Artificial Volcanoes to Combat Global Warming: Is This What Happens When an Administration "Puts Science First?"
I cannot believe that a science advisor to the POTUS (President of the United States) would seriously suggest that we study creating an artificial volcano that shoots pollution high into the atmosphere in order to combat global warming. But apparently he has. From the story:
The president's new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air. John Holdren told the Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort. "It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table."This is what happens when ideological hysteria swamps critical thinking. Perhaps I am ignorant, but wouldn't it take a tremendous amount of pollution to be shot into the upper atmosphere to materially impact the amount of sunlight reaching the earth? And how many artificial volcanoes would have to be set up--and at what cost? Hey, I know: Let's also set up huge fans all around the world to blow the air around and let that cool the planet!
Good thing the scientists are back in control of public policy.
Labels: Science. Ideology.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 1:14 PM
16 Comments
16 Comments:
Wait, what?
I thought all this was supposedly caused by pollution? The pollution blocks some sunlight, leading to initial "global cooling", but ultimately locks in greenhouse gasses that cause the dreaded "global warming". So...and mind you I'm no science adviser...it seems throwing pollution into the atmosphere would block out the sun (making us all starve) and compound the problem in 10 years.
Although, the ideology is clear now. We solve a debt problem with more debt and a pollution problem with more pollution.
Wait a minute Becky, they are probably talking about dual use pollutants. They can use it when they want to cool things or heat us up a little as needed. It will be like a built in global theromstat. And knowing Obama, he'll probably insist that they be green pollutants. So those will be good pollutants.
But I think there's a better way. I think Rush Limbaugh said that Ross Perot wanted to anchor jet aircraft to the ground and get them to fire their engines all at once to speed or slow the earth's rotation to make the days longer or shorter as necessary to warm or cool terra firma. That would probably cost a lot less and be more environmentally safe if we get green jet fuels.
When is this administration going to be routed out? When is he going to be impeached? Every day it's something else like from a funhouse with this presidency.
I'm moving back to Canada when they start fighting crime here with more crime. :-)
Whoa, let's take a step back and analyze this.
For starters, Holdren has, for a long time, been on the dire end of climate change alerters, a doomsdayist if you will. Consider WHAT he says, not necessarily HOW he says it.
Secondly, he is not saying that we need to put this plan in action now. We need to keep all options on the table. My guess is a media outlet got a hold of his most extreme scenario here - Holdren has a history of extreme scenarios.
This is just an idea that was put forth. There are a number of issues, however. For starters, it may take tremendous energy to generate such particles and get them up into the atmosphere. I've heard of proposals for satellites, airplanes, and even space elevators to do this - but never an artificial volcano, I'm not sure what this "volcano" is all about, but I have a hunch I will reveal at the end of this post. Furthermore, as for geoengineering for climate change, there are many other options being talked about. To name a few: CO2 absorbers (artificial trees and materials), solar shields in orbit to cut down on sunlight, algae planting/blooming in the ocean to act as a sink, etc, etc. Each approach has its advantages, each has it's drawbacks (sometimes very obvious).
Back to the particle issue. I assume they are referring to sulfur particles, though there are certain aerosol compounds that can work as well. There are numerous problems with this approach. Everything from what affect the particles will have on the ecosystem, to what if they work too well and ocean temps drop, decreasing evaporation, decreasing rain, decreasing plant growth, etc, etc. Additionally, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide are primary constituents of acid rain after they are oxidized by hydroxyl radicals to form sulfuric and nitric acid, respectively. That's not great, either. I do think these details highlight how complex and challenging solutions to these problems are, though. The approach here by Holdren may be a "nuclear" option if you will - we will solve the immediate threat and then worry about the long term consequences afterwards.
I also assume the Nobel laureate in reference here is Dr. Paul Crutzen. He has made CHEMICAL analogies to volcanoes in the past. Because volcanoes emit large amounts of sulfur dioxide, it is unclear if Holdren is speaking of a mechanical volcano (a large "cannon" to spit out stuff into the atmosphere) or a CHEMICAL volcano - a method of injecting sulfur to produce a similar chemical effect.
Here is Crutzen's actual paper, it may be unavailable to many readers.
http://www.cogci.dk/news/Crutzen_albedo%20enhancement_sulfur%20injections.pdf
And finally, Mr. Smith, you know full well that fans will not work, but I will clarify for others. The energy input into a fan to blow air will be offset by an exchange of heat released upon mechanical deformation, friction, of the working fans and currents as well as the chemical energy converted that is needed to put such fans into motion (a summer fan may cool off a room, but it heats up the outside). Despite the convection produced by the fan currents, thermal equilibrium will be maintained as climate change here appears to be, primarily, products of chemical origin that interfere with solar thermal balance. Recent studies have shown that solar flares and what not appear not to play a significant factor in recent temperature warming on earth, though this conclusion is still rather underdeveloped.
Becky,
You are correct in that various pollutants do block some sunlight, but other pollutants also lock in greenhouse gases. However, where you may be mistaken is in the chemical nature and extent of these pollutants. The greenhouse gases trap "heat", if you will. Various other pollutants can reflect sunlight back. However, the balance appears not to be equal. The amount of "heat" lost from pollutants' reflections is not equal to the "heat" trapped by greenhouse gases. If I recall, Crutzen addresses this in the paper I posted a link to in my previous post.
They pay people to think this stuff up and write about it and consider it, etc. But it costs too much to keep someone alive.
Dana: "For starters, Holdren has, for a long time, been on the dire end of climate change alerters, a doomsdayist if you will.'
That's my point: What is someone that over the edge doing being the PUTUS's science advisor?
I think Holdren was selected for a variety reasons, and not primarily for his outspoken nature on climate change (over the edge may be a little far, he is at one end of the doom-and-gloom spectrum, Bjorn Lomborg being at the other, for example). His resume is pretty impressive as a scientist, writer, and on policy issues (pres of AAAS, director of Wood's Hole -I think, and a leader on energy policy advice). I do think the approach some scientists take on these issues is to come out with both guns blazing as an attempted means to attract attention to an issue. While not an outright lie, it can be an incomplete picture - one that tells only a worst case scenario.
I'm not disagreeing with your point and certainly read that in your post. It's a tough argument. If you were to ask Obama, why Holdren? - he could simply point to his [Holdren's] resume, when the reality could be that Obama has an agenda that's independent or supersedes science - but how can you prove it in light of Holdren's resume? But in reality, does a science adviser really have that much sway over a president - or is it the other way around - the science adviser is used as a president's mouthpiece and/or defender? Nothing political intended, just an example, it seemed to me that Marburger and the Bush administration were at odds over a few things and Marburger often seemed to serve as a mediator.
Good post, I enjoyed it.
I don't think it's any secret why earth scientists (specifically geologists) and meteorologists do not support global warming.
This is merely another scheme to control population growth (forget the demographic winter) especially in Third World countries.
The science doesn't support it and most meteorologists believe we will be entering a cooling period.
If people had their eye on the ball these marmalukes couldn't get away with it. "Scientists"' primary concern these days is their own careers -- their paychecks, egos, resumes, etc. We're not talking first-rate minds or characters here.
I'm moving back to Canada when they start fighting crime here with more crime.
You've never lived in Chicago, I see. :)
The science doesn't support it and most meteorologists believe we will be entering a cooling period.
I recently took my daughter to the Field Museum (which traditionally leans farther to the left when it comes to the science they offer). Yet, I was stunned to see a display about Ice Ages, detailing how we are presently in one. The entire exhibit was donated by a scientific group, so [of course] after the exhibit they had a nice section on how humans are burning the world to a crisp. But, it was nonetheless interesting to see a group openly admit that the wild swings in climate are indicative of the mid-stages of an Ice Age.
Sounds like he will fit right in with all the other wonderful individuals Obama has named to his administration.
This reminds me of a cure for rats introduced accidentally onto islands: Import snakes to eat the rats. Once the rats are gone, though, and the snakes start eating the indigenous wildlife, what then? Introduce a snake predator. Once the snakes are under control...on and on.
Why would anyone agree with, let alone endorse, a plan so absurd? Are we just supposed to accept such a ridiculous notion just because the President is behind it? As Mr. Smith would say "Baloney!"
Why is President Obama such a Christ-type in the popular image? Then again, he does seem to have an uncontrollable Messiah complex. I often think of some words of wisdom from antiquity that I read in 10 Books That Screwed Up the World, Young men are doubly disadvantaged: they are overflowing with enthusiasm for changing the world and this trait is all the more dangerous because they have so little knowledge of it." I can think of no better sentence that describes our 44th President.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home