• 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?


  • Total voters
    23
If things ever got to this point I would support a world-wide cessation of industrial CO2 emissions as well as prohibitory gas and carbon taxes as opposed to ideas posited in the OP.

Why? That would devastate our economy and radically reduce our standard of living. The solutions proposed here, while maybe not ideal at the present time, offer a much cheaper way to fix the problem and could be reversed if they had harmful effects of their own. Besides, even if we ceased all CO2 emissions, global warming would not necessarily reverse or even cease immediately...

The main problems with climate change are 1) the planet heating up, and 2) the oceans acidifying. I think we're much better off focusing our efforts on developing technologies that give the earth some shade and give the ocean an antacid (with as small a risk of side effects as possible), than on radically altering our CO2 consumption.
 
I think the earth is cooling off just fine, and since no consensus has been reached on what the best "temperature" for the planet it, it's pointless to tinker...especially since the theories the global warming idiots have been using are all wrong.

It's not so much a matter of finding an ideal temperature. It's the sudden CHANGE in temperature that is harmful.
 
Why? That would devastate our economy and radically reduce our standard of living.

If I'm not mistaken, the circumstances under which these ideas would be seriously entertained are doomsday-like scenarios, so sacrificing economic vitality and reducing our standard of living is something we should be willing to do.

The solutions proposed here, while maybe not ideal at the present time, offer a much cheaper way to fix the problem...

They also represent massive uncertainty. There is no telling what unintended consequences could result from either of these options. You could potentially make things worse than they already were. You cannot guarantee that it won't.

...could be reversed if they had harmful effects of their own.

You don't know that.

Besides, even if we ceased all CO2 emissions, global warming would not necessarily reverse or even cease immediately...

Of course not. It would be an incremental return to equilibrium. That's the price you have to pay for almost destroying the planet.

The main problems with climate change are 1) the planet heating up, and 2) the oceans acidifying. I think we're much better off focusing our efforts on developing technologies that give the earth some shade and give the ocean an antacid (with as small a risk of side effects as possible), than on radically altering our CO2 consumption.

It's not as simple as giving the Earth some shade or reversing oceanic acidification. You're talking about radically altering the entire biosphere. Biological diversity and interconnectivity is infinitely complex and subtle. There's no way to know what could happen with either of these solutions.
 
I just finished reading Superfreakonomics, the sequel to Freakonomics, and the authors have some very interesting ideas for how to reverse global warming WITHOUT spending a fortune to do so.

- Spray sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere through a super-tall smokestack. It would essentially be a hose that was miles long, held together with balloons. It could be attached to a factory's normal smokestacks, which would ejects its sulfur dioxide waste into the stratosphere (several miles up) instead of the troposphere (the near-surface air). A single hose on each of a mere two factories - one in the Northern Hemisphere and one in the Southern Hemisphere - would be sufficient. This would mirror the effect of a relatively large volcanic eruption like Mount Pinatubo, and would cool the earth by a couple degrees. TOTAL COST: $20 million in startup, $10 million per year.

- A fleet of wind-powered boats which sit in the ocean, and have underwater turbines to fling sea water into the atmosphere and create clouds. The white clouds, unlike the black ocean, would reflect sunlight and cool the earth by a couple degrees. TOTAL COST: A few billion dollars total.

What do you guys think? The technology for these already exists, and it would be much cheaper than the hundreds of billions we'd need to spend EVERY YEAR on climate change legislation. The scientists seem to think that these proposals are perfectly safe and feasible, but if they produced any unintended environmental consequences, the machines could easily be shut off and any damages would be reversed within a couple years.

I think that the notion that man should, or even could, modify the earths climate not only being an arrogant and foolish notion, but pretty damned stupid and if it were even possible, dangerous.

Man cannot even manage their own desire to destroy each other or balance a simple budget; the notion that man can control the climate is laughable at best.

:2wave:
 
Urban pollution, noise, and garbage treatment have nothing to do with how to fight global warming, which is the topic of this thread.

It does.. How about Garbage dumps? They amount for substantial amounts of the "greenhouse gasses".. How about cars in cities? Where are most cars, and where are they more annoying than in cities?

We need to rethink the climate struggle, to not only include some simplistic version of saving the climate at the exclusion of all the other important elements.
 
The Sky is falling!!!!!
Chicken-Little-dancing.gif


Most of the positive posts here have generally said we should take action to avoid a cateclysmic change in the future. Zero control! We have no defense at all against a global cateclysmic event except to vacate said premises, and we are not even close to ready to do that.

Fund NASA! Fund NASA!

Almost everyone has shaded their comments with a hint that human action is not natural; e.g., human intervention. Whatever humans do on this planet or elsewhere in the universe is entirely natural to the environment. We are not aliens in this universe. If we erode the planet or use up its energy resources that depletion is a natural depletion caused by natural organizisms on and of the planet. It's sort of analygous to the depletion of a radioactive isotope.

Now, that being said and the guilt from intelligent self-awareness being assuaged, let's clean this mess up!
 
