Russian scientists develop a shield from Global Warming

[K. A. Pital]

Operation Dark Skies from the Matrix? A good call against Global Warming, Russkies found out.

http://rian.ru/science/20070530/66355122.html

Russian scientists found a way to halt Global Warming
18:17 | 30/ 05/ 2007

Russian scientists have found a method to halt Global Warming on Earth, reported the director of the Global Climate and Ecology of the Rosgidromet and RAS, academic Yuri Israel.

According to his words, the method constits of spraying a thin layer of sulfur compound particles with planes in the atmosphere (10-14 km from ground), around 0,25-0,5 micron in size. The drops of sulfur compounds will reflect the solar rays.

According to the calculations made, spraying 1 million tons of aerosol over the Earth would allow to lower the solar radiation on 0,5-1% and cool the Earth around 1-1,5 deg. celcius.

The aerosol quantity in the air has to be constantly maintained because the compounds will eventually lower to Earth.

Speaking about the possible negative impact of the method, Israel noted, that the amount of sulfur compounds falling back on Earth yearly will be 5000 times less than the amount which is thrown out today by industrial plants.

Israel noted that the method needs yet more calcuations and a resolution from an international body to put it into action.

He stressed that this method does not contradict anything in the Kioto protocols which also detail methods to combat climate change by lowering greenhouse emissions.

"I'm not countering the Kioto protocol with this, but I also want cheaper methods to be put in action parallel to that. I'm of the opinion that humanity should use several methods simultaneously.

He also noted that one of the benefits of this method compared to Kioto is lower financial cost and the ability to react to climate change more operatively by increasing the number of compound particles in the air.

According to this words, several climatologists express fears of Golfstream change. "If such catastrophic events happen, extreme measures will be needed. The Kioto will not be able to act rapidly at all" - said Israel.

"If we use this method, it will allow to combat warming cheaper and more operatively. It's also good that you can cease it any moment you want to shift to something else" - he said.

IMHO, that's smart enough. I thought a fast-measure can be exploding nuclear arsenals, but the guy has a good idea too.

[K. A. Pital]

Artist's perception of the possible operation

[The Grim Squeaker]

Artist's perception of the possible operation
"Snip"

Earth has no shields .

Seriously though, I've been waiting for something like this, the idea of an atmospheric layer of "ash" seemed damn obvious to me, the question is whether it really will be effective enough visa a vis UV radiation and the like (Since apparently the side-effects should be negligible) and whether it can be performed/dispersed evenly.

Stas, I presume that's a peer-reviewed, trustworthy source? (Seems that way despite being in Russky).

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, the guy is an actual PhD climatologist as far as I know, he heads the RAN/Rosgidromet branch of Climate exploration (the institute for global climate). And RIAN is just a news agency, essentially it's like a Russian analogue of the BBC (not the TV channel, just the news service).

[aerius]

A million tons. That's a heck of a lot of plane trips, at 100 tons per plane that'll be about 10,000 flights to get it all up there.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, a lot of flights - but you could do that rapidly, in several years. That's why it's so good. Unlike Kioto, which is essentially doing very little to stop GW. I know that the guy didnt' really want to bash it that much, but he's right - Kioto is too unwieldy and basically is a fuck up. Many don't follow it, even in the First World, not to mention the second and third world polluters like China or India. This measure is fast and gives us some time to develop new solutions.

But I think that modern politicians will not do anything. I'm just baffled about this, climate scientists from all around the world go out of their way to warn and provide possible solutions, yet politicians (and their catering folk) barely want to twitch a finger.

[Shroom Man 777]

Aside from beautiful rainbows, what are the undoubtedly horrible horrible consequences of unloading sulfur (doesn't that stuff burn?) into the atmosphere? Won't sulfur, like, cause acid rain and kill everyone?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

A million tons. That's a heck of a lot of plane trips, at 100 tons per plane that'll be about 10,000 flights to get it all up there.

So build heavy dirigables for the deployment operations, that can carry ten or fifteen times as much cargo as the largest plane in the world.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Aside from beautiful rainbows, what are the undoubtedly horrible horrible consequences of unloading sulfur (doesn't that stuff burn?) into the atmosphere? Won't sulfur, like, cause acid rain and kill everyone?

All industry in the world produces 5,000 times more sulfur than the amount that would be falling back to Earth, according to this fellow's analysis. The difference is this sulfur is being spread extremely thinly in a uniform layer through the upper atmosphere.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

For a moment, I thought someone just invented the Orbital Nightcloak.

But I guess desperate times call for desperate measures.

[Gil Hamilton]

Actually that sounds like a plan, though I kind of wish they could think of something that isn't quite as chemically nasty as sulfur is, but I suppose that isn't alot of sulfur if spread worldwide.

[TithonusSyndrome]

But I think that modern politicians will not do anything. I'm just baffled about this, climate scientists from all around the world go out of their way to warn and provide possible solutions, yet politicians (and their catering folk) barely want to twitch a finger.

Alternately, they might get behind it in a big way and tell everyone "Global warmin's licked, boys! Let's fire up industry all the way! EEEYAHOOO!!"

While this idea apparently holds promise, I fear it will be treated as carte blanche for polluters.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

This sounds exactly like the American idea of shooting massive numbers of giant cannons loaded with shells full of sulfur into the sky, except using bombers instead of artillery. We humans sure have a 'every problem looks like a nail' approach with our warlike ways.

Artist's perception of the possible operation
"Snip"

Earth has no shields .

LOL!!! It's called a Magnetosphere.

Aside from beautiful rainbows, what are the undoubtedly horrible horrible consequences of unloading sulfur (doesn't that stuff burn?) into the atmosphere? Won't sulfur, like, cause acid rain and kill everyone?

