Experts: Global warming might be solved with a helium balloon and a few miles of garden hose.
RayLopez99
OPINION: GLOBAL VIEW
OCTOBER 27, 2009, 11:51 A.M. ET
Freaked Out Over SuperFreakonomics
Global warming might be solved with a helium balloon and a few miles
of garden hose.
By BRET STEPHENS
Suppose for a minute—which is about 59 seconds too long, but that's
for another column—that global warming poses an imminent threat to the
survival of our species. Suppose, too, that the best solution involves
a helium balloon, several miles of garden hose and a harmless stream
of sulfur dioxide being pumped into the upper atmosphere, all at a
cost of a single F-22 fighter jet.
Good news, right? Maybe, but not if you're Al Gore or one of his
little helpers.
The hose-in-the-sky approach to global warming is the brainchild of
Intellectual Ventures, a Bellevue, Wash.-based firm founded by former
Microsoft Chief Technology Officer Nathan Myhrvold. The basic idea is
to engineer effects similar to those of the 1991 mega-eruption of Mt.
Pinatubo in the Philippines, which spewed so much sulfuric ash into
the stratosphere that it cooled the earth by about one degree
Fahrenheit for a couple of years.
Could it work? Mr. Myhrvold and his associates think it might, and
they're a smart bunch. Also smart are University of Chicago economist
Steven Levitt and writer Stephen Dubner, whose delightful
"SuperFreakonomics"—the sequel to their runaway 2005 bestseller
"Freakonomics"—gives Myhrvold and Co. pride of place in their lengthy
chapter on global warming. Not surprisingly, global warming fanatics
are experiencing a Pinatubo-like eruption of their own.
Mr. Gore, for instance, tells Messrs. Levitt and Dubner that the
stratospheric sulfur solution is "nuts." Former Clinton administration
official Joe Romm, who edits the Climate Progress blog, accuses the
authors of "[pushing] global cooling myths" and "sheer illogic." The
Union of Concerned Scientists faults the book for its "faulty
statistics." Never to be outdone, New York Times columnist Paul
Krugman scores "SuperFreakonomics" for "grossly [misrepresenting]
other peoples' research, in both climate science and economics."
In fact, Messrs. Levitt and Dubner show every sign of being careful
researchers, going so far as to send chapter drafts to their
interviewees for comment prior to publication. Nor are they global
warming "deniers," insofar as they acknowledge that temperatures have
risen by 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century.
Ouroboros Rex
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704335904574495643459234318.html
>
> OPINION: GLOBAL VIEW
> OCTOBER 27, 2009, 11:51 A.M. ET
>
> Freaked Out Over SuperFreakonomics
> Global warming might be solved with a helium balloon and a few miles
> of garden hose.
> By BRET STEPHENS
>
>
> Suppose for a minute�which is about 59 seconds too long, but that's
> for another column�that global warming poses an imminent threat to the
> survival of our species. Suppose, too, that the best solution involves
> a helium balloon, several miles of garden hose and a harmless stream
> of sulfur dioxide being pumped into the upper atmosphere, all at a
> cost of a single F-22 fighter jet.
Already fully debunked.
James
"Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote in message news:hc9tg...@news3.newsguy.com...
> RayLopez99 wrote:
>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704335904574495643459234318.html
>>
>> OPINION: GLOBAL VIEW
>> OCTOBER 27, 2009, 11:51 A.M. ET
>>
>> Freaked Out Over SuperFreakonomics
>> Global warming might be solved with a helium balloon and a few miles
>> of garden hose.
>> By BRET STEPHENS
>>
>>
>> for another column-that global warming poses an imminent threat to the
>> survival of our species. Suppose, too, that the best solution involves
>> a helium balloon, several miles of garden hose and a harmless stream
>> of sulfur dioxide being pumped into the upper atmosphere, all at a
>> cost of a single F-22 fighter jet.
>
> Already fully debunked.
>
cite please
RayLopez99
> "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote in messagenews:hc9tg...@news3.newsguy.com...
> > Already fully debunked.
>
> cite please
Old Odourous Rex is not going to cite; he's the king of the one-line
gutter.
The article speaks for itself. Geoengineering is a good way to combat
any GW.
RL
Ouroboros Rex
As usual, the denialist just makes some shit up.
Ouroboros Rex
See alt.global-warming
James
You lied. Not there.
Tom P
Ok, here is my debunking.
What the scheme proposes is that we should effectively create a kind of
artificial super-volcano. By injecting SO2 into the stratosphere, the
expectation is that this will react with the water vapor in the
stratosphere to produce sulphate aerosols that increase the albedo and
reflect sunlight.
