Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [ufodiscussion] Nobel Laureate - Use Sulpha To Alter Climate Change

Expand Messages
  • Jahnets
    They are already doing this, this is just trying to get people to feel better about it. The skies have been white here in the Great Northwest for about a week
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 5, 2006
      They are already doing this, this is just trying to get people to feel
      better about it. The skies have been white here in the Great Northwest for
      about a week now... Ruining the tomatoes. What we need to know now is what
      is the symptoms of sulfate poisoning and how long does it take to kill
      you... Is this stuff like Sulpha the drug like antibiotic? What about people
      who are allergic to Sulpha???

      Dear Friends,

      Why does the word DOH! come to mind?


      Love and Light.


      We can't reverse global warming by triggering another catastrophe

      Sulphate pollution killed hundreds of thousands of Africans. A plan to use
      sulphur to fight climate change risks the same

      George Monbiot
      Tuesday August 29, 2006
      The Guardian

      Challenging a Nobel laureate over a matter of science is not something you
      do lightly. I have hesitated and backed off, read and reread his paper, but
      now I believe I can state with confidence that Paul Crutzen, winner of the
      1995 prize for chemistry, has overlooked a critical scientific issue.
      Crutzen is, as you would expect, a brilliant man. He was one of the
      atmospheric chemists who worked out how high-level ozone is formed and
      destroyed. He knows more than almost anyone about the impacts of pollutants
      in the atmosphere. This is what makes his omission so odd. This month, he
      published an essay in the journal Climatic Change. He argues that the
      world's response to climate change has so far been "grossly disappointing".
      Stabilising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, he asserts,
      requires a global reduction in emissions of between 60% and 80%. But at the
      moment "this looks like a pious wish". So, he proposes, we must start
      considering the
      alternatives, by which he means re-engineering the atmosphere in order to
      cool the earth.
      He suggests we use either giant guns or balloons to inject sulphur into
      the stratosphere, 10km or more above the surface of the earth. Sulphur
      dioxide at that height turns into tiny particles - or aerosols - of
      sulphate. These reflect sunlight back into space, counteracting the warming
      caused by manmade climate change. One of the crueller paradoxes of climate
      change is that it is being accelerated by reducing certain kinds of
      pollution. Filthy factories cause acid rain and ill health, but they also
      help to shield us from the sun, by filling the air with particles. As we
      have started to clean some of them up, we have exposed ourselves to more
      solar radiation. One model suggests that a complete removal of these
      pollutants from the atmosphere could increase the world's temperature by
      0.8C. The virtue of Crutzen's scheme is that sulphate particles released so
      far above the surface of the earth stay airborne for much longer than they
      do at lower altitudes. In order to
      compensate for a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations (which could
      happen this century), he calculates that we would need to fire some 5m
      tonnes of sulphur into the stratosphere every year. This corresponds to
      roughly 10% of the sulphate currently entering the atmosphere. Crutzen
      recognises that there are problems. The sulphate particles would slightly
      reduce the thickness of the ozone layer. They would cause some whitening of
      the sky. Most dangerously, his scheme could be used by governments to help
      justify their failure to cut carbon emissions: if the atmosphere could one
      day be fixed by some heavy artillery and a few technicians, why bother to
      impose unpopular policies? His paper has already caused plenty of
      controversy. Other scientists have pointed out that even if rising carbon
      dioxide levels did not cause global warming, they would still be an
      ecological disaster. For example, one study shows that as the gas dissolves
      in seawater, by 2050 the oceans could
      become too acid for shells to form, obliterating much of the plankton on
      which the marine ecosystem depends. In Crutzen's scheme, the carbon dioxide
      levels are not diminished. It would also be necessary to keep firing sulphur
      into the sky for hundreds of years. The scheme would be extremely expensive,
