Global Warming Solution: Change Colour of Sky

Sharwood

Rich, doctor nephew
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
6,954
Location
A little place outside Atlanta
Seemed important enough to post here, rather than science.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/080519/2/16x42.html

Change sky's colour, proposes Flannery
Scientist Tim Flannery has proposed a radical solution to climate change which may change the colour of the sky.

But he says it may be necessary, as the "last barrier to climate collapse."

Professor Flannery says climate change is happening so quickly that mankind may need to pump sulphur into the atmosphere to survive.

Australia's best-known expert on global warming has updated his climate forecast for the world - and it's much worse than he thought just three years ago.

He has called for a radical suite of emergency measures to be put in place.

The gas sulphur could be inserted into the earth's stratosphere to keep out the sun's rays and slow global warming, a process called global dimming.

"It would change the colour of the sky," Prof Flannery told AAP.

"It's the last resort that we have, it's the last barrier to a climate collapse."

"We need to be ready to start doing it in perhaps five years time if we fail to achieve what we're trying to achieve."

Prof Flannery, the 2007 Australian of the Year, said the sulphur could be dispersed above the earth's surface by adding it to jet fuel.

He conceded there were risks to global dimming via sulphur.

"The consequences of doing that are unknown."

Professor Flannery, who spoke at a business and sustainability conference in Parliament House on Monday, said new science showed the world was much more susceptible to greenhouse gas emissions that had been thought eight years ago.

Regardless of what happened to emissions in the future, there was already far too much greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, he said.

Cutting emissions was not enough. Mankind now had to take greenhouse gases out of the air.

"The current burden of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is in fact more than sufficient to cause catastrophic climate change," Prof Flannery said.

"Everything's going in the wrong direction at the moment, timelines are getting shorter, the amount of pollution in the atmosphere is growing."

"It's extremely urgent."

As well as the global dimming plan, Prof Flannery said carbon should be taken out of the air and converted into charcoal, then ploughed into farmers' fields.

Wealthy people should pay poor farmers in tropical zones to plant forests - possibly through a direct purchase scheme like the eBay website.

And all conventional coal-fired power stations - which did not have "clean coal" technology - should be closed by 2030.

Capturing carbon emissions from coal-fired power stations and storing it underground - called carbon capture and storage (CCS) - was a good idea, Professor Flannery said.

He urged Australia to dramatically fast-track CCS research and give the technology to the Chinese, who are building the equivalent of one new coal-fired power station a week.

Prof Flannery said while the Rudd government was doing more to tackle climate change than its predecessor, it was still "nowhere near enough."

He called on the government to remove the means test on the $8,000 rebate for domestic solar panels introduced in last week's budget.

"It's probably the bureaucrats getting in the way, we all know that sort of policy is not going to work," he said.
Well, this is brilliant. Let's solve climate change by pumping tonnes of sulphur into the atmosphere, the effects of which, aside from turning the sky purple, we don't know. Right up there with the "let's all turn our fans on at once" idea.
 
Global dimming means less sunlight , not only less heat. This will have an effect on Vegetation.
 
Global dimming means less sunlight , not only less heat. This will have an effect on Vegetation.
Exactly. There are so many problems with this idea, it's potentially worse than global warming itself. Like curing an ingrown toenail by amputating a guy's leg.
 
Or, everyone could continue dodging the issue by hiding under the cover of being developing countries or pointing at the developing countries and refusing to budge until they do. Not terribly helpful either, and might never be.

Isn't science supposed to throw up hypotheses on how to solve problems, no matter how ridiculous they sound at first? Who knows, it might actually be necessary one day?
 
I have seen The Matrix, I know how this turns out.

I DON'T like where this is going...

2005.12.06.morpheus.jpg
 
I think that a purple sky would be fun. It would disrupt waking patterns though, since we need the blue light. Better to have a strange-coloured sky and more intensely green vegetation than no vegetation due to global warming.
I don't see a problem with clean coal technology, nor with giving it to the Chinese.
 
Creating smog will reflect more light away into the atmosphere, that was the hypothesis for the delayed global warming since the industrial revolution. The earlier industry predominantly used coals which contains high amount of sulfur as a principal source of fuel, creating smog that reflected solar radiation. The early 80s saw the fear of acid rain, huge amount of money went into cleaner fuels, the 21st century we finally saw the end of acid rain and new problems developing from the reduced sulfur emission and the high presence of CO2 accumulated in the air.
 
I think that a purple sky would be fun. It would disrupt waking patterns though, since we need the blue light. Better to have a strange-coloured sky and more intensely green vegetation than no vegetation due to global warming.
I don't see a problem with clean coal technology, nor with giving it to the Chinese.
The only problem with clean coal is that there are better options available. But Australia's a massive coal-producing country, so we're more willing to spend billions of dollars and a lot of years researching a possibly unfeasible plan that won't damage our markets than spending less money and time on things like solar and wind, which Australia could easily generate a tonne of power from.

But if clean coal is feasible, I see no real problem with it, and we should give it to other countries for free. Not only is it good for the environment, it'll be a major diplomatic coup.
 
I like it. You don't have to cut incoming solar flux by much - less than 1% - to offset the CO2 we have added to our atmosphere. Plants will survive (they may grow a bit slower, true).

Start by putting the sulfur compounds low enough in the atmosphere that they will mostly fall out reasonably quickly, if we need to stop. If the side-effects are better than global warming, move on to longer-lasting modes of operation.
 
The only problem with clean coal is that there are better options available. But Australia's a massive coal-producing country, so we're more willing to spend billions of dollars and a lot of years researching a possibly unfeasible plan that won't damage our markets than spending less money and time on things like solar and wind, which Australia could easily generate a tonne of power from.

But if clean coal is feasible, I see no real problem with it, and we should give it to other countries for free. Not only is it good for the environment, it'll be a major diplomatic coup.

I often get you and Arwon mixed up. Don't know why, but I always do.
 
It's the 4 letters in the middle.

Is wind power really feasible as a large-scale energy producer?
 
I like the idea of a purple sky. I think we should do more random things to majorly alter the earth for our own esthetics pleasure.
 
Better to have a strange-coloured sky and more intensely green vegetation than no vegetation due to global warming.

Global warming is a boon for vegetation growth, as every warm period in Earth's history attests to.
 
It's the 4 letters in the middle.

Is wind power really feasible as a large-scale energy producer?

Cor, I didn't even notice that. Thanks. :)
 
It's the 4 letters in the middle.

Is wind power really feasible as a large-scale energy producer?

Unless you can find places on Earth that will produce wind 24/7 at a constant speed, probably not. With wind power, you only get electricity when the wind blows.
 
Unless you can find places on Earth that will produce wind 24/7 at a constant speed, probably not. With wind power, you only get electricity when the wind blows.

Nevermind that excess power is stored for when the wind is not blowing.
 
Back
Top Bottom