimated to be 25,490,000 short tons (23.1 Mt). Presumably we can reduce sulfur dioxide pollution in the lower atmosphere enough to completely offset any that we're releasing into the stratosphere. Is that better or worse? I don't know. But it would seem like right now the Mountain pine beetle is a much greater threat to trees than acid rain is. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide#As_an_air_pollutant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide#As_an_air_pollu... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_pine_beetle#Current_outbreak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_pine_beetle#Current_o...
- ScottBurson 10y agoThe rate of mixing between the stratosphere, where the sulfur aerosols would be placed, and the troposphere, where we live, is relatively low. The half-life of these aerosols in the stratosphere is on the order of months -- short enough, as Curtis points out, to limit the risk of any such experiment, but long enough that the quantities required are small compared to the amount of sulfur we are already putting into the troposphere.
- blondie9x 10y agoArticle doesn't mention the negative consequences. Acid rain destruction of animal and plant life as well.
- codecamper 10y agoNaive article that forgets to mention "ocean acidification". At some point, not so far off, the oceans become too acidic for krill to form their exoskeletons. Once that happens the ocean food chain is done.
- curtis 10y agoNo, the article doesn't mention ocean acidification. Yes, that's a big deal. I'm personally concerned that it's much more dangerous than sea level rise. However, the article does acknowledge that there are big limits to what stratospheric sulfur injection can do: Stratospheric sulfur dioxide injection is not a panacea. But what it can do is buy us time. ... It can buy us time to deploy large scale climate engineering projects that do remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere... I didn't discuss other climate engineering proposals because I was trying to keep the post short.
- codecamper 10y agoThe point is that climate engineering should be revealed by the scientists only after the mathematically challenged, climate change naysayers are literally defecating in their pants watching a tsunami wave washing towards New York city. Otherwise, they'll just start doing that & continue burning the coal.
- microcolonel 10y agoAnyone watch Snowpiercer?
- 08-15 10y agoAre you suggesting the solution is a Sacred Engine running on... uhhh... magic and small children, I guess? (I get it, you're implying that the release of some "cooling compound" might cause an ice age. I'm just not convinced that a 2+ hours long string of plot holes and terrible acting can teach us anything.)
- astrodust 10y agoI'm still wondering who performs maintenance on those tracks.
- microcolonel 10y agoI think that the more plot holes and mediocre acting a movie has, the more it teaches us. ;- )
- ScottBurson 10y agoI strongly recommend that anyone interested in geoengineering read Oliver Morton's excellent book, The Planet Remade: How Geoengineering Could Change the World. I found it engagingly written, chock full of interesting science, and open-minded without being credulous. I think we're going to have to try stratospheric sulfur aerosols within the next decade or so. Yes, I know it doesn't solve the ocean acidification problem. I think we should be experimenting with iron fertilization for that purpose. It might not work, or the side-effects might be too severe, but the attitude of the scientific community has been to actively suppress any such research, and I think that's a serious mistake. It is not a choice of whether we dare to modify the biosphere, or not. We are already modifying it! That genie is not going back in the bottle. We should be learning how to modify it intentionally as well as unintentionally.
- ScottBurson 10y agoLet me say a little more to give you a taste of the book. Morton opens the Introduction with two questions: (1) Do you believe the risks of climate change merit serious action aimed at lessening them? (2) Do you think that reducing an industrial economy's carbon-dioxide emissions to near zero is very hard? I'll quote snippets: To judge by what they say, and by what policies they support, most people in favour of action on climate change are in the Yes/No camp: they want to act on the risks; they don't think that getting off fossil fuels is a terribly hard problem. [...] Most of those against action on climate are in the No/Yes camp: they don't think climate is very much of a worry; but they do think that getting off fossil fuels is very difficult, even impossible. [...] Neither of these approaches works for people like me in the Yes/Yes camp. [Added in edit] Morton goes on to support both positions. The argument for (1) is not that climate disaster is inevitable on our current course, but that the risk is too great to ignore. The argument for (2) is more involved; he lays out numbers showing how little progress has been made and pointing out how billions of people still have little or no access to energy at all. As their standard of living rises to what we in the rich world would consider the poverty level, they will inevitably burn more carbon.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- perilunar 10y agoBugger using high-sulfur fuel in aircraft, how about we just pop some nukes into a couple of dormant volcanoes and blow their tops off?
- hendler 10y agoPersonally, this feels like misinformation. There are such drastic consequences to S02. Take this recent article https://www.yahoo.com/news/mystery-solved-cause-londons-1952-151500901.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/mystery-solved-cause-londons-1952...