so, who likes the idea of artificial volcanoes?

[mopinko]

there was an idea floated a while ago about launching sulfur into the upper atmosphere to cause some cooling. seems to me that loading some rockets up with volcanic dust is something that is simple and well understood. we have current data about climate effects from mt pinatubo. we could calculate what we need pretty accurately.
should we do this? before the glaciers get any smaller? it's just a bandaid, i know. but it would slow things down, wouldn't it?

[Atman]

1. Can we just wait until Bush causes a nukular winter?

Then everything will cool back down. For centuries to come.

[progressive_realist]

39. I think this is the only plan to reverse global warming...

...that, pardon the metaphor, stands a snowball's chance in hell of being implemented.

:evilgrin:

[phantom power]

2. Here are some suggestive figures....

A Mt Pinatubo class of eruption ejects cubic miles of material into the atmosphere. It currently costs about $5000 per pound to put a given mass into low earth orbit.

I don't even feel like I need to do that math.

[mopinko]

6. well, what is the math

if the greenland ice sheet goes?

[phantom power]

12. I think we're all going to find out...

And let's not forget Antarctica. They recently discovered it is starting to undergo a net loss of ice as well. If we lost all of that ice too, that would be about 200ft increase in sea level.

Oh, and I changed my mind, I'll do the math. Since we're talking about simulating vocanoes, I'll oversimplify and assume we want to take just one cubic mile of basalt, turn it into dust, and put it into earth orbit.

The densit of basalt: 3011 kg/m^3

A cubic mile equals 4173281000 m^3

That yields 27644648000200 pounds of basalt to put into earth orbit

At $5000/lb, that will cost $138,223,240,001,000,000 US dollars, or 138 thousand trillion dollars. So, the entire planet's economy is utterly incapable of putting that much material into orbit. It simply cannot be done, regardless of how terrible it is going to be when we lose the ice sheets.

[mopinko]

15. how does this compare

with the cost and payload that went into the space station?

[Salviati]

17. It is the equivilant mass of 68.4 million space stations

that's a lot of space stations.

[mopinko]

23. figures from pinatubo

The volume of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption was about 5 cubic km of dacite.
so, your math seems off there.

[phantom power]

25. Here are the numbers, re-run...

a cubic mile is about 4 cubic kilometers. So, I need to multiply in a factor of (5/4). The density of dacite was given as 2400 kg/m^2. So I need to update that too.

So, my answer becomes...

138,000 trillion X (5/4) X (2400/3011) = 137,000 trillion dollars.

Interesting, I was quite close!

[mopinko]

26. i am quite math challenged.

theory, good- arithmetic, bad.

[Dead_Parrot]

35. Ahh, but that's wrapped up in space-ship.

You wouldn't be launching a shuttle, opening the door and throwing out handfulls of pulverized sulphur, then landing again.

A Jules Verne approach would be in order, Which would probably knock a couple of zeros off.

It's the smell that worries me...

[Whoa_Nelly]

3. But what would that do to the trees, the Amazon forests?

Without light, and altering the equatorial zone temps down too far, things could get worse.

What about how less light and the effect on ocean species?

It's not just about the glaciers. So many ecosystems are in peril. Where does one really start in attempting to manipulate the global environment to not be detrimental to other systems?

[mopinko]

5. i do not know these answers, but

they are out there. we have had plenty of volcanos, but the amazon rainforest is still there.

[Whoa_Nelly]

9. But we haven't had any man-made volcano dust put into our atmosphere

and the Amazon forests are not there any more. What's left of these forests, after all the raping of them over the last 30+ years that is still going on, is dying so quickly even now due to climatic change/global warming. Seems to me that by altering the atmosphere with volcanic dust, and doing so by man-made means, the density of the atmosphere would change, the light would be affected, and who knows how many consequences in terms of changes in global weather would occur that could possibly devastate populations and other ecosystems.

But, hey! Am just thinking out loud here... :hi:

[mopinko]

14. why would it be different than a natural eruption?

we have a lot of data. good solid science.

[Whoa_Nelly]

18. Can you give some links to that science?

I would be interested in reading about the man-made composition of volcanic ash, as well as how to get enough into the atmosphere to create just the right amount of "winter" that would affecr the glacial recession,as well as how it would affect global climate, ecosystems, and the long range effects should this be done.

