Yes, it is H2SO4 which does the work. So what? At that altitude chemicals tends to linger, hence why we don't need much of it. And, as I explained, doing this would not only cool the planet, but reduce acid rain in the short-term by moving the H2SO4 higher into the atmosphere, beyond the reach of rain clouds. So, stop sounding dumb and actually take some effort to read up on this stuff.

4/18/2010 5:05:16 PM

Chemicals in the stratosphere won't immediately mix but you seem to believe anything that gets into the stratosphere never retruns to the troposphere.

4/18/2010 5:38:01 PM

Reading comprehension:
"At that altitude chemicals tend to linger", not stay forever.

[Edited on April 18, 2010 at 6:01 PM. Reason : .,.]

4/18/2010 6:00:42 PM

Quote :

"I guess you have read nothing about this at all. Nature has done this experiment several times already, we have seen and measured the effects. Do you have any possible mechanism for this technique to cause a problem? This technique is cheap, proven effective, we understand the science behind it, and the effect goes away quickly should we ever choose to turn it off."

It still has risks. We would stand to make HUGE mistakes. An effort to return to the previous state has less risk. If things get way worse, then maybe we will have to resort to a more drastic and risky solution, but it's certainly not anything we're going to have to do within our lifetime.

4/18/2010 6:09:07 PM

^^exactly and eventually its going to come down and wreak havoc on nature.

4/18/2010 6:11:41 PM

Quote :

"It still has risks. We would stand to make HUGE mistakes. An effort to return to the previous state has less risk. If things get way worse, then maybe we will have to resort to a more drastic and risky solution, but it's certainly not anything we're going to have to do within our lifetime."

Not true. Given the historical temperature trends, it is more than likely that at least some, perhaps most, of the warming has come from natural sources. As such, just eliminating CO2 output runs the risk of not fixing the problem. Not to mention the huge risk that eliminating CO2 emissions is impossible for the human race to do. Are you going to invade China over this issue? You and what carbon-free army? The SO2 technical fix is not only guaranteed to work, regardless of whether the warming was natural or not, it is also dirt cheap and politically easy. And the only mistake we can make is either doing it too little or too much. But if we ever do overshoot, just stop doing it, the effect begins going away immediately, and is completely gone within a few years. If you know of any other risks it may pose, then please, tell us all about them. But I suspect you don't.

Quote :

"exactly and eventually its going to come down and wreak havoc on nature."

You are still not comprehending. The SO2 we are putting up is the same SO2 we are already emitting into nature. Get thee to your nearest coal fired power plant. All we are doing is relocating our existing emissions higher into the atmosphere. In the short-run, there will be less acid rain than there otherwise would be.

[Edited on April 19, 2010 at 10:05 AM. Reason : ^]

4/19/2010 10:03:33 AM

If there was less acid rain there would be less cooling. Why can't you understand that sulfuric acid is a byproduct of the aerosol so2 turns in to.

Coal power plants are responsible for the destruction of spruce pine ecosystems and you want to make this global? how crazy are you?

If it made sense it would be done and it doesn't make any sense which is why you are the only one talking about it.

4/19/2010 10:27:39 AM

Quote :

"You are still not comprehending. The SO2 we are putting up is the same SO2 we are already emitting into nature."

Yep

And people dont like the idea bc its not the solution they want, which is to get off fossil fuels completely and its cheap. THere is a lot of money to be made in these "crisis".

4/19/2010 12:49:57 PM

Im not saying stratospheric SO2 isnt the answer to "climate change", but there is evidence that it can lead to depletion of ozone. just FYI.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

Quote :

"For example, the large explosive eruption of Mount Pinatubo on 15 June 1991 expelled 3-5 km3 of dacite magma and injected about 17 million tonnes of SO2 into the stratosphere. The sulfur aerosols resulted in a 0.5-0.6°C cooling of the Earth's surface in the Northern Hemisphere. The sulfate aerosols also accelerated chemical reactions that, together with the increased stratospheric chlorine levels from human-made chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) pollution, destroyed ozone and led to some of the lowest ozone levels ever observed in the atmosphere."

