On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 09:18:19PM +0000, jim bell wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 27, 2018, 12:46:40 PM PST, Kurt Buff
> <kurt.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:33 AM jim bell <jdb10...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> (Full disclosure: I have a Bachelor's degree in Chemistry from MIT, Class
> >> of 1980).
> >>
> >> While I am not sufficently convinced that, quantitatively, "global
> >> warming" ("climate change"), or more specifically AGW (Anthropogenic
> >> Global Warning) is a genuine problem, I'd say it would be irresponsible
> >> to not prepare for the possibility that this sulfur-injection protocol
> >> will be necessary, or at least useful. It should be quite cheap. Further,
> >> there are likely to be various (positive) feedback-loops associated with
> >> global warming, such as the thawing of permafrost, whose magnitude aren't
> >> well-understood.
> >>
> >> I suspect that the main opposition to this idea comes from people who see
> >> "climate change" as simply an opportunity to increase government control
> >> over the world. They think that they've found themselves one hell of a
> >> problem, but a problem which would be threatened, like garlic or a silver
> >> bullet, or a gold cross, to a vampire.
>
>
> >So, the solution to warming is smog? Really? Perhaps if injected at a
> high enough altitude it won't affect lungs, but it seems like SO2
> isn't something we want to pump into the atmosphere...
> Kurt
>
> Ironically, that solution will likely be correct. But to understand why, it
> helps to know that circulation between the lower-levels of the atmosphere
> (say, under 10,000 AGL (above ground level)) and the upper levels, say around
> 60,000 feet AGL is quite slow. SO2 injected at low levels of the atmosphere
> will wash out in weeks or months due to rain. SO2 injected at, say, 60,000
> feet AGL will probably last for years. That SO2 will eventually diffuse
> downward and be lost due to rain as well, but far less SO2 will need to be
> added at 60,000 feet than is currently being added from ground-level sources.
> China's coal-fired power plants currently emit huge amounts of ground-level
> SO2, which could be scrubbed just like America's plants.
> http://www.pnas.org/content/115/27/7004 And, presumably, should be
> scrubbed. But only a far smaller amount of SO2, than could be scrubbed from
> China's coal-fired power plants would need to be released at 60,000 feet AGL,
> each on a per-year basis, to accomplish the cooling effect required. I
> looked it up, maybe a year ago, and I think the comparison was 32 million
> tons/year v. 1 million tons/year. I hope I'm remembering it correctly.
>
> Jim Bell
We actually want the earth to be a warm, wet greenhouse. In fact,
life demands as much...
