Re: USA urges scientists to block out sun

I was wondering when they'd stumble onto this nightmare! lol.

The obvious solution is to balance global warming with global
dimming.

Global dimming is already occurring due to jet travel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

So, merely engineer the rate of global dimming to balance global
warming. This appeared to occur between 1940 and 1980 - the period of
the introduction of air travel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

In theory global dimming could be accelerated by adding materials to
jet fuel to increase the amount, reduce the size, and hence increase
the longevity, and reflectivity of particulate matter in jet
exhausts.

Coal fired power plants and steel mills are equipped with super-heated
exhausts that inject tiny particulate matter into the stratosphere, so
as they introduce CO2 they also introduce highly reflective particles
in the stratosphere to balance the CO2 that is emitted.

If short wave radiation is kept from hitting the Earth, then, the
blanked of CO2 won't keep as much IR in. A technical solution.

Another technical solution would be to increase the rate at which
carbon dioxide is fixed by the oceans. The oceans take CO2 out of the
atmosphere today. Their efficiency is falling behind human ability to
create CO2.

The creation of carbonated seawater from carbon dioxide is a
possibility. A solar powered process using seawater would be
worthwhile - and release the carbonated salt solution at a depth and
temperature that maintains the pressure and stability of the fixed
CO2.
..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

CO2 levels rose from 275 ppm to 375 ppm in the industrial age. Over
this same period the global temperature rose by 0.8C - tassuming a
linear relation this is 1.0C per 125 ppm.

One may combine the two ideas. Create carbonate ices with CO2 and
inject them into the stratosphere to cause global dimming.

Humanity burns about 30 billion barrels of oil - which contain about
3.5 billion tons of carbon, and another 4.5 billion tons of coal, a
total of 8 billion tons of carbon That's 30 billion tons of CO2 each
year.

The Earth's atmosphere is 5.15 million billion tons. So, this is
about 0.8 ppm per year. So, this is 6.4 micro-kelvin per year.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/3913

Worldwide, humanity burns 205 million tons of jet fuel each year.
Increasing the amount of highly-refletive particulate by about 3x
should end global warming - particularly if the particulate fixes the
carbon-dioxide into carbonate or bi-carbonate particulates and injects
them into the upper atmosphere. Ditto with injecting bi-carbonate
particiulates in coal fired power plant exhausts and injecting that
into the upper atmosphere. Superheating the stacks of a power plant
to create an injection plume, would also reduce the need for cooling
towers for these power plants.





On Jan 28, 9:00 pm, "simple_langu...@xxxxxxxxx"
<simple_langu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
source:http://tinyurl.com/2sa8jd

The US wants the world's scientists to develop technology to block
sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming.

It says research into techniques such as giant mirrors in space or
reflective dust pumped into the atmosphere would be "important
insurance" against rising emissions, and has lobbied for such a
strategy to be recommended by a UN report on climate change, the first
part of which is due out on Friday).

The US has also attempted to steer the UN report, prepared by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), away from
conclusions that would support a new worldwide climate treaty based on
binding targets to reduce emissions. It has demanded a draft of the
report be changed to emphasise the benefits of voluntary agreements
and to include criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol, which the US opposes.

The final report, written by experts from across the world, will
underpin international negotiations to devise an emissions treaty to
succeed Kyoto, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World
governments were given a draft of the report last year and invited to
comment.

The US response says the idea of interfering with sunlight should be
included in the summary for policymakers, the prominent chapter at the
front of each panel report. It says: "Modifying solar radiance may be
an important strategy if mitigation of emissions fails. Doing the R&D
to estimate the consequences of applying such a strategy is important
insurance that should be taken out. This is a very important
possibility that should be considered."

Scientists have previously estimated that reflecting less than 1 per
cent of sunlight back into space could compensate for the warming
generated by all greenhouse gases emitted since the industrial
revolution. Possible techniques include putting a giant screen into
orbit, thousands of tiny, shiny balloons, or microscopic sulfate
droplets pumped into the high atmosphere to mimic the cooling effects
of a volcanic eruption. The IPCC draft said such ideas were
"speculative, uncosted and with potential unknown side-effects".

The US submission complains the draft report is "Kyoto-centric" and it
wants to include the work of economists who have reported "the degree
to which the Kyoto framework is found wanting".

It also complains that overall "the report tends to overstate or focus
on the negative effects of climate change". It also wants more
emphasis on responsibilities of the developing world.

But Professor Stephen Schneider, a climate consultant to the US
government for more than 30 years and a key figure in the panel
process for more than a decade, says the world is "playing Russian
roulette" with its future by responding too slowly to climate change.

The panel's draft report shows projections for average global
temperature rise from 1990 to 2100 will expand slightly, with a new
range of one to 6.3 degrees. The 2001 report's range was 1.4 to 5.8
degrees.

Professor Schneider said he was concerned the increase was more likely
to be three degrees or higher, with a 10 per cent chance of a six-
degree rise by the end of the century.

"Hell, we buy fire insurance based on a 1 per cent chance," he said.
"If we're going to be risk averse ... we cannot dismiss the possibility
of potentially catastrophic outliers and that includes Greenland and
West Antarctica [ice sheets breaking up], massive species extinctions,
intensified hurricanes and all those things. "There's at least a 10
per cent chance of that. And that to me for a society is too high a
risk ... My value judgement when you're talking about planetary life
support systems is that 10 per cent, my God, that's Russian roulette
with a Luger."

.