3 ms·

These kinds of solutions scare me because of their short-sightedness. I haven't seen any comforting explanations of how these reflective particles leave the at

These kinds of solutions scare me because of their short-sightedness. I haven't seen any comforting explanations of how these reflective particles leave the atmosphere and where they end up such that their effects can be stopped. Solar energy has been and will continue to be the only actual source of energy on our planet. All other resources are finite and will eventually be depleted, many within our lifetimes or those of our children if reserve estimates are accurate. If our strategy for using finite energy resources is to block out the energy from our only infinite (at least millions of years worth) energy source, it would seem that we are shooting our grand children in order to have a bigger party today. Once the prices of oil and fissile materials get high enough, we'll be facepalming at a global scale when we have to rely on solar-derived power (biomass,PV,wind,etc) to fill the gap. Even if there are no unintended consequences (which I do NOT believe is the case), the intended consequence of reducing the total solar energy input to the planet seems like a simple case of short-term fix, long term problem.

jusben1369 14y ago
I suspect the answer to your first question is available based on what happened from 1991 to 1993. I've been around long enough now too to believe that relying on the exhaustion of fossil fuels is no longer the answer. Interestingly Sandy hitting New York City may have done more for the global warming cause than any other event.
yummyfajitas 14y ago
I haven't seen any comforting explanations of how these reflective particles leave the atmosphere and where they end up such that their effects can be stopped. That's only because you haven't bothered to educate yourself. The answer is gravity brings the particles back down to the land/sea over the span of a few years. We've actually tried this experiment a number of times (for example, Pinatubo in 1991, Krakatoa in 1883, various smaller eruptions as well) and on a scale more massive than most geoengineering proposals. It has worked as the models predicted and the long term effects have been negligable.

jusben1369 14y ago

I suspect the answer to your first question is available based on what happened from 1991 to 1993. I've been around long enough now too to believe that relying on the exhaustion of fossil fuels is no longer the answer. Interestingly Sandy hitting New York City may have done more for the global warming cause than any other event.

yummyfajitas 14y ago

I haven't seen any comforting explanations of how these reflective particles leave the atmosphere and where they end up such that their effects can be stopped. That's only because you haven't bothered to educate yourself. The answer is gravity brings the particles back down to the land/sea over the span of a few years. We've actually tried this experiment a number of times (for example, Pinatubo in 1991, Krakatoa in 1883, various smaller eruptions as well) and on a scale more massive than most geoengineering proposals. It has worked as the models predicted and the long term effects have been negligable.