Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How to Cool the Globe
NY Times ^ | October 24, 2007 | KEN CALDEIRA

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections; Technical
KEYWORDS: agw; climatechange; environment; geoengineering; globalwarming; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-96 next last
Ken Caldeira is a scientist at the Carnegie Institution’s department of global ecology.


Henning Wagenbreth

I get the impression that the author is serious.

1 posted on 10/24/2007 8:44:34 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Holy Acid Rain, Batman, do you think they’ve thought this through?


2 posted on 10/24/2007 8:47:46 PM PDT by NonValueAdded (Fred Dalton Thompson for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

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.


3 posted on 10/24/2007 8:52:04 PM PDT by denydenydeny (Expel the priest and you don't inaugurate the age of reason, you get the witch doctor--Paul Johnson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I get the impression that the author is serious.

Or insane. All we need is for some looney tune to actually CHANGE our climate. Ice Age, anyone?

4 posted on 10/24/2007 8:54:18 PM PDT by hsalaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

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?????


5 posted on 10/24/2007 8:54:29 PM PDT by BerniesFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
What can be done, Ken?

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.

6 posted on 10/24/2007 8:54:47 PM PDT by A message
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hsalaw
I get the impression that the author is serious.

Or insane.

Why does it have to be one or the other. Why not both?

7 posted on 10/24/2007 8:57:47 PM PDT by NurdlyPeon (Thompson / Hunter in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BerniesFriend

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.


8 posted on 10/24/2007 8:58:01 PM PDT by Oldexpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
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.

Aren't these the same dumb-shits who caused glo-bull warming when they over-corrected for their "coming ice age" in the 1970s...

9 posted on 10/24/2007 8:59:25 PM PDT by Onelifetogive (* Sarcasm tag ALWAYS required. For some FReepers, sarcasm can NEVER be obvious enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

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.


10 posted on 10/24/2007 8:59:34 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

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.


11 posted on 10/24/2007 9:00:40 PM PDT by camerakid400
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A message

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?


12 posted on 10/24/2007 9:01:52 PM PDT by Old North State
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Oldexpat

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.


13 posted on 10/24/2007 9:10:00 PM PDT by timer (n/0=n=nx0)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

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.


14 posted on 10/24/2007 9:13:54 PM PDT by Jemian (I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded
Holy Acid Rain, Batman, do you think they’ve thought this through?

I don't think the great ecologist is proposing sulphuric acid, maybe sodium sulphate or calcium sulphate.

15 posted on 10/24/2007 9:15:23 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Man-made clouds are safer and more powerful at both heating and cooling. They are more localized so do not need global government. They rain out within weeks and are not permanent, so mistakes can be reversed quickly. They increase plant growth which go on to remove more CO2. Free ocean wave energy can be used to create them. The energy can be reclaimed as more hydro-power and free watering of crops. They increase freshwater supplies for consumption and filling aquifers. Clouds can be used to prevent severe weather from forming. They can be used to increase humidity to reduce wild fires and turn desert into prime real estate. Clouds can also be used militarily since they can shield a battlefield from observation including IR detection, plus they can be used as a weapon to send bad weather towards an enemy. It will probably be the military that masters clouds first. It won't be the UN scientists since clouds do not further global government.

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.

16 posted on 10/24/2007 9:20:44 PM PDT by Reeses (Leftism is powered by the evil force of envy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; NonValueAdded; hsalaw

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.


17 posted on 10/24/2007 9:22:56 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Do I have this right? Now, air pollution is good?


18 posted on 10/24/2007 9:23:15 PM PDT by Nachoman (My guns and my ammo, they comfort me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: denydenydeny

Global Warming™

Global Cooling™

Climate Change™


19 posted on 10/24/2007 9:27:20 PM PDT by Mr_Moonlight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
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.

Yeah, that .117% of newly generated CO2 each year made by man is just terrible. /s

20 posted on 10/24/2007 9:27:21 PM PDT by TigersEye (This is the age of the death of reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

SIMPLE SOLUTION TO GLOBAL WARMING:

NUCLEAR ENERGY. LOTS OF IT.


21 posted on 10/24/2007 9:28:23 PM PDT by WOSG (I just wish freepers would bash Democrats as much as they bash Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I know lets stop giving paper bags at stores and switch to plastic. That will save the trees. Then we can sink a whole bunch of old tires into the ocean and it will form a new coral reef. Then we stop controlled burns because that just pollutes the environment and kills plants.

Yes envirowacko ideas work all the time.


22 posted on 10/24/2007 9:29:53 PM PDT by Domandred (Eagles soar, but unfortunately weasels never get sucked into jet engines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

23 posted on 10/24/2007 9:32:35 PM PDT by rawcatslyentist (Hey Jessie, how much melanin do you have to have to form a socially acceptable lynch mob?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Mount Pinatubo, a volcano in the Philippines that erupted in 1991, showed how it works...

and they interfere - then another Volcano lets loose and we're plunged into a 2-3 year ice age of failed crops etc...