4/19/2010 1:38:34 PM

Im not saying it is the answer, only a cheap solution that we know will lower the earth's temp to use if you really believe we are at the tipping point and have to lower the temp or else.

4/19/2010 2:11:42 PM

Quote :

"If there was less acid rain there would be less cooling. Why can't you understand that sulfuric acid is a byproduct of the aerosol so2 turns in to."

Why can you not comprehend that producing the aerosols at a higher altitude does not in any way make them worse for life on the ground? Why is it beyond your comprehension that it is the presence of the aerosols that produce the cooling effect, not the act of falling as rain?

^^ Thank you. Someone here has FINALLY presented a rational complaint against SO2 injection. Gees, it was like talking to a wall.

4/19/2010 2:20:48 PM

Quote :

"As such, just eliminating CO2 output runs the risk of not fixing the problem."

That's significantly less damaging than potentially fucking up the environment worse.

Quote :

"Are you going to invade China over this issue? You and what carbon-free army?"

That's stupid. Tariffs and embargoes are far more threatening to china than war.

Quote :

"The SO2 technical fix is not only guaranteed to work"

Only a fool would think that. No one in the math or science field would ever guarantee any solution with 100% confidence. Everything in the real world has a risk of failure.

Quote :

"If you know of any other risks it may pose, then please, tell us all about them. But I suspect you don't."

You may suspect I don't, but I know for sure that you do not know all of the risks, it's impossible to predict how something of that scale will work with complete certainty.

Quote :

"only a cheap solution that we know will lower the earth's temp to use if you really believe we are at the tipping point and have to lower the temp or else"

You are correct, one day it may be the only solution we have available to us, but we're not at that point yet, we're not even close.

Quote :

"Thank you. Someone here has FINALLY presented a rational complaint against SO2 injection. Gees, it was like talking to a wall."

And I guess you have no response to it. Are you really that upset no one googled it for you?

4/19/2010 5:30:34 PM

Quote :

"Why can you not comprehend that producing the aerosols at a higher altitude does not in any way make them worse for life on the ground? Why is it beyond your comprehension that it is the presence of the aerosols that produce the cooling effect, not the act of falling as rain? "

you don't even understand what I'm saying and I'm maybe the only person on here that could help you. I suggest taking an atmospheric chemistry class if I can''t help you.

Nobody has debated the fact that aerosols reflect sunlight and produce a cooling effect but to create a sulfate aerosol from so2, acid is produced and this would eventually fall down.

There is a way around this problem but it would take much more money and resources than simply moving people out of global warmings way and desalinizing water. Its not feasible in any way.

4/19/2010 6:35:45 PM

Quote :

"Tariffs and embargoes are far more threatening to china than war."

Why again should China fear the U.S. government slapping heavy taxes on U.S. citizens?

Quote :

"And I guess you have no response to it."

I don't. It's not my field of study. I cannot rate the risk of ozone loss against the so-far non-threat of global warming. As such, given my lack of knowledge on the issue, I cannot sit here and say "Nuh huh" like you and mambagrl have been doing.

4/19/2010 6:58:01 PM

Quote :

"Why again should China fear the U.S. government slapping heavy taxes on U.S. citizens?"

Who said we were talking about the US?

Quote :

"I don't. It's not my field of study."

So you demanded I post something you wouldn't even care about? Additionally you can claim certainty to know the effects of a worldwide ecosystem change in a something that's not your "field of study", even moreso that you'll just outright defend a theory that you don't know enough about to defend?

Quote :

"I cannot sit here and say "Nuh huh" like you and mambagrl have been doing."

Clearly outside of acting like you know what you're talking about, that's all you've been doing with my theory.

4/19/2010 7:36:25 PM

I read about the idea, read some background, it seemed like a good idea. I was curious if anyone else had a different opinion and why. You never gave a why, only your different opinion. That is still the case, unless you think I can parse the words "worldwide ecosystem change" to guess how you think it will be changed (both mechanism or outcome, good or bad, none of which you state).