As far as the question goes of whether or not it would work, a quick
google of the literature shows that the influence of SO2 is by no means
in one direction. SO2 itself is a greenhouse gas and contributes to
global warming.
Quite a part from the questions of whether or not the method works
reliably, or whether SO2 is harmless - remember acid rain? - and the
fact that we would never ever see a blue sky again through the sulphate
haze, the problem is that the SO2 will steadily disperse as acid rain,
whereas, even if we stop producing CO2 completely, it will take
centuries for CO2 to be absorbed by natural sinks.
That means that if we do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions then we would
need to keep pumping ever increasing amounts of SO2 into the atmosphere
for the foreseeable future and beyond - effectively for ever - in order
to compensate for the ever increasing CO2 concentrations. If for some
reason, such as in 100 years our descendents are no longer able to
maintain the system, then the SO2 will disperse and the global warming
will hit back with a vengeance.
The other problem is, how do we get the right dosage?
It is quite conceivable that if we get our sums wrong, we could instead
wind up with an excessive cooling. Super volcanoes are implicated in the
mass extinctions that took place at various times in geologic history.
The scheme resembles all the other exotic band-aid fixes like space
mirrors and microwave collectors, all of which simply pass the buck of
maintaining them onto the next 100 generations.
Incidentally the idea is not new, it was already proposed by Soviet
scientists years ago.
There was an old lady
who swallowed a fly....
RayLopez99
>
> Ok, here is my debunking.
>
> What the scheme proposes is that we should effectively create a kind of
> artificial super-volcano. By injecting SO2 into the stratosphere, the
> expectation is that this will react with the water vapor in the
> stratosphere to produce sulphate aerosols that increase the albedo and
> reflect sunlight.
>
> As far as the question goes of whether or not it would work, a quick
> google of the literature shows that the influence of SO2 is by no means
> in one direction. SO2 itself is a greenhouse gas and contributes to
> global warming.
Yes, indeed. That's why the AGW models are flawed. In the mid 20th
century they predicted aerosols would cool the USA, and the model
indeed showed cooling until pollution control there. Yet China is
producing just as many aerosols now and the AGW models show global
warming there. Pause and consider that. If the AGW models are
flawed, doesn't that warrant going slow on GHG emission abatement?
Yes it does. Now granted going green may have many other benefits,
such as pushing out the peak in Peak Oil, but the AGW hypothesis is
far from proven IMO and in the opinion of a significant minority of
scientists.
>
> Quite a part from the questions of whether or not the method works
> reliably, or whether SO2 is harmless - remember acid rain? - and the
> fact that we would never ever see a blue sky again through the sulphate
> haze, the problem is that the SO2 will steadily disperse as acid rain,
> whereas, even if we stop producing CO2 completely, it will take
> centuries for CO2 to be absorbed by natural sinks.
Wait a minute--you said "quite a part" [sic] then precede to make that
very same argument! Logic is not your forte, is it?
> The other problem is, how do we get the right dosage?
> It is quite conceivable that if we get our sums wrong,
So your 'debunking' consists of you asking questions in ignorance?
Quite conceivable indeed.
> There was an old lady
> who swallowed a fly....
Don't stop there, how does the rest of that ditty go?
Debunked, NOT. De bunk, YES, that's you and the AGW cultards.
RL
Tom P
> On Oct 31, 6:56 am, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
>> Ok, here is my debunking.
>>
>> What the scheme proposes is that we should effectively create a kind of
>> artificial super-volcano. By injecting SO2 into the stratosphere, the
>> expectation is that this will react with the water vapor in the
>> stratosphere to produce sulphate aerosols that increase the albedo and
>> reflect sunlight.
>>
>> As far as the question goes of whether or not it would work, a quick
>> google of the literature shows that the influence of SO2 is by no means
>> in one direction. SO2 itself is a greenhouse gas and contributes to
>> global warming.
>
>
> Yes, indeed. That's why the AGW models are flawed. In the mid 20th
> century they predicted aerosols would cool the USA, and the model
> indeed showed cooling until pollution control there. Yet China is
> producing just as many aerosols now and the AGW models show global
> warming there. Pause and consider that. If the AGW models are
> flawed, doesn't that warrant going slow on GHG emission abatement?
> Yes it does. Now granted going green may have many other benefits,
> such as pushing out the peak in Peak Oil, but the AGW hypothesis is
> far from proven IMO and in the opinion of a significant minority of
> scientists.