Leave things be! The earth - and the sun, which has the most effect of what happens down here - has been adjusting and readjusting for millions of years - cycles within cycles - and doing a far better job that man does at anything...especially government.

Government screws up everything it touches - these nuts have to be corralled

24 posted on 10/24/2007 9:40:31 PM PDT by maine-iac7 ("...but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" LINCOLN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachoman
Yes, your eyesight and reading comprehension test out A OK.
The solution is pollution.
25 posted on 10/24/2007 9:40:45 PM PDT by TigersEye (This is the age of the death of reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

We would need to ‘cool’ the Earth if we could determine what the actual temperature of Earth was supposed to be.

I’m sure somewhere Nostradamus or Da Vinci or De Sade wrote down the exact ideal temperature of the entire Earth and we’ll only need to adjust it to get back to that point.

I sure hope it wasn’t the perfect temperature back in the 1600s because it was really, really hot back then.


26 posted on 10/24/2007 9:52:33 PM PDT by bpjam (Harry Reid doesn't even have 32% of my approval)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

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?
-
there’s a part of me that says “better to get a bit too cold than continue to let Al gore push new taxes to screw the economy forever.” I mean, just end the issue now and say goodbye to gore.


27 posted on 10/24/2007 9:55:57 PM PDT by ari-freedom (I am for traditional moral values, a strong national defense, and free markets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

This is not to say that we should give up trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ninety-nine percent of the $3 billion federal Climate Change Technology Program should still go toward developing climate-friendly energy systems.
-

why???????? why if you admit it won’t make a dent?
Because. Must. Worship. Gore.
Must. Screw. Economy.
Om.


28 posted on 10/24/2007 9:59:31 PM PDT by ari-freedom (I am for traditional moral values, a strong national defense, and free markets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
But that would cause another Ice Age.
/sigh
29 posted on 10/24/2007 10:04:09 PM PDT by MaxMax (God Bless America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Save the environment,
kill an environmentalist.
30 posted on 10/24/2007 10:14:20 PM PDT by TheDon (The DemocRAT party is the party of TREASON! Overthrow the terrorist's congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

And we’re taking the sulfer out of diesel.


31 posted on 10/24/2007 10:18:03 PM PDT by the_daug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
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.

And yet the most accurate data shows that the Earth hasn't warmed since 1998.

If carbon dioxide has driven and caused the past warming and it's "increasing faster than anybody had foreseen" why aren't we in the midst of runaway global warming?

Just one of several thousand things the global warming religion can't explain.

32 posted on 10/24/2007 10:27:44 PM PDT by RJL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NurdlyPeon
I get the impression that the author is serious.

Or insane.

Why does it have to be one or the other. Why not both?

Seriously insane?
33 posted on 10/24/2007 10:44:25 PM PDT by FreedomOfExpression (Dime: a dollar with all the taxes taken out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BerniesFriend
I thought the snip of the article when it said, "One idea is to counteract warming by tossing..."

My first thought was, 'Let me guess this idiot is going to want us to start tossing ice into the ocean to cool it off.'

34 posted on 10/24/2007 10:46:19 PM PDT by Blue Highway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
How is it that if a environmentalist-minded scientist comes up with an idea to dump crud in the skies, it's hearlded as wisdom, but if we so much as belch, it's contributing to global warming? Didn't the fathers of these same scientists warn us of a coming ice age? So now we should let these guys take a crack at permanently wrecking the planet? I think not.

Here, I'll put on my own mad scientist hat, here's my cure to global warming:

A Cure To Global Warming

Place all the nuclear weapons on the planet at a central location near the equator. I'll let the politicians squabble on the specific location. When the Earth's rotation is such that the weapons are in direct alignment with the sun, detonate them. The tremendous force will push Earth out of it's current orbit, resulting in a new orbit further from the sun. Hopefully the location isn't too far away. If it's a bit too far away we can always toss out the Kyoto protocol and rewarm the atmosphere enough the good old-fashioned way.


35 posted on 10/24/2007 10:56:08 PM PDT by kittycatonline.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

36 posted on 10/24/2007 11:05:02 PM PDT by Dumpster Baby ("Hope somebody finds me before the rats do .....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
So here's a nutjob complaining about unproven unintended consequences of a long-established practice of using carbon-based fuels. He wants to counteract such unproven consequences with a "risky scheme" of deliberately messing with our upper atmosphere with marginally predictable benefits and untold potential for negative, uncontrollable unintended consequences.

Conservative analysis that CO2 historically follows, not precedes warming = total heresy and unacceptable climate impacts.
Liberal activist nutjob climate mongering = can't fail - let's do it now - A-OK.

These people are dangerous and insane.