And I clearly do care enough to want to discuss this issue on the internet. I wanted a list of potentially good traits (I gave plenty) and a list of potentially bad traits, I have been given one and only one. And no one has contradicted the list of good traits I gave. Clearly I was an idiot for expecting to hold a discussion here on such a technical subject. My bad.

4/19/2010 10:08:00 PM

Well its kind of hard to begin when you don't even begin to understand the chemistry behind it.

4/19/2010 10:23:20 PM

^ Biggest cop-out EVER.

4/19/2010 10:33:44 PM

Quote :

"You never gave a why, only your different opinion."

I gave you a very simple answer that simply involved Occam's Razor. A more complicated plan introduces more risk, it's a simple principle used by engineers everywhere.

Quote :

"And I clearly do care enough to want to discuss this issue on the internet."

It seems only when your argument must involve more than berating me.

4/19/2010 11:12:14 PM

Quote :

"I gave you a very simple answer that simply involved Occam's Razor. A more complicated plan introduces more risk, it's a simple principle used by engineers everywhere."

And like any engineer, it should seem obvious that any plan requiring six billion people to somehow completely revolutionize their use of energy is more complex than floating a few dozen weather balloons, a small hose, and some diverted air pollution. There is far more risk in your plan, such as causing international conflict and possibly starting a war, than in this plan, whose effects go away if we ever decide we don't like them.

4/20/2010 12:16:26 AM

http://patdollard.com/2010/04/sebelius-new-hhs-report-health-care-law-will-increase-the-nations-tab-instead-of-bringing-it-down/

woops. apparently, according to Obama's own HHS, Obamacare is going to INCREASE costs. This is from the HHS. Not a republican think-tank. CHANGE we can BELIEVE in.

4/23/2010 1:22:12 PM

Quote :

"it should seem obvious that any plan requiring six billion people to somehow completely revolutionize their use of energy is more complex than floating a few dozen weather balloons"

"Revolutionize"? we just have to turn off the lights every once an a while, paint our roofs white, and maybe use a bit more nuclear energy.

and just putting up some weather ballons isn't what you are suggesting, you are suggesting restructuring the chemical composition of our upper atmosphere, which could have devastating effects.

Quote :

"far more risk in your plan, such as causing international conflict and possibly starting a war"

Taking some steps towards the reduction of the use of fossil fuels would not start a war.

4/23/2010 5:44:50 PM

Oddly, that article^^ appears to reference a report from December 2009 http://www.cms.gov/ActuarialStudies/Downloads/S_PPACA_2009-12-10.pdf.

I'm not sure if it's the same report mentioned in this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/14/AR2009111402597.html?hpid=topnews
This article predates it by a month.

[Edited on April 23, 2010 at 8:06 PM. Reason : ]

4/23/2010 8:05:50 PM

^^ reduction is one thing... returning ourselves to the fucking middle ages is entirely another

4/25/2010 12:45:25 PM

^ we could learn a thing or two from those European countries that incinerate their trash cleanly. Solve two problems at once.

4/25/2010 12:47:32 PM

Quote :

"returning ourselves to the fucking middle ages is entirely another"

It would be another, another argument that no one here has made. Much of the developed world has a lower impact on the environment, and they certainly don't live in the "fucking middle ages".

4/25/2010 1:49:11 PM

again, "lower impact" is one thing. asking us to take asinine measures like dropping our emissions 50% overnight is absurd. especially when it hasn't even been proven that there is a problem. remind me again what the temperature should be right now.

Quote :

"and just putting up some weather ballons isn't what you are suggesting, you are suggesting restructuring the chemical composition of our upper atmosphere,"

only, he's not suggesting that.

4/25/2010 2:37:04 PM

Quote :

"again, "lower impact" is one thing. asking us to take asinine measures like dropping our emissions 50% overnight is absurd."

Are you arguing against some liberal hippie voices in your head? I never said that.

Quote :

"especially when it hasn't even been proven that there is a problem. remind me again what the temperature should be right now."

It certainly wouldn't hurt to make sure we stay at the same temperature we've been around.

Quote :

"only, he's not suggesting that."