Speaking about the possible negative impact of the method, Israel noted, that the amount of sulfur compounds falling back on Earth yearly will be 5000 times less than the amount which is thrown out today by industrial plants.

fail. The only difference being the much tinier amount will be the placement of it much higher in the atmosphere.

[Shroom Man 777]

Fuck you Ein. Fuck you hard. In your ass.

I'm just afraid of any unforeseen circumstances shooting sulfur up into the upper atmosphere might cause. I mean, lots of things come to bite us back in the ass, and this might end up fucking us in the ass as well. Besides, why sulfur? Surely there's something less nasty as sulfur.

[The Vortex Empire]

I'm just afraid of any unforeseen circumstances shooting sulfur up into the upper atmosphere might cause. I mean, lots of things come to bite us back in the ass, and this might end up fucking us in the ass as well. Besides, why sulfur? Surely there's something less nasty as sulfur.

This amount of sulfur would have no effect on the enviroment other than cooling it down. There's not enough of it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Fuck you Ein. Fuck you hard. In your ass.

I'm just afraid of any unforeseen circumstances shooting sulfur up into the upper atmosphere might cause. I mean, lots of things come to bite us back in the ass, and this might end up fucking us in the ass as well. Besides, why sulfur? Surely there's something less nasty as sulfur.

Volcanoes shoot massive amounts of sulfur into the atmosphere all the time, it's pretty natural, really.

[Shroom Man 777]

Oh, in that case, good. It's just a shame they'll never actually do it, ever.

[TithonusSyndrome]

A million tons. That's a heck of a lot of plane trips, at 100 tons per plane that'll be about 10,000 flights to get it all up there.

So build heavy dirigables for the deployment operations, that can carry ten or fifteen times as much cargo as the largest plane in the world.

How would fuel use and pollutant output compare between dirigibles and bombers? I don't know of any modern cargo dirigibles to make comparisons with.

[El Moose Monstero]

One possible issue with putting it into the upper atmosphere is ozone depletion; I'm not sure on the exact chemical pathways as I'm still learning this stuff, but I know that some common atmospheric sulphur dioxide reactions will destroy ozone. It's probably been accounted for and they might be using some sort of special compound, but if not, then persistent dosing of the atmosphere with sulphur might have some knock on effects on ozone levels. Not drastically, but maybe enough to cause issues with crop yields and skin cancer or something. There are quite a few other obscure issues such as iron mobilisation in dust by sulphur compounds in the atmosphere as well that I hope they're considering.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

How would fuel use and pollutant output compare between dirigibles and bombers? I don't know of any modern cargo dirigibles to make comparisons with.

Much less for dirigables, which rely on gas for their lift, and only need engines for motive power--they can also use very efficient diesels unlike HTA aircraft. It is well within our capacity to build an airship capable of hauling more than 1,000 metric tons (though scaling makes cargo capacities above about 1,500 metric tons impractical) at speeds of 110 - 120 mph (which are the upper limit for dirigibles--also note that instead of a fabric outer hull very thin duraluminium plates would probably be used to avoid deformation of the fabric at speed). Range with such a payload would be in excess of ten thousand miles.

It would probably take a multinational crash programme of a decade or so to build and deploy enough of them to maintain continuous seeding operations, but if this is proved effective, it would be obviously worth it. Of course, the design could be sold for general use as well, where it could replace HTA aircraft for all non-military applications when peak oil makes their use impossible. Especially since the diesel engines could easily be replaced with a small nuclear reactor when diesel becomes scarce.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Oh, in that case, good. It's just a shame they'll never actually do it, ever. :(

If it has any chance of working, I gurantee it will be implemented at least by around the time the Presidential Yacht is anchored where the National Mall used to be and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is a waterfront property. The USA has the unique advantage of its capitol being built on a low-lying swamp next to a lazy river which has ocean tidal effects.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Much less for dirigables, which rely on gas for their lift, and only need engines for motive power--they can also use very efficient diesels unlike HTA aircraft. It is well within our capacity to build an airship capable of hauling more than 1,000 metric tons (though scaling makes cargo capacities above about 1,500 metric tons impractical) at speeds of 110 - 120 mph (which are the upper limit for dirigibles--also note that instead of a fabric outer hull very thin duraluminium plates would probably be used to avoid deformation of the fabric at speed). Range with such a payload would be in excess of ten thousand miles.

It would probably take a multinational crash programme of a decade or so to build and deploy enough of them to maintain continuous seeding operations, but if this is proved effective, it would be obviously worth it. Of course, the design could be sold for general use as well, where it could replace HTA aircraft for all non-military applications when peak oil makes their use impossible. Especially since the diesel engines could easily be replaced with a small nuclear reactor when diesel becomes scarce.

I give this the thumbs up, but you'll need to use hydrogen. There's not enough helium left to produce a fleet of such massive airships without huge costs first at least before physical supply issues.

[His Divine Shadow]

This sounds exactly like the American idea of shooting massive numbers of giant cannons loaded with shells full of sulfur into the sky, except using bombers instead of artillery. We humans sure have a 'every problem looks like a nail' approach with our warlike ways.

War! What is it good for? Global Warming!

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

This sounds exactly like the American idea of shooting massive numbers of giant cannons loaded with shells full of sulfur into the sky, except using bombers instead of artillery. We humans sure have a 'every problem looks like a nail' approach with our warlike ways.

War! What is it good for? Global Warming!

I heard the latter years of WWII and immediate postwar years were marked by significantly colder winters than normal. You may have been joking, but history proves it's no joke.

[Bounty]

Why does this remind me of the finale of Dinosaurs?

I can't help but find the idea a bit disturbing. If the numbers work out and the downsides are limited, it's a viable option, but I'm apprehensive about unexpected side-effects. Blasting more crap into the air?