There was an idea years ago to put millions of small "mirrors" in orbit that would reflect the sunlight back into space. If they needed to come back we would just round them up.

They would be so delicate that they would not harm satellites.
 
How about every man woman and child simply holds their breath throughout the day for a maximum of 5 minutes - say, 5 times for 1 minute each. That would save approximately 60 tons of C02 per day being expelled into the atmosphere. Let's have some scientists appy for some billion dollar grants to study this "breath holding" thing for 10 years, and then start a large bueracracy as part of our government to enforce this. Everyone needs to pull their weight for the common good... deep breath now, and hold.... hold........... hold.......
 
Last edited:
I think that the notion that man should, or even could, modify the earths climate not only being an arrogant and foolish notion, but pretty damned stupid and if it were even possible, dangerous.

Man cannot even manage their own desire to destroy each other or balance a simple budget; the notion that man can control the climate is laughable at best.

:2wave:

Why don't you think we can modify the earth's climate? We know for a fact that volcanic eruptions cool the earth, by spraying sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. We can even measure how much sulfur dioxide they emit and how much it cools the earth. The smokestack idea in the OP is the same concept...it would just be humans doing it instead of volcanoes.
 
Last edited:
How about every man woman and child simply holds their breath throughout the day for a maximum of 5 minutes - say, 5 times for 1 minute each. That would save approximately 60 tons of C02 per day being expelled into the atmosphere. Let's have some scientists appy for some billion dollar grants to study this "breath holding" thing for 10 years, and then start a large bueracracy as part of our government to enforce this. Everyone needs to pull their weight for the common good... deep breath now, and hold.... hold........... hold.......

:rofl THIS is funny.
 
If I'm not mistaken, the circumstances under which these ideas would be seriously entertained are doomsday-like scenarios, so sacrificing economic vitality and reducing our standard of living is something we should be willing to do.



They also represent massive uncertainty. There is no telling what unintended consequences could result from either of these options. You could potentially make things worse than they already were. You cannot guarantee that it won't.

This is true, I can't guarantee that. But I *can* guarantee that eliminating all CO2 emissions would make life worse. And scientists can say with a reasonable (though not 100%) level of confidence that these will not.

Ethereal said:
You don't know that.

The half-life of sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere is about a year. Clouds dissipate within an hour. So no matter how terrible the unintended side effects of these proposals were, they wouldn't be long term problems since the machines could easily be shut off.

Ethereal said:
It's not as simple as giving the Earth some shade or reversing oceanic acidification. You're talking about radically altering the entire biosphere. Biological diversity and interconnectivity is infinitely complex and subtle. There's no way to know what could happen with either of these solutions.

They aren't ideal solutions, but I think they're a lot better than radically altering our economy and standard of living and/or doing nothing if climate change becomes very severe.


I think that by the middle of this century, it's highly likely we will be able to (and will) control the weather and the climate at all times. This sort of thing seems like the first steps toward that, where the possible solutions are uncertain at first and gradually become safer.
 
Why don't you think we can modify the earth's climate? We know for a fact that volcanic eruptions cool the earth, by spraying sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. We can even measure how much sulfur dioxide they emit and how much it cools the earth.

The smokestack idea in the OP is the same concept...it would just be humans doing it instead of volcanoes. So I'm unclear as to why you don't think it would work.

A Volcanic eruption is far greater than anything man can concoct; but let me make my point painfully clear about this farce called "man caused" global warming.

First let's all be clear, the debate is the farcical notion that this is "man caused" not about Global warming. We all know and readily acknowledge that for centuries the earth has been experiencing a warming trend.

How do we know this? Well for one thing, in the great State of California where we have a fantastic park called Yosemite, the scientists tell us that the massive granite formations we are looking at were formed by massive glaciers that retreated millions of years ago leaving much of what we see today.

Now someone with a modicum of intellect and intelligence might ask whatever it was that caused the massive melting that caused the glaciers to retreat, not just from the USA, but from the entire country of Canada way back before man was even a major part of this world?

The TRUTH is that there is believed to have been at least FOUR other major warming and cooling trends long before man was ever evident.

At least seven ice ages have been recognized. At least four of them are considered significant because of the extent of their glaciation or because they lasted for an extremely long time:

about 2 million years ago to the present—the Quaternary Ice Age
350 to 250 million years ago—the Karoo Ice Age
800 to 600 million years ago—the Cryogenian (or Sturtian-Varangian) Ice Age
2400 to 2100 million years ago—the Huronian Ice Age.


The FACT is that this farcical myth being perpetuated by primarily Librul self proclaimed "environmental scientists" and is nothing more than an effort to fear monger people into behavior that will not only result in the economic decline of our economies, but perhaps even the starvation of millions should they get their way. These are the same scam artists that in the 70's gave us the "chicken little" claims of global cooling.

I am sure these con artists like Al Gore, the dumbest man in America, are passionate in their beliefs; but their science is MORE than suspect.

The SUN is the single BIGGEST culprit in this cooling and warming and has been expressed by many scientists for decades but conveniently ignored by those attempting to promote this "inconvenient" lie about man caused global warming.

I would be more afraid of a massive trend in cooling than I am about warming. At least with warming many areas formerly inhospitable in the Northern hemisphere will be more adaptable to crop growth to continue feeding a growing population.

P.S. it is not just that I don't think that man can modify the earths climate; but also that it would be extremely dangerous to mess with the complex equilibrium that ecompasses this planet. Here's a thought: the water we drink is the same water dinosaurs waded and pissed in. :)
 
Last edited:
A Volcanic eruption is far greater than anything man can concoct;

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.
 
It does.. How about Garbage dumps? They amount for substantial amounts of the "greenhouse gasses"..

How exactly are garbage dumps responsible for a substantial amount of greenhouse gases?

How about cars in cities? Where are most cars, and where are they more annoying than in cities?

And cars were an environmental improvement that eliminated the most prominent pollution problem of the previous era - horses. What kandahar is discussing is the next generation of that idea.

Seriously, read the book. It's quite interesting.
 
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.

I believe this is a false assertion; but would be happy to see credible evidence to support such a contention.
 
I believe this is a false assertion; but would be happy to see credible evidence to support such a contention.

Ummmm - just what do the "SO2 is good" crowd suggest we do to mitigate the acid rain?
 
Ummmm - just what do the "SO2 is good" crowd

Got hyperbole? I haven't seen anyone make this argument but thank you for attempting to fabricate arguments where none have been made. :doh

....suggest we do to mitigate the acid rain?

What does acid rain have to do with this topic? :doh
 
Got hyperbole? I haven't seen anyone make this argument but thank you for attempting to fabricate arguments where none have been made. :doh



What does acid rain have to do with this topic? :doh


H2O +SO2 + O(-) --> H2SO4 (sulfuric acid)

This is a simplification of the reaction; however sulfuric acid falling form the sky = acid rain.

edit:
I have not looked at the actual proposal presented in sufficient detail other than in this thread, however the stratosphere I would think would have significantly less water vapor to fuel this reaction in comparison to the troposphere.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Got hyperbole? I haven't seen anyone make this argument but thank you for attempting to fabricate arguments where none have been made. :doh



What does acid rain have to do with this topic? :doh

Hyperbole huh? Let us look at the OP again

I just finished reading Superfreakonomics, the sequel to Freakonomics, and the authors have some very interesting ideas for how to reverse global warming WITHOUT spending a fortune to do so.

- Spray sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere through a super-tall smokestack. It would essentially be a hose that was miles long, held together with balloons. It could be attached to a factory's normal smokestacks, which would ejects its sulfur dioxide waste into the stratosphere (several miles up) instead of the troposphere (the near-surface air). A single hose on each of a mere two factories - one in the Northern Hemisphere and one in the Southern Hemisphere - would be sufficient. This would mirror the effect of a relatively large volcanic eruption like Mount Pinatubo, and would cool the earth by a couple degrees. TOTAL COST: $20 million in startup, $10 million per year.

- A fleet of wind-powered boats which sit in the ocean, and have underwater turbines to fling sea water into the atmosphere and create clouds. The white clouds, unlike the black ocean, would reflect sunlight and cool the earth by a couple degrees. TOTAL COST: A few billion dollars total.

What do you guys think? The technology for these already exists, and it would be much cheaper than the hundreds of billions we'd need to spend EVERY YEAR on climate change legislation. The scientists seem to think that these proposals are perfectly safe and feasible, but if they produced any unintended environmental consequences, the machines could easily be shut off and any damages would be reversed within a couple years.

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?
 
Ummmm - just what do the "SO2 is good" crowd suggest we do to mitigate the acid rain?

The quantity of sulfur dioxide emitted into the stratosphere would not really be enough to be a significant problem. Furthermore, the hoses to get the SO2 into the stratosphere instead of the troposphere could be attached to existing factories, which means that there wouldn't be any more total SO2 than there would have otherwise been anyway. It would just be going higher into the atmosphere.
 
Last edited:
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.

Just what kind of factories would that be?

In addition to the ash, Mount Pinatubo ejected between 15 and 30 million tons of sulfur dioxide gas. Sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere mixes with water and oxygen in the atmosphere to become sulfuric acid, which in turn triggers ozone depletion. Over 90% of the material released from the volcano was ejected during the nine hour eruption of June 15.

Mount Pinatubo Eruption

And how many thousands of years are you talking about?
 
H2O +SO2 + O(-) --> H2SO4 (sulfuric acid)

This is a simplification of the reaction; however sulfuric acid falling form the sky = acid rain.

edit:
I have not looked at the actual proposal presented in sufficient detail other than in this thread, however the stratosphere I would think would have significantly less water vapor to fuel this reaction in comparison to the troposphere.

What does this have to do with the thread topic and global warming?
 
Back
Top Bottom