That's exactly what he is suggesting.

4/25/2010 3:18:24 PM

Quote :

"It certainly wouldn't hurt to make sure we stay at the same temperature we've been around."

and what temperature would that be? what is the constant temperature the Earth is supposed to be at? and where is the evidence that that is the "correct" temperature?

Quote :

"That's exactly what he is suggesting."

Really? adding a small amount of SO2 is "restructuring the chemical composition of our upper atmosphere?"

4/25/2010 10:05:38 PM

Quote :

"and what temperature would that be? what is the constant temperature the Earth is supposed to be at? and where is the evidence that that is the "correct" temperature?"

What do you mean by "correct" temperature? The world has been really cold before, but the temperature it's been at for hundreds of years has been more hospitable.

Quote :

"Really? adding a small amount of SO2 is "restructuring the chemical composition of our upper atmosphere?""

Yes, that's exactly what it is.

4/26/2010 12:00:14 AM

Quote :

"What do you mean by "correct" temperature?"

what should the average temperature for 2009 have been? If it has been "really cold before," what's to say that it couldn't get "really hot" again naturally, without man's intervention?

Quote :

"Yes, that's exactly what it is."

by that logic, flying aircraft through the atmosphere is "restructuring the chemical composition of our upper atmosphere". come on...

4/26/2010 9:35:51 PM

wait, this is not a thread on healthcare...

4/26/2010 9:36:29 PM

Quote :

"What do you mean by "correct" temperature?"

what should the average temperature for 2009 have been? If it has been "really cold before," what's to say that it couldn't get "really hot" again naturally, without man's intervention?

Quote :

"Yes, that's exactly what it is."

by that logic, flying aircraft through the atmosphere is "restructuring the chemical composition of our upper atmosphere". come on...

4/26/2010 9:37:36 PM

4/26/2010 9:40:26 PM

Quote :

"If it has been "really cold before," what's to say that it couldn't get "really hot" again naturally, without man's intervention?"

That doesn't really matter. The point is that we need to keep the temperature from going up too much for it to be most suitable for us.

Quote :

"by that logic, flying aircraft through the atmosphere is "restructuring the chemical composition of our upper atmosphere". come on..."

Flying an airplane up there won't really cause anything to change, that's a pretty key difference.

4/26/2010 10:28:46 PM

I think tort reform would cause a decline in average global temperatures.

4/26/2010 11:01:59 PM

Quote :

"That doesn't really matter. The point is that we need to keep the temperature from going up too much for it to be most suitable for us."

if that is the case, then wouldn't it be nice to know how much it is going up due to human actions? IE, what should the temperature be right now? Or, if we want to "make sure the temperature doesn't go up too much," why not implement the aforementioned plan which has little to no impact other than lowering temperatures, and is entirely reversible

Quote :

"Flying an airplane up there won't really cause anything to change, that's a pretty key difference."

the flight isn't a concern, genius.

4/27/2010 6:36:38 PM

Quote :

"if that is the case, then wouldn't it be nice to know how much it is going up due to human actions? IE, what should the temperature be right now? "

It wouldn't really matter to me. If there were a big meteor heading towards earth, humans wouldn't be to blame, but I think we'd sure as hell want to do something about it.

Quote :

"Or, if we want to "make sure the temperature doesn't go up too much," why not implement the aforementioned plan which has little to no impact other than lowering temperatures, and is entirely reversible"

We don't know the impact, it's never been tested at this magnitude, so I'd say it's a last resort.

Quote :

"the flight isn't a concern, genius."

No shit. You compared flight to release of sulfur in the atmosphere, one would cause a change in climate, the other wouldn't, thus I think your metaphor is off-base.

4/27/2010 7:17:38 PM

Quote :

"It wouldn't really matter to me. If there were a big meteor heading towards earth, humans wouldn't be to blame, but I think we'd sure as hell want to do something about it."

so then, your assertion is that we are getting warmer, and you don't know if humans are to blame?

Quote :

"No shit. You compared flight to release of sulfur in the atmosphere, one would cause a change in climate, the other wouldn't, thus I think your metaphor is off-base."

don't be obtuse. you know exactly what I was saying.

4/27/2010 8:37:45 PM

Quote :

"so then, your assertion is that we are getting warmer, and you don't know if humans are to blame?"

My assertion is that we are getting warmer, and I don't give a fuck who's to blame, it fucks us up either way.

Quote :

"don't be obtuse. you know exactly what I was saying."

I honestly do not. I know you tried to compare flying an airplane to pumping sulfur into the atmosphere, but I have no idea what connection between the two you were trying to show.

4/27/2010 9:07:57 PM

Quote :

"My assertion is that we are getting warmer, and I don't give a fuck who's to blame, it fucks us up either way."

so then, what good does mitigating CO2 releases do if you don't even know if it is to blame? What good does assraping the very mechanism that humanity could use to cope (our innovation and industries) when mankind might not even be at fault and said assraping does nothing to actually stop the problem?

Quote :

"I honestly do not. I know you tried to compare flying an airplane to pumping sulfur into the atmosphere, but I have no idea what connection between the two you were trying to show."

I know that your study of communism has warped your brain, but surely you can draw a comparison between putting pollution in the atmosphere via SO2 and pollution in the atmosphere via aircraft exhaust.

4/27/2010 9:20:56 PM

Quote :

"so then, what good does mitigating CO2 releases do if you don't even know if it is to blame?"

I've seen enough evidence to prove to me that reducing co2 would help to reduce temperature growth.

Quote :

"assraping the very mechanism that humanity could use to cope"

I never made that argument, please stop with the strawmans, you've done it almost once each post.

Quote :

"but surely you can draw a comparison between putting pollution in the atmosphere via SO2 and pollution in the atmosphere via aircraft exhaust"

Not really, considering we're talking about global temperature, and one has an effect and the other is irrelevant.

In fact I would describe one as "restructuring the chemical composition of our upper atmosphere" while the other would be nothing more than flying a plane.

4/28/2010 12:27:17 AM

Quote :

"I've seen enough evidence to prove to me that reducing co2 would help to reduce temperature growth."

Really? So you can say for sure that the CO2 in the atmosphere has increased our temperatures? By about how much? And on what is this based? Again, if we hadn't pumped more CO2 in the air, what should the temperature be right now?

Quote :

"Not really, considering we're talking about global temperature, and one has an effect and the other is irrelevant."

Really? Which one is irrelevant? The aforementioned SO2, which we know lowers temperatures, or the CO2 from jet exhaust, which you claim has raised temperatures?

4/28/2010 11:48:12 PM

Quote :

"So you can say for sure that the CO2 in the atmosphere has increased our temperatures?"

I never said that. Please argue against what I say.

Again, I will say that I have seen enough evidence to prove to me that CO2 emissions cause our temperature to increase.

Quote :

"Again, if we hadn't pumped more CO2 in the air, what should the temperature be right now?"

And again, "should be" is irrelevant to what works best for us.

Quote :

"Which one is irrelevant?"

The one that doesn't cause any noticeable change to the world temperature.

4/29/2010 12:26:04 AM

Quote :

"I never said that. Please argue against what I say. Again, I will say that I have seen enough evidence to prove to me that CO2 emissions cause our temperature to increase."

how the fuck is that any different from what I said? I asked if you were saying that CO2 caused our temperatures to rise. is that not the exact same as what you said? since you say you have seen enough evidence to "prove that CO2 cause temperature rises," then please tell me what the temperature should be right now, if not for CO2-induced warming.

Quote :

"And again, "should be" is irrelevant to what works best for us."

So, what if a slightly warmer planet works better for us? There have been many suggestions that a slightly warmer planet with more CO2 in the atmosphere would be beneficial to farming...

Quote :

"The one that doesn't cause any noticeable change to the world temperature."

So, CO2, then, right? Because SO2 has already been PROVEN to affect world temperatures.

4/30/2010 8:56:17 AM

Quote :

"how the fuck is that any different from what I said?"