Am not being sarcastic. Am honestly asking for info :hi:

[mopinko]

22. if i had it, this would be a very different thread.

i'm just what iffing for the fun of it, here.
no offense taken.
:hi:

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. Can you say, "acid rain"?

In the upper atmosphere, the intenser concentration of radiation from the sun (even stronger, what with the ozone layer becoming dangerously thin) would oxidize some of that sulfur into sulfur dioxide (S02.) When that gets mixed with water, the result is sulfuric acid (H2S04), aka acid rain.

While the amount of sulfuric acid that is likely to result would be small compared to that which can be traced to coal, oil and other man-made causes, it would still be significant, and would speed up the great enviornmental damage being done to forests and waterways by acid rain.

I seem to remember reading some years ago that using sulfur to increase albedo and thus fight global warming was a possibility, but that the potential for harm was so great it would be a very last ditch effort, when little things like living lakes and high altitude forests had become irrelevant.

[mopinko]

7. that is why i was saying volcanic dust, which

i assume would cause less acidification than just sulfur. but i admit i am talking off the very tippy top of my head.
wouldn't most forms of dust have the same effect? we could use something with a high Ph that might even buffer the current acidification of the oceans.

[megatherium]

8. When Pinatubo erupted it put a lot of stuff into the stratosphere.

It didn't contribute to acid rain, but it did lower global temperatures 0.5 F for a year or more. I remember this event: it created spectacular sunrises and sunsets for some months. So I think the principle is sound, but it's sobering to realize that Pinatubo was the largest eruption of the 20th century. (If you can find the NOVA episode about Pinatubo, it's a must-see, by the way.)

[jpak]

10. It also caused stratospheric ozone depletion

Sulfate particles participate in the same heterogeneous ozone chemistry as polar stratospheric clouds in the Antarctic.

check it out...

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002100/a002183/

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. If not sulfur dioxide, then methane and CO2

Before the Industrial Revolution, volcanos were the biggest contributor of "greenhouse gases." Even if several controlled eruptions could spew enough ash into the air to increase planetary albedo, those eruptions would also increase the concentration of gasses that is making the albedo necessary.

I'm not saying that the idea it entirely without merit; I am saying that sulfur and controlled volcanic eruptions are not good ways to do it. One possibility would be use chalk dust (calcium carbonate), which we can make fairly easily and cheaply using excess carbon dioxide. Chalk would help buffer against sulfuric and nitric acids generated by burning fossil fuels and help deacidify the oceans. The challenge there would be a safe and effective delivery system.

[mopinko]

13. chalk dust did occur to me.

anyone have a hole to poke in this?

are weather-type balloons an option? just spitballing here.

[Whoa_Nelly]

19. Chalk Dust?

Would seem that could create more problems for asmatics, and possibly increase lung problems globally, which in turn could have a devastating effect on the human race in many ways.

http://www.chicagoartistsresource.org/?q=node/15366

We encountered three patients with chronic interstitial pneumonia with many bullae in the lower lung fields whose lifetime occupation was teaching school, Pathological examination of autopsy lungs of these patients revealed interstitial pneumonia and multiple bullae throughout the lungs, including the lower lobe. Since blackboard chalk has been used as a popular writing material among teachers in Japan, the mineral contents in the lungs of two of the three cases and four control cases with idiopathic interstitial pneumonia IIP) (whose occupations were not teaching) were analyzed. The amount of deposition of total dust inorganic dust non-SiO2 inorganic dust, and calcium was significantly higher in the lungs of two schoolteachers compared with those of the control lungs. ne amount of free silica in case 1 and alpha-quartz in case 3 were also significantly higher than in the controls. Two thirds of the chalk produced in Japan is still made from gypsum and involves small amounts of silica and other minerals, in addition to calcium. These findings indicated the deposition of chalk in the lungs of these patients with interstitial pneumonia and multiple bullae.


The preceding abstract was reprinted with permission from Section 35 (Occupational Health and Industrial Medicine) of Excerpta Medica.

[mopinko]

21. not sure how much you can extrapolate

long term exposure to one time exposure. not saying this is not a valid concern. just saying i think you are going too far.
i don't know.

[megatherium]

24. Holy shit, I'm a math prof.

Fortunately, we've switched to dry-erase marker boards. They tell us that the solvent used in the markers is harmless...

[Dead_Parrot]

36. I hope so. I've been sniffing them for years.

gibber, snarfle. Whaa?

[TechBear_Seattle]

27. Legitimate concern, but consider

In order to increase planetary albedo*, any particulate matter would have to be placed very high, in the lower stratosphere. There, the fine dust would tend to stay aloft, carried by the very cold, dry winds that blow fiercely around the warmer, denser troposphere lower down. Delivered properly, there would be relatively little "fall out" back into the troposphere, and most of that would end up returning to earth as rain or other form of precipitation and not as atmospheric dust. And given the growing acidity of rain water because of sulfuric and nitric acids caused by burning fossil fuels, chances are very high that calcium carbonate dust falling as rain would dissolve before returning to the earth's surface.

Also, looking at the text you provided: the study involved mineral chalk and the chief culprit was silicon dioxide, which is the main component of quartz crystals, silica and glass (same mineral, different states.) And yes, inhaled silicon dioxide causes all sorts of problems: there is a reason why silicosis is so feared. The plan I envision would be pure calcium carbonate with no other impurities. CaCO3 is readily soluble and, in fact, a very common food additive (and one that has actually been proven safe.)


* Albedo is a measure of reflectivity. Increasing the albedo of the planet's atmosphere, and thereby reflecting more light back into space, would be cheaper and require far less material than creating "shade" and simply blocking out the light.

[Whoa_Nelly]

28. Well, if it could work, would htink it would have ot be done right the fir

I don't think there can be any do-overs with that approach.

[TechBear_Seattle]

29. It would be far easier to control than the OP's first suggestion

And if things go wrong, would have far fewer and less severe consequences, too.

[mopinko]

34. i'm sold.

[mainegreen]

16. Sure, let's just kick-start the Siberian Traps.

Since that worked out so well last time. :eyes:

[mopinko]

20. well, i just did a quick google, so

once again i cop to talking out my ass. but your example seems to be an exaggeration. upthread they say we could not come close to having and impact, and you are pointing to the most powerful eruption in the planets history, (or something like that). so this does not seem relevant.

[mainegreen]

30. I admit, it is an exaggeration. A rather big one.

It just seems to me playing with volcanos is probably not the best solution.

[mopinko]

32. you misunderstand

i was not talking about "artificially igniting" volcanoes. i was talking about hoisting volcanic dust into the upper atmosphere. a synthetic volcano, if you will.

[mainegreen]

38. Ahh, well that's not crazy at all.

I apologize.

[GreenGreenLimaBean]

31. This has already been calculated....$25 - $50 billion dollars

already being looked at

Scientist Publishes 'Escape Route' from Global Warming
by Steve Connor

A Nobel Prize-winning scientist has drawn up an emergency plan to save the world from global warming, by altering the chemical makeup of Earth's upper atmosphere. Professor Paul Crutzen, who won a Nobel Prize in 1995 for his work on the hole in the ozone layer, believes that political attempts to limit man-made greenhouse gases are so pitiful that a radical contingency plan is needed.

In a polemical scientific essay to be published in the August issue of the journal Climate Change, he says that an "escape route" is needed if global warming begins to run out of control.

Professor Crutzen has proposed a method of artificially cooling the global climate by releasing particles of sulphur in the upper atmosphere, which would reflect sunlight and heat back into space. The controversial proposal is being taken seriously by scientists because Professor Crutzen has a proven track record in atmospheric research.

A fleet of high-altitude balloons could be used to scatter the sulphur high overhead, or it could even be fired into the atmosphere using heavy artillery shells, said Professor Crutzen, a researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Germany.
.
.
.


<http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0731-05.htm>

[mopinko]

33. yeah, that's the story.

that is where this train of thought pulled out of the station.

[Dead_Parrot]

37. Maybe I'm being dim, but what about water?

I know water vapour is a greehnouse gas, but it's also quite reflective: if we tanked a few million tons up and dispersed it, what would the net effect be? any ideas?

Just strikes me as being safer when it comes back down.

Sadly, I'm a total nuggins at chemistry, so often ask dumb questions. :D

[phantom power]

40. I know that higher is better. Engineered cirrus clouds?

Much better than sticking things in orbit, I suppose.