Nature Newsblog
« Sun helps clean the sky | Main | Does gender matter? »
Nobel chemist lends weight to geoengineering schemes.
A soon-to-be-published paper by a Nobel laureate will seriously consider injecting sulphur into the stratosphere to combat climate change. His article is already creating a buzz, some of which is highly sceptical.
Read the full story here.
Posted by Nicola Jones on July 13, 2006
Categories: | Permalink
| Comments (7)
| TrackBacks (0)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.nature.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/866
Subscribe to this blog's feeds:
Comments
As pointed out in the news item, this idea is far from new; it is nevertheless of critical importance to solving the climate change/global warming problem and difficult to dispute on a scientific basis given experience with volcanic eruptions. As pointed out by Lowell Wood and others at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, however, humans should be able to devise a more optimized version of stratospheric particles for this purpose that would have lower cost, greater effectiveness, and fewer environmental side effects. Wood and others appear to have done just that [see references in Alan Carlin, “Why There Is a Better Strategy for Global Climate Control than Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Alone” (http://carlineconomics.googlepages.com/CarlinGlobalClimateControl7-06.pdf) in a series of papers prepared over the last decade]. The idea is important in that it is one of several proposals to use radiative forcing to solve the complex set of problems usually referred to as climate change. My paper explains why in my personal view radiative forcing is not only the most effective and efficient solution for many but not all of these problems, but the only one that solves some of the constituent problems. I disagree with Dr. Crutzen’s reported belief that the problems in using sulphur particles would take 20 years of research before they could be put into effect. Wood has proposed a modest research agenda to further develop the ideas, but so far no one has been willing to fund it (see Wood 2005 reference in my paper). I believe that a serious development effort such as Wood proposes could yield a final technical design within a year or two. Now getting international agreement might take a little longer! Waiting for the Kyoto Protocol and possible follow-ons to it to solve these problems is a recipe for ever higher levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere in my personal view.
Posted by: Alan Carlin | July 13, 2006 03:49 PM
The latest issue of Nature suggests injecting sulphur into the upper
atmosphere to reflect sunshine and reduce the earth's temperature (to
counteract global warming). I remember noticing that the summer after Mt
Pinatuba errupted and spewed ash and sulphur into the upper atmosphere was
exceptionally cool (my sweet potatoes and melons did
poorly). I did an article for a gardening publication that covered my
yields over the six years from 1990 to 1995, which included monthly weather
data for Ottawa. The July after Mt Pinatuba errupted (i.e., 1992)
experienced a mean temp of 22.6C and 399.4 growing degree days. The other
Julys in the six year period produced mean temps between 26.4C and 27.6C
with growing degree days between 489.6 and 522.1. July 1992 had only 77% of
the degree growing days as the other 5 years (399.4 / a mean of 514.2 for
the other 5 years) while its July mean temp was only 83 % of the other five
years (22.6 / a mean of 27.1 for the other 5 years). The other summer
months in 1992 where well below average as well. 1814 is called the year
with no summer in Canada as snow was recorded in every month of the year at
Quebec City (caused by another Malaysian volcano) while the cold summer of
1861 was caused by an Icelandic volcano. Because of world circulation
patterns, eastern North America seems to feel an exceptionally large impact
from volcanic eruptions.
While ejecting sulphur into the upper atmosphere can certainly cool the
temperature it would likely do so unevenly. David Phillips of environment
Canada once noted that eastern North America has experienced no global
warming to-date because of the large quantities of sulphur produced by
industry and coal-fired generating stations located up-wind in the US
mid-west and southern Ontario. Given the expense of ejecting large enough
quatities of sulphur into the atmosphere to make a difference and the
unevenness of the results, Zack Jacobsen's idea exploding "small, clean" hydrogen bombs
in the upper atmosphere to produce periodic nuclear winters may actually be a
cheaper and better "fix", given mankind never gets around to preventing run-a-way global warming.
Posted by: George E. Bushell | July 14, 2006 01:19 AM
If volcanic eruptions produce such great quantities of S-containing compounds, why not simply encourage a few ti erupt? Of course, they would have to be conveniently located away from populated areas....
Posted by: Claudia Vickers | July 17, 2006 09:32 PM
Though the spewed ash and sulphur can decrease the temperature, the temperature-max decreased is not known. The globle may be damaged by this action. I disgree with Dr. Crutzen’s reported belief. In fact, I think that he want to boost his reputation with this advice.
Posted by: liu chang-hua | July 18, 2006 02:10 AM
Regarding the matter of injecting sulphur in the atmosphere as a form of containing the greenhouse effect and cooling the overall temperature of the planet, I would feel very sorry to see politicians in a near future using this idea as a form of continuing using fossil fuels and polluting Earth in every possible way. The technocratic solution for a natural cause, which reflects that the planet is suffering from human presence, is in this case quite dangerous. Instead of changing our attitudes with regard to Nature, we just think that we can solve the problem with Technology. And this is simply sad, to say the least.
Posted by: Eduardo L. Kruger | July 18, 2006 08:41 AM
I heard Paul Crutzen lecture and he see the sulphor injecting as last option if the climate will give us very nasty surprise.
"use it as an excuse for not reducing emissions is a crime" Crutzen
Posted by: Eyal Morag | January 3, 2007 11:13 PM
The consequences of sulphur pumped into the atmosphere will be catastrophic for creatures that need to breath the air, you assholes. Inhaling sulphur is BAD FOR YOU, look up the effects of breathing it, look at the effects of acid rain caused by it. You people are enemies of the planet, there is no such thing as man-made global warming, it is common knowledge to the non-cattle people. You slave, you filth, I hope you choke to death on sulfur.
Posted by: pissed_off | May 20, 2008 08:37 PM