37 posted on 10/24/2007 11:27:12 PM PDT by SFConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Ninety-nine percent of the $3 billion federal Climate Change Technology Program should still go toward developing climate-friendly energy systems. But 1 percent of that money could be put toward working out geoengineered climate fixes like sulfate particles in the atmosphere, and developing the understanding we need to ensure that they wouldn’t just make matters worse.

How about if we just spend the 1%, and save the rest for feeding people who are starving due to ethanol production.

38 posted on 10/25/2007 1:03:02 AM PDT by AZLiberty (President Fred -- I like the sound of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded
Holy Acid Rain, Batman, do you think they’ve thought this through?

I really don't think they have, and this sort of plan sounds VERY dangerous. The liberals are going to get us all killed...and if it isn't terrorists it'll be them throwing junk up into the sky.

39 posted on 10/25/2007 1:06:16 AM PDT by highlander_UW (I don't know what my future holds, but I know Who holds my future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SFConservative; xcamel

Ironically, they’ve already tested the theory of high-altitude particulates causing “global cooling” ......

Measurements of average temepratures in wide areas between 9/11-9/12-9/13 2001 when aircraft were shutdown showed a measureable RISE in earth’s temperatures of about 1/5 of one degree:

Thus, we are ALREADY combatting the 1/2 of one degree global warming by using jet airplanes to artifically cause cooling that opposes the warming. At a profit.


40 posted on 10/25/2007 2:51:22 AM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Good Night. Too much of this stuff could send the earth spiraling into a irrecoverable cooling cycle that we could not recover. As more ice forms, sunlight is reflected out of the atmosphere causing increased cooling. This cycle could surpass the natural equilibrium that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses provide to keep the earth warm.


41 posted on 10/25/2007 2:53:07 AM PDT by jonrick46
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive
I, myself, am more inclined to believe in the cooling in the mega trend. The same group of scientists, when pressed, have a theory that the Earth, at its forming some 4.6 Billion years ago, was a very hot place — hot enough to have liquefied rock at the surface — and was named the Hadean Eon. So, how was it able to cool itself down so that it could support the various arrangement of life it has today? Chemical transformations where the most dense material sank to the core while much of the less dense material remained at the surface and continued to give off electrons in a radioactive (non harmful particle) decay the expended a lot of heat. This radioactive decay is now happening at a slower rate, with less and less heat being generated at the surface. While this process does not have as much of an affect as our sun, it does have a significant affect the is decreasing in its impact.
42 posted on 10/25/2007 3:09:34 AM PDT by LowCountryJoe (I'm a Paleo-liberal: I believe in freedom; am socially independent and a borderline fiscal anarchist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
We'd better bookmark this one and put it next to that "how to melt arctic ice" newsweek article from the 1970s. It'll look good in the Journalistic Stupidity Wing of the Museum of Liberalism after the revolution.
43 posted on 10/25/2007 3:12:17 AM PDT by ExGeeEye (I've been waiting since 11/04/79 to do something about Iran.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Killing Time; Beowulf; Mr. Peabody; RW_Whacko; honolulugal; SideoutFred; Ole Okie; ...


FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH



44 posted on 10/25/2007 3:30:30 AM PDT by xcamel (FDT/2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachoman

Air trends ‘amplifying’ warming
Reduced air pollution and increased water evaporation appear to be adding to man-made global warming
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4880328.stm

Air trends ‘amplifying’ warming (Oh crap...cleaner air causes global warming)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1612552/posts


45 posted on 10/25/2007 3:40:39 AM PDT by listenhillary (millions crippled by the war on poverty....but we won't pull out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

LOL of course not. If, if, if...


46 posted on 10/25/2007 5:02:23 AM PDT by OKSooner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dumpster Baby

...ah, the good old ‘new’ Tom Swift series...I read them voraciously in my formative years... the clean, crew cut Tom with his sidekick Bud Barclay...and what was the fat cook’s name that hung aroung with them...my favorite was the one about the ‘rare earth’ holmium objects that were discovered in Africa, and how nefarious forces were going to use them to cause global damage...they don’t write ‘em like that anymore...


47 posted on 10/25/2007 5:10:37 AM PDT by IrishBrigade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

This reminds me so much of the Global Cooling scaremongers in the 70s ... they really have become a parody and a comedy show. Of course they keep trying to deny any mainstream scientists were part of that scaremongering, but I was at university real science seminars that schemes such as this one were discussed then by real scientists, not media sillies, so don’t believe the denials.


48 posted on 10/25/2007 5:13:57 AM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

These idiots might bring on the next ice age if they were successful.


49 posted on 10/25/2007 5:21:24 AM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BerniesFriend
" 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?????"

It only works if everyone's refrigerator has been retrofitted with a CFL bulb. You don't want people blindly taking steps to address a perceived problem without first verifying the technology and then validating its application - do you?

50 posted on 10/25/2007 5:34:53 AM PDT by VRWCtaz ("Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness." - Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-96 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson