• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cheap ways to cool the earth

What do you think of these proposals to cool the earth?

  • I like them. This would save the taxpayers a huge amount of money and also save the earth.

    Votes: 7 30.4%

  • I don't think these proposals are technologically feasible.

    Votes: 7 30.4%

  • We shouldn't be messing around with the climate; who knows what might happen?

    Votes: 10 43.5%

  • We should pass legislation to cap and/or tax carbon dioxide emissions.

    Votes: 5 21.7%
  • Total voters
    23
Crunch said:
Just what kind of factories would that be?
Click to expand...

Any kind of factory that emits sulfur dioxide as waste will suffice.

Crunch said:
Mount Pinatubo Eruption

And how many thousands of years are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Not all of that SO2 went into the stratosphere. Furthermore, Mount Pinatubo lies near the equator, which is the worst place if you want to cool the earth. We could get a similar effect for much less SO2 if the factories were located at higher latitudes. Only about 100,000 tons of sulfur dioxide per year (34 gallons per minute) would be necessary. That is easily within the capability of a couple factories.
 
Kandahar said:
Any kind of factory that emits sulfur dioxide as waste will suffice.



Not all of that SO2 went into the stratosphere. Furthermore, Mount Pinatubo lies near the equator, which is the worst place if you want to cool the earth. We could get a similar effect for much less SO2 if the factories were located at higher latitudes. Only about 100,000 tons of sulfur dioxide per year (34 gallons per minute) would be necessary. That is easily within the capability of a couple factories.
Click to expand...

So, about 150 to 300 years to match Pinatubo.

I guess that is less damaging than cap and tax, I'm all for it. :mrgreen:
 
Kandahar said:
http://delong.typepad.com/files/superfreakonomics-chapter-5.pdf
(Reproduced with the author's permission.)

Page 192-196 is where the book discusses the amount of sulfur dioxide needed to mimic a volcanic eruption.
Click to expand...

First off, the notion that a book called "Freakonomics; what do Al Gore and Mt. Pinatubo have in common" talking about "Budyko's Blanket" is not exactly my idea of a credible source.

Secondly, your comments were not supported by the book. The book talks about creating a hose and floating it in the stratosphere to spew sulfur into the jet stream (a highly suspect notion at best) to create a protective blanket, not:

Originally Posted by Kandahar
Two factories belching sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere - one in the Northern Hemisphere and one in the Southern Hemisphere - would be sufficient to mimic the effect of a large volcanic eruption like Mount Pinatubo.
 
bowerbird said:
Hyperbole huh? Let us look at the OP again



So you see there is a suggestion that we could mitigate one problem by adding another.

Seriously - did not one person on this thread actually google SO2 and global warming?
Click to expand...

Yes, the entire premise is mind numbing hyperbole and suspect science not to mention an incredible theory to boot.
 
Truth Detector said:
First off, the notion that a book called "Freakonomics; what do Al Gore and Mt. Pinatubo have in common" talking about "Budyko's Blanket" is not exactly my idea of a credible source.
Click to expand...

You're unhappy with the name? :confused:

Truth Detector said:
Secondly, your comments were not supported by the book. The book talks about creating a hose and floating it in the stratosphere to spew sulfur into the jet stream (a highly suspect notion at best) to create a protective blanket, not:

Originally Posted by Kandahar
Two factories belching sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere - one in the Northern Hemisphere and one in the Southern Hemisphere - would be sufficient to mimic the effect of a large volcanic eruption like Mount Pinatubo.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood what the authors are suggesting. The idea is to attach an extremely long hose to the smokestacks of factories, and support the hose with balloons every few hundred feet, so that it reaches the stratosphere. Essentially it would be extending the factories' smokestacks a few miles up, so that the SO2 is in the stratosphere instead of the troposphere.
 
Last edited:
Truth Detector said:
Yes, the entire premise is mind numbing hyperbole and suspect science not to mention an incredible theory to boot.
Click to expand...

Which part of the science do you disagree with? That sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere blocks out sunlight and cools the earth, or that we have the technological capability to put sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere? :confused:
 
Kandahar said:
You're unhappy with the name? :confused:



I think you misunderstood what the authors are suggesting. The idea is to attach an extremely long hose to the smokestacks of factories, and support the hose with balloons every few hundred feet, so that it reaches the stratosphere. Essentially it would be extending the factories' smokestacks a few miles up.
Click to expand...

I hate to say this, but do you have any idea of what a hose, large enough to handle a smoke stack from a large factory, strong enough to handle the winds, and long enough to reach the stratosphere would weigh? Now add the “balloons” to hold it up…

See the problem?
 
Kandahar said:
You're unhappy with the name? :confused:

I think you misunderstood what the authors are suggesting. The idea is to attach an extremely long hose to the smokestacks of factories, and support the hose with balloons every few hundred feet, so that it reaches the stratosphere. Essentially it would be extending the factories' smokestacks a few miles up, so that the SO2 is in the stratosphere instead of the troposphere.
Click to expand...

I got it now; but the idea is certainly hair brained and purely theoretical in nature, may cause MORE harm than good and it doesn't address my earlier comments about the farcical notions behind "man caused" global warming.

But I will leave the thread for those who wish to discuss wild-eyed theories of hooking hoses to smoke stacks and injecting sulfur dioxides into the stratosphere. :cool:
 
Kandahar said:
Which part of the science do you disagree with? That sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere blocks out sunlight and cools the earth, or that we have the technological capability to put sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere? :confused:
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree with two theories; (1) that man is causing the earth to warm; and (2) that man can alter the climate in any way or that his attempts at such theoretical nonsense wouldn't have a much worse negative outcome.

I thought I was pretty clear earlier. You may want to re-read where there has been FOUR previous periods of ice ages and warming long before man came along with factories and automobiles; I want the kooks to explain how the previous warming and cooling trends had anything to do with man; then MAYBE, they would have a case.

:2wave:
 
Kandahar said:
I think you misunderstood what the authors are suggesting. The idea is to attach an extremely long hose to the smokestacks of factories, and support the hose with balloons every few hundred feet, so that it reaches the stratosphere. Essentially it would be extending the factories' smokestacks a few miles up, so that the SO2 is in the stratosphere instead of the troposphere.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm......well, smokestacks work because smoke is, well, hot, and the ambient pressure is essentially equal at the top and bottom of the chimney. Thus the warm air . So the chimeny is initially warmed and the heat warms the air which expands and thus becomes bouyant relative to the air surrounding the chimney and rises through the chimney.

A seven mile tall chimney isn't going to work that way, if it works at all. Any of y'all ask why there's no clouds in the stratosphere? Of course you have. It's because the warm air from the ground cools as it expands, and eventually there's a point reached where it's at ambient temperature and pressure, stops expanding, and there's it's ceiling.

Now, anyone taking the junior heat transfer course in their engineering curriculum learns that the pin-fin is one of the most effective radiators and convective surfaces (certainly the easiest to analyze), and one can clearly see that a seven mile long tube is nothing more than a flexible pin fin for analytical purposes, and that puppy will cool the exhaust gases most effectively.

I don't think a chimney opened in the stratosphere will work, unless it's heated to keep it drawing.

That's not even considering the fact that well, the Earth has what the natives call "weather" and makes securing this monstrosity somewhat problematical. Remember, making something stronger means it's going to be heavier, so the balloons supporting it will be bigger, which means they'll be more subject to aerodynamic drag forces, which means the assembly will need additional strength for that...

...and what happens when a "hose" long enough to stretch the length of Manhattan comes down? How many people does it kill, houses does it break, and roads does it block?

How does "Freakonomics" account for these engineering difficulties and hazards to public safety?
 
Last edited:
Truth Detector said:
I strongly disagree with two theories; (1) that man is causing the earth to warm; and (2) that man can alter the climate in any way or that his attempts at such theoretical nonsense wouldn't have a much worse negative outcome.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

Well mankind can certainly destroy ecosystems.
 
Truth Detector said:
What does this have to do with the thread topic and global warming?
Click to expand...

You asked what acid rain had to do with pumping S02 into this atmosphere, I answered the question.. If you did not want an answer then you should not have asked.

Topic:cheap ways to cool the earth

subtopic: Pump SO2 into the atmosphere

discussion: what are the ramifications of pumping SO2 into the atmosphere

how is it NOT on topic?
 
marduc said:
You asked what acid rain had to do with pumping S02 into this atmosphere, I answered the question.. If you did not want an answer then you should not have asked.

Topic:cheap ways to cool the earth

subtopic: Pump SO2 into the atmosphere

discussion: what are the ramifications of pumping SO2 into the atmosphere

how is it NOT on topic?
Click to expand...

No I never asked what acid rain had to do with pumping SO2 in the atmosphere; I asked what acid rain had to do with the thread topic. :doh
 
Truth Detector said:
No I never asked what acid rain had to do with pumping SO2 in the atmosphere; I asked what acid rain had to do with the thread topic. :doh
Click to expand...

well now you know

no need to thank me though, it would seem insincere.
 
Last edited:
Truth Detector said:
I strongly disagree with two theories; (1) that man is causing the earth to warm; and (2) that man can alter the climate in any way or that his attempts at such theoretical nonsense wouldn't have a much worse negative outcome.

I thought I was pretty clear earlier. You may want to re-read where there has been FOUR previous periods of ice ages and warming long before man came along with factories and automobiles; I want the kooks to explain how the previous warming and cooling trends had anything to do with man; then MAYBE, they would have a case.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

Yes there were ice ages before - and guess what - there was a reason for those too! The reason does NOT exist for our current observed climate change.
 
Truth Detector said:
But not with the incredible power and efficiency that nature can. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Now there are enough of us on the planet - well we can really make changes - seen a population curve growth lately?
 
bowerbird said:
Yes there were ice ages before - and guess what - there was a reason for those too! The reason does NOT exist for our current observed climate change.
Click to expand...

You mean besides the fact that we're in the middle of an interstadial period and the Ice Age is down in Miami taking a vacation? Never to worry, the Ice Age will be coming back.

Sooner, perhaps, if, while we're in this period of global cooling people decide to take action that will cool the earth.

BTW, you people ever figure out what the "right" temperature for the planet it, yet?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You mean besides the fact that we're in the middle of an interstadial period and the Ice Age is down in Miami taking a vacation? Never to worry, the Ice Age will be coming back.

Sooner, perhaps, if, while we're in this period of global cooling people decide to take action that will cool the earth.

BTW, you people ever figure out what the "right" temperature for the planet it, yet?
Click to expand...

Well, for me the "right" temperature would be one that does not @!#$# up civilisation as we know it - read the Stern review on the economic impacts of NOT doing something about climate change?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom