tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8282587.post1007080280881327126..comments2024-03-19T01:48:39.709+00:00Comments on Power and Control: Freeman Dyson: Getting Warmed UpM. Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09508934110558197375noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8282587.post-72127128226606616312007-06-09T00:20:00.000+00:002007-06-09T00:20:00.000+00:00anonymous,To be fair, no less a climatologist than...anonymous,<BR/><BR/>To be fair, no less a climatologist than Paul Crutzen, who got the Nobel Prize for his work on the chemistry of the depletion of ozone, has suggested the same idea: using sulfates to stave off GW.<BR/><BR/>Two points:<BR/>- One ameliorating factor: sulfates don't stay in the atmosphere very long. So if we ever found a REAL cure for C-O2, the sulfates would settle out pretty quick, once we stopped putting them out there.<BR/><BR/>- Crutzen suggested this approach <I>as an act of desperation</I>, because he didn't see that a real cutback in C-O2 would be on its way in the near future.<BR/><BR/>But a lot of climatologists think that this is "too clever by half".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8282587.post-75539554169091454392007-06-08T19:08:00.000+00:002007-06-08T19:08:00.000+00:00Doesn't anyone remember Acid Rain? Canada and the...Doesn't anyone remember Acid Rain? Canada and the US worked to get SO2 emmisions down because they were killing the boreal forest and the maple sugar industry. Now Caldiera wants to pump SO2 into the atmosphere with no regard for consequences.<BR/><BR/>We already have solar shielding going on and have since 1998. It's called chemtrails.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8282587.post-61305916112002355112007-06-07T18:19:00.000+00:002007-06-07T18:19:00.000+00:00larryd,The reason the % increase in C-O2 is import...larryd,<BR/><BR/>The reason the % increase in C-O2 is important even though C-O2 is only a small fraction of the atmosphere is that there are sections of the infrared spectrum that are ONLY affected by C-O2.<BR/>These are significant enough that the radiative forcing due to an increase in the amount of C-O2 by, for example, a factor of 2 is 3.8 W/m^2.<BR/><BR/>Since the incoming (not reflected) radiation from the Sun is 240 W/m^2, this is not a negligible amount.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8282587.post-36293274051843688702007-06-05T16:49:00.000+00:002007-06-05T16:49:00.000+00:00Spotted this article about "solar shields". Basic...Spotted <A HREF="http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn11993&feedId=online-news_rss20" REL="nofollow">this article about "solar shields"</A>. Basically, create a high altitude aerosol to scatter incoming sunlight, <I>a la</I> certain volcanic eruptions. Probably not as cheap as planting trees, but still pretty cheap.<BR/><BR/>Here's the kicker though, this caught my eye the first time I read the article (emphases mine):<BR/><BR/><I>His computer models simulated a gradually deployed shield that would compensate for the greenhouse effect of rising carbon dioxide concentrations. By the time CO2 levels are double those of pre-industrial times - predicted to be at the end of the 21st century - the shield would need to block <B>8%</B> of the Sun's radiation.</I><BR/><BR/><B>8%</B>! I don't know what value they're using for pre-industrial times, but the current level is officially 380 parts per <I>million</I>, which comes out to 0.038% of the atmosphere. So they're claiming that an increase to less than 0.076% (double the current, not pre-industrial, level) is equivalent in effect to an ~8% increase in insolation. That alone tells me their models are bogus.<BR/><BR/>Returning to the primary topic, I wonder what else the models just leave out completely?LarryDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10955273945502612268noreply@blogger.com