>
The modelling of aerosols as a factor in AGW has nothing to do with the
GHG modelling. Aerosols influence the albedo, meaning the amount of
sunlight reflected back into space. GHGs work by changing the spectral
transmission of LWR.
You seem to be saying in any case that the effect of aerosols in GW is
disputed and that the models are flawed. In that case, why do you think
that injecting SO2 into the stratosphere should have any effect?
Quite apart from that, since it would appear that you do not accept GW
in the first place, why do you think that there should be any point in
injecting SO2 into the stratosphere at all?
You see, you have just debunked the proposal yourself.
>> Quite a part from the questions of whether or not the method works
>> reliably, or whether SO2 is harmless - remember acid rain? - and the
>> fact that we would never ever see a blue sky again through the sulphate
>> haze, the problem is that the SO2 will steadily disperse as acid rain,
>> whereas, even if we stop producing CO2 completely, it will take
>> centuries for CO2 to be absorbed by natural sinks.
>
>
> Wait a minute--you said "quite a part" [sic] then precede to make that
> very same argument! Logic is not your forte, is it?
>
Well since you removed the reason why the SO2 proposal is useless, I'll
put it back in:
That means that if we do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions then we would
need to keep pumping ever increasing amounts of SO2 into the atmosphere
for the foreseeable future and beyond - effectively for ever - in order
to compensate for the ever increasing CO2 concentrations.
In summary, whether you accept AGW or not, the proposed scheme is useless.
I M @ good guy
There are scientists that are not fixated on AGW.
All factors have to be considered, a lot of AGW
totally ignores water vapor in the discussion, and may
even consider the effect of the change in sulfur emissions.
>You seem to be saying in any case that the effect of aerosols in GW is
>disputed and that the models are flawed. In that case, why do you think
>that injecting SO2 into the stratosphere should have any effect?
Did he say that, why don't you ask him instead
of surmising.
In any case, sulfur should NOT be injected, but
something else might be tried, something known to be
of no harm to the environment.
And something even more reflective and lower
density, possibly something like nano-milled gypsum.
>Quite apart from that, since it would appear that you do not accept GW
>in the first place, why do you think that there should be any point in
>injecting SO2 into the stratosphere at all?
Exactly, nothing should be tried until there are
several years warmer than 1998, it would be horrible
to make it colder before that, it is already too cold.
>You see, you have just debunked the proposal yourself.
He obviously was talking about the case where AGW
has become obvious, like four more years of king 1998.
>>> Quite a part from the questions of whether or not the method works
>>> reliably, or whether SO2 is harmless - remember acid rain? - and the
>>> fact that we would never ever see a blue sky again through the sulphate
>>> haze, the problem is that the SO2 will steadily disperse as acid rain,
>>> whereas, even if we stop producing CO2 completely, it will take
>>> centuries for CO2 to be absorbed by natural sinks.
>>
>>
>> Wait a minute--you said "quite a part" [sic] then precede to make that
>> very same argument! Logic is not your forte, is it?
>>
>
>Well since you removed the reason why the SO2 proposal is useless, I'll
>put it back in:
>
> That means that if we do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions then we would
>need to keep pumping ever increasing amounts of SO2 into the atmosphere
>for the foreseeable future and beyond - effectively for ever - in order
>to compensate for the ever increasing CO2 concentrations.
Which would not be a problem for dust that is safe
in the environment.
>In summary, whether you accept AGW or not, the proposed scheme is useless.
Probably, and a garden hose is not rational because
it would need balloons every 50 feet because it
would not have the tensile strength to hold it's own weight.
In fact, the best steel cable held by the top end
will not hold it's own weight.
But there are other ways to get nano-dust up high.
RayLopez99
> RayLopez99 wrote:
>
>
> > Yes, indeed. That's why the AGW models are flawed. In the mid 20th
> > century they predicted aerosols would cool the USA, and the model
> > indeed showed cooling until pollution control there. Yet China is
> > producing just as many aerosols now and the AGW models show global
> > warming there. Pause and consider that. If the AGW models are
> > flawed, doesn't that warrant going slow on GHG emission abatement?
> > Yes it does. Now granted going green may have many other benefits,
> > such as pushing out the peak in Peak Oil, but the AGW hypothesis is
> > far from proven IMO and in the opinion of a significant minority of
> > scientists.
>
> The modelling of aerosols as a factor in AGW has nothing to do with the
> GHG modelling. Aerosols influence the albedo, meaning the amount of
> sunlight reflected back into space. GHGs work by changing the spectral
> transmission of LWR.
Are you crazy? Aerosols are critical in overall GHG modeling!! The
rest of your post is not even worth responding to if yo don't grasp
this point! I'll try anyway...