      so it is hard to imagine that governments would sustain it through all the
      economic and political crises likely to take place in that time. But what I
      find puzzling is this: that by far the most damaging impact of sulphate
      pollution hasn't even been mentioned - by him or, as far as I can discover,
      any of his critics. In 2002 the Journal of Climate published an astonishing
      proposition: that the great droughts which had devastated the Sahel region
      of Africa had been caused in part by sulphate pollution in Europe and North
      America. Our smoke, the paper suggested, was partly responsible for the
      famines that killed hundreds of thousands of people in the 1970s and 1980s.
      reducing the size of the droplets in clouds, thereby making them more
      reflective, the sulphate particles lowered the temperature of the sea's
      surface in the northern hemisphere. The result was to shift the
      intertropical convergence zone southwards. This zone is an area close to the
      equator in which moist air rises and condenses into rain. The Sahel, which
      covers countries such as Ethiopia, Sudan, Chad, Niger, Burkina Faso and
      Senegal, is at the northern limits of the zone. As the rain belt was pushed
      south, those countries dried up. As a result of the clean air acts, between
      1970 and 1996 sulphur emissions in the US fell by 39%. This appears to have
      helped the North Atlantic to warm, allowing the rains to return to the Sahel
      in the 1990s. Since then, several studies - published in the Proceedings of
      the National Academy of Sciences, Geophysical Research Letters and the
      Journal of Geophysical Research - have confirmed these findings. They show
      that the 40% reduction in
      rainfall in the Sahel, which has "few if any parallels in the 20th-century
      record anywhere on Earth", is explicable only when natural variations are
      assisted by sulphate aerosols. We killed those people. I cannot say whether
      or not Crutzen's scheme would have a similar outcome. It is true that he
      proposes to use less sulphur than the industrialised nations pumped into the
      atmosphere, but does this matter if the reflective effect is just as great?
      Another paper I have read lists seven indirect impacts of aerosols on the
      climate system. Which, if any, will be dominant? What will their effects on
      rainfall be? Crutzen suggests that in order to keep the particles airborne
      for as long as possible they should be released "near the tropical upward
      branch of the stratospheric circulation system". Does this mean that they
      will not be evenly distributed around the world? If so, will they shift
      weather systems around as our uneven patterns of pollution have done? I
      don't know the
      answers, but I am staggered by the fact that the questions are not even
      being asked. I am not suggesting that they have been deliberately
      overlooked. It seems more likely that they have been forgotten for a
      familiar reason: that this disaster took place in Africa. Would we have
      neglected them if the famines had happened in Europe? The story of
      industrialisation is like The Picture of Dorian Gray. While the rich nations
      have enjoyed perennial youth, the cost of their debaucheries - slavery,
      theft, colonialism, sulphur pollution, climate change - is visited on
      another continent, where the forgotten picture becomes ever uglier. The only
      responsible way to tackle climate change is to reduce the amount of
      climate-changing gases we emit. To make this possible, we must suppress the
      political and economic costs of the necessary cut. I think I have shown how
      this can be done - you will have to judge for yourself when my book is
      published. But what is surely clear is that there
      is no uncomplicated short cut. By re-engineering the planet's systems we
      could risk invoking as great a catastrophe as the one we are trying to
      prevent. ยท George Monbiot's book Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning is
      published next month by Penguin Monbiot.com

      #comments { font-size:70%; font-family:Geneva, Arial, Helvetica,
      sans-serif; } #comments div.commentheader p { font-size:1.2em; } #comments
      { clear:both; margin-top:25px; width:256px; } #comments h3 { color: #fff;
      padding:2px; margin-bottom: 10px; font-size:1.3em; background-color:#999; }
      .individualcomment { font-size:1.2em; clear:both; margin-top:10px;
      padding-top:10px; border-top:1px solid #999; } .dateline { font-weight:
      normal; color:#999; padding-top:2px; margin:0 0 15px 0; } .byline {
      font-weight:bold; padding:0; margin:0; }

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.