You must not be able to read very well. I said that I have seen enough evidence that CO2 causes temperatures to rise to prove it to me. This is not the same thing as "I can say for sure".

Quote :

"So, what if a slightly warmer planet works better for us?"

What does that have to do with anything? A warmer planet is not good for us. It will cause ocean levels to rise.

Quote :

"So, CO2, then, right?"

Not one of the options, you compared a plane flying to releasing enough SO2 to modify the earth's temperature.

4/30/2010 7:49:32 PM

Quote :

"You must not be able to read very well. I said that I have seen enough evidence that CO2 causes temperatures to rise to prove it to me. This is not the same thing as "I can say for sure"."

So, you are just being pedantic. Got it. So, again, if it has been "proven to you" that CO2 has caused a temperature increase, about how much has it increased? Surely if it has been "proven to you," you can answer "by how much." Because if it has been "proven to you," then you can explain exactly how it has done it, and, as such, can quantify it.

Quote :

"It will cause ocean levels to rise."

Yes, because that is the ONLY effect of a rising planet. Or are you buying in to the bullshit claim of 10 feet rises in sea-level? You want a nasty-little truth? The rate of sea-level rise hasn't changed in over a thousand years.

Quote :

"Not one of the options, you compared a plane flying to releasing enough SO2 to modify the earth's temperature."

And you are, again, being absurd. Nowhere did I say that the plane's flight, itself, was causing the alleged change in the atmosphere. And you know it. So stop being obtuse, and admit you talked out your ass, again. Or, would you care to tell us more about how the Republicans were filibustering in the House?

4/30/2010 7:54:59 PM

Quote :

"So, you are just being pedantic."

The two have very different meanings.

Quote :

"So, again, if it has been "proven to you" that CO2 has caused a temperature increase, about how much has it increased? Surely if it has been "proven to you," you can answer "by how much." Because if it has been "proven to you," then you can explain exactly how it has done it, and, as such, can quantify it."

Those two aren't necessarily connected. You can believe something has an effect without necessarily knowing the exact impact of it. For example I'm sure you believe that socializing healthcare would end up causing us to waste money, you can't say exactly how much, but that's no reason to think it's not true.

Quote :

"Yes, because that is the ONLY effect of a rising planet."

[citation needed]

Quote :

"The rate of sea-level rise hasn't changed in over a thousand years."

Again, irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the rate is increasing. The levels getting too high are bad for us anyways.

Quote :

"owhere did I say that the plane's flight, itself, was causing the alleged change in the atmosphere. And you know it."

You compared the two:
adding a small amount of SO2 is "restructuring the chemical composition of our upper atmosphere?
by that logic, flying aircraft through the atmosphere is "restructuring the chemical composition of our upper atmosphere". come on...

See where you compared the two?

5/1/2010 12:08:09 PM

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126395806&sc=ipad&f=1001

Boehner: GOP Will Repeal Health Care Law

Quote :

"House Republican Leader John Boehner has said that his party will repeal the new health care law if the GOP gains a congressional majority in November."

Right, and since the president would veto the repeal, Boehner is just talking nonsense. As usual. The party of "no," indeed.

5/1/2010 3:44:26 PM

Quote :

"Those two aren't necessarily connected. You can believe something has an effect without necessarily knowing the exact impact of it."

not at all. Because in order to say that CO2 has raised temperatures, you must be able to show that other things can not have accounted for any perceived increase in said temperatures. If you don't know the exact impact, then how can you know that it has even had any impact?

Quote :

"[citation needed]"

use google. Plenty have postulated that rising CO2 levels will be beneficial for agriculture. and that seems quite intuitive.

Quote :

"Again, irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the rate is increasing."

false. If CO2 is, indeed, causing unnatural warming, it would stand to reason that such warming would accelerate the rate of seal-level rise.

Quote :

"See where you compared the two?"

only because you are being obtuse and strawmanning me into having said that only the movement of the plane was at issue. As I have already said, a plane emits CO2 when it flies. so, stop talking out your ass like you did when you claimed the 'pubs were filibustering in the House.

5/1/2010 9:28:39 PM