>
> You seem to be saying in any case that the effect of aerosols in GW is
> disputed and that the models are flawed. In that case, why do you think
> that injecting SO2 into the stratosphere should have any effect?
>
Disputed btw by your side, not mine. Your side is saying modern SOx
has no effect on today's higher temperatures. Why then try SOx?
Because perhaps the older models have a point, and SOx does block the
sun, so it's worth a try, if it can be done cheaply. A better
solution might be to seed iron for greater plankton growth however.
> Quite apart from that, since it would appear that you do not accept GW
> in the first place, why do you think that there should be any point in
> injecting SO2 into the stratosphere at all?
I don't not accept GW. I'm just point out that your side's models are
flawed. No use upsetting the economic apple cart on flawed models.
The effects of GW, says the IPCC, in mean sea level rises over the
next century might be as little as 5 cm. Nothing to get upset over.
>
> You see, you have just debunked the proposal yourself.
No. You just make a fool out of yourself. Again.
>
> In summary, whether you accept AGW or not, the proposed scheme is useless.
No summary, but this: you are a muddle-headed liberal with no
economic sense and illogical to boot.
RL
Tom P
> On Oct 31, 5:12 pm, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote:
>> RayLopez99 wrote:
>
>>
>>> Yes, indeed. That's why the AGW models are flawed. In the mid 20th
>>> century they predicted aerosols would cool the USA, and the model
>>> indeed showed cooling until pollution control there. Yet China is
>>> producing just as many aerosols now and the AGW models show global
>>> warming there. Pause and consider that. If the AGW models are
>>> flawed, doesn't that warrant going slow on GHG emission abatement?
>>> Yes it does. Now granted going green may have many other benefits,
>>> such as pushing out the peak in Peak Oil, but the AGW hypothesis is
>>> far from proven IMO and in the opinion of a significant minority of
>>> scientists.
>> The modelling of aerosols as a factor in AGW has nothing to do with the
>> GHG modelling. Aerosols influence the albedo, meaning the amount of
>> sunlight reflected back into space. GHGs work by changing the spectral
>> transmission of LWR.
>
> Are you crazy? Aerosols are critical in overall GHG modeling!! The
> rest of your post is not even worth responding to if yo don't grasp
> this point! I'll try anyway...
>
I assume by GHG modelling that you mean climate modelling. I suggest you
read what I wrote more carefully before you jump to conclusions.
>> You seem to be saying in any case that the effect of aerosols in GW is
>> disputed and that the models are flawed. In that case, why do you think
>> that injecting SO2 into the stratosphere should have any effect?
>>
>
> Disputed btw by your side, not mine. Your side is saying modern SOx
> has no effect on today's higher temperatures. Why then try SOx?
> Because perhaps the older models have a point, and SOx does block the
> sun, so it's worth a try, if it can be done cheaply. A better
> solution might be to seed iron for greater plankton growth however.
>
>
>> Quite apart from that, since it would appear that you do not accept GW
>> in the first place, why do you think that there should be any point in
>> injecting SO2 into the stratosphere at all?
>
> I don't not accept GW. I'm just point out that your side's models are
> flawed. No use upsetting the economic apple cart on flawed models.
> The effects of GW, says the IPCC, in mean sea level rises over the
> next century might be as little as 5 cm. Nothing to get upset over.
>
>> You see, you have just debunked the proposal yourself.
>
> No. You just make a fool out of yourself. Again.
>
Explain.
You still haven't said why the proposal serves any purpose.
You say it might work, but then it might not, but it "might be worth a
try". Is that supposed to be serious?
> >
>> In summary, whether you accept AGW or not, the proposed scheme is useless.
>
> No summary, but this: you are a muddle-headed liberal with no
> economic sense and illogical to boot.
>
Take a look in the mirror.
> RL
>
RayLopez99
> >> The modelling of aerosols as a factor in AGW has nothing to do with the
> >> GHG modelling. Aerosols influence the albedo, meaning the amount of
> >> sunlight reflected back into space. GHGs work by changing the spectral
> >> transmission of LWR.
>
> > Are you crazy? Aerosols are critical in overall GHG modeling!! The
> > rest of your post is not even worth responding to if yo don't grasp
> > this point! I'll try anyway...
>
> You do know that the abbreviation GHG stands for greenhouse gas, do you?
> I assume by GHG modelling that you mean climate modelling. I suggest you
> read what I wrote more carefully before you jump to conclusions.
>
You assume that GHG modeling means climate modeling, then you state
aerosols have no effect? You are dumber than I thought!
Or dyslexic.
RL