Scientist: Global Dimming May Change The Color of the Sky
Professor Tim Flannery, an Australian scientist has a climate change proposal so radical it could change the color of the sky.
Global dimming is when you disperse sulfur into the sky to slow down global warming. The sulfur will in turn keep out the sun's rays and slow global warming down.
Flannery, the 2007 Australian of the Year, said the sulfur would be effectively dispersed in jet fuel and he also says there are unknown risks to this idea.
Let's mess with nature more [sarcasm]. We haven't done enough already? How can anyone think this might be a good idea? Nature doesn't need us to survive. It would do much better without us and we certainly don't need to interfere with it even further than we currently do.
I think this is one of the biggest misconceptions of the anti-environmentalist - that those who want change are doing it for the trees. You're right, nature doesn't need us to survive, but we need it to remain hospitable to us. THAT is what this is about, not protecting nature for its own sake.
As for the skeptics, I, too, am a bit concerned about any proposal to directly change the course of nature. I think of the past introduction of foreign species to an area, and I think of the Matrix and scorching the skies. However, the layperson calling this guy names when this is his field of expertise seems pretty foolish. If those concerns crossed your minds, chances are that they crossed his.
may occur given our sky is sometimes blue and the yellow of the sulfur I am thinking a greenish hue and then the 'greenies' will be ecstatic won't they?
has already been happening for awhile. I'm not sure what planet Professor Tim Flannery has been living on. "In the early 21st century, it's become clear that air pollution can significantly reduce the amount of sunlight reaching Earth, lower temperatures, and mask the warming effects of greenhouse gases. Climate researcher James Hansen estimates that "global dimming" is cooling our planet by more than a degree Celsius (1.8°F) and fears that as we cut back on the pollution that contributes to dimming, global warming may escalate to a point of no return. Regrettably, in terms of possibly taking corrective action, our current understanding of global dimming has been a long time in the coming, considering the first hints of the phenomenon date back to 18th-century observations of volcanic eruptions."
".....However, the layperson calling this guy names when this is his field of expertise seems pretty foolish....."
When the expert concedes there are risks to global dimming via sulphur, so much as to state "The consequences of doing that are unknown", the layperson has every damn right to be critical!
It has been proven that sulfur erodes the ozone layer. Yet, adding a small amount of sun dimming (non-ozone damaging) aerosol would cheaply and simply cool the Earth immediately.
By the way, Flannery is right, if the rate of temperature increase exceeds 0.4 C/decade, then all ecosystems will be quickly destroyed (per Leemans and Eickhout 2004) http://www.connietalk.com/ By the way, CCS (i.e. "clean coal") is impractical:
Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, has estimated that capturing and burying just 10 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted over a year from coal-fire plants at current rates would require moving volumes of compressed carbon dioxide greater than the total annual flow of oil worldwide — a massive undertaking requiring decades and trillions of dollars. "Beware of the scale," he stressed."
the unforeseen and unintended consequences of these earth-wide engineering undertakings are likely to overshadow the intended consequences
sulfate and nitrate emissions cause huge changes in precipitation patterns across the whole planet and cause all sorts of problems with soil and water chemistry. And that's just when emitted from ground-based sources as an accidental pollutant.
every time you intervene in one of earth's dynamic systems, the consequences of that intervention compound and manifest in all adjacent systems, as well as the systems adjacent to those ones. intervening in the earth's mechanics without knowing the entirety of the potential consequences is what got us into this mess to start with
Ah come on, where is everyone's adventureous side at ? Why not let the good scientist load up a few hundred ICBM's, and have them explode all over the planet ? What's the worst can happen? LMAO ! Wait........can you say, ICE AGE ? LOL....or who knows what else ?LMAO......Our only need to worry is when they actually start DOING THIS STUFF ! LOL
Why don't we seed the sun with something to change
the color of the sky while we are at it and cause it to prematurely supernova? Well, why don't we? In the long run I guarantee it would stop global warming. /sarc
...a massive undertaking requiring decades and trillions of dollars. "Beware of the scale," he stressed."
I understand the timescale, we need to act fast and we act now to have any hope of return from the doomsday of Global Climate Change, but I can't believe anyone is still worrying about the dollars and cents of this. It's really too bad the biggest world leaders, countries and most powerful businesses people can't see beyond the almighty dollar to make great change.
Of course, the little man like myself can't just pass the buck onto Feds either.
Let's take a look at our track record with global warming "fixes." Right now, the poorest of the poor are rioting for food while we pump their rice and tortillas into our gas tanks. Did you see that coming? But we should ignore any unintended consequences and pump noxious gasses into the atmosphere to "cure" global warming? Insane.
