mental_floss magazine
SUBSCRIBE >
GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS >
DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS >
subscriber services >
Problem: the Earth is getting warmer. Other problem: even if we stopped producing C02 completely tomorrow, the Earth would still continue to warm — for years — before it started to cool again. Arguably crazy solution: put up a solar shield and stop the warming ASAP. If this sounds a bit like that episode of The Simpsons where Mr. Burns blocked out the sun in Springfield to force people to use more of his nuclear power, you’re not that far off — except that this version of the sunblock scheme comes from scientists researching ways to slow climate change.
The idea, basically, is this: spray a lot of sulfur dioxide (or some other light-blocking, preferably non-carcinogenic agent) into the air until it deflects about 8% of the sun’s rays. Wait until global temperatures reach pre-industrial levels. Party. This is to a lesser degree what happened when Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in 1991: the particulate matter it rocketed into the upper atmosphere stayed there — cooling the Earth a few tenths of a degree — for nearly a decade. According to a new study, doing this artificially would only cost about $100 million, vs. the hundreds of billions it would cost to change the way most of the world produces energy. So what’s the downside? That’s kind of the scary part: so far, they’re having a problem finding one, assuming the shield was placed and maintained properly. Maybe that’s a problem in itself: this method is untested and its effects would be wide-ranging; asking “what’s the worst that could happen?” sound suspiciously like famous last words.
Comments (10)
Comment
This sounds an amazing amount like the Matrix and Highlander 2. And we saw what happened there. In the first, we were taken over by robots and in the second, immortals swordfighters fought in alleys on hoverboards - Now we wouldn’t want that to happen, would we?
posted by Brad on 6-7-2007 at 8:30 am
I’d be all for it, Brad, if I got my own hoverboard. Cuz that’d be sweet!
posted by Dan on 6-7-2007 at 10:31 am
1. Sulfur dioxide>? Are you sure about that? Sulfur dioxide is a precursor for acid rain. After a couple of atmospheric reactions with compounds like nitric oxide (NO2) yo wind up with sulfuric acid, H2SO4. Sounds like a really really bad idea…
2. The Earth’s climate has shifted in both directions (sometimes much faster than the current shifting) for millions of years. Sometimes it has been much hotter and sometimes much colder than today. These shifts took place LONG before any industrialization and man’s possible influence. Given that, who are WE to say that the *current* climate (or one from 1850 for that matter) is “the optimum” which should be preserved at any cost? Are we that self-important?
posted by Sid Morrison on 6-7-2007 at 11:01 am
I’m no scientist (which may be obvious after you read this), but won’t this reduce the effectiveness of all those solar panels people have been putting up in order to reduce their contribution to greenhouse gasses??
Is it also possible that this would have an adverse effect on sunlight-dependent crops? I can picture desperate farmers hauling massive grow lights out to their fields, causing power plants around the globe to go into overdrive, churning out more greenhouse gasses…
posted by John on 6-7-2007 at 11:53 am
So it’s “scary” that there appears to be (at least) one cheap and easy way to deal with global warming, assuming it ever becomes enough of a problem to bother?
This is why many of us think the Greens are turning their global warming idea into a substitute religion. Why else would this be scary, unless because it denies a tenet of the faith — that the world will soon be punished unless we turn from our “sins”?
posted by Mark on 6-7-2007 at 12:00 pm
Hey Sid … the planet is now hotter than it’s been for hundreds of thousands of years. Is that not cause for concern? Anyway, if by some radical coincidence it’s not *our* fault that the planet is warming dramatically, it doesn’t matter — it’s still a problem and we’d better find a way to fix it, or we’re screwed!
posted by Ransom on 6-7-2007 at 3:19 pm
And in addition to what John pointed out, this would probably cause other problems. It wouldn’t actually change the way people are living. It might even encourage them to buy less fuel efficient cars and use pollution-causing forms of energy. After all, if it doesn’t make any difference, why not do it? It seems to me that this is just putting the problem aside, not actually soving it.
And on another topic entirely, how many people’s last words have ACTUALLY been “What’s the worst that could happen?”?
posted by Pointy-Hatted Geek on 6-7-2007 at 5:43 pm
The phrase “colossally bad idea” comes to mind when I hear about things like this.
Sid is right on the money. Prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the warming we’re experiencing now is not part of a natural cycle that will correct itself, and we’ll talk about throwing a bunch of crap into the air to block out the sun. The earth’s climate is far too complex to start messing with when we don’t know what the outcome will be.
posted by Dave on 6-7-2007 at 8:56 pm
I’m pretty sure sulfur dioxide creates acid rain and when it spewed from steel mills it made the air in my grandmothers neighborhood in Dravosburg PA almost unbreathable, it had a choking smell (like) of rotten eggs.
posted by TDave on 6-8-2007 at 3:04 am
Er, the the downside is unpredictable changes in weather patterns that could cause widespread FAMINE. It happened in Iceland in 1783 when a volcanic eruption there spewed out enough particulates to cool the atmosphere. Europe suffered too. And in 1816, the Year without a Summer, or “eighteen hundred and froze to death” a volcanic eruption of Tambora in Indonesia caused a world wide weather catastrophy, resulting in famine, riots and social upheavals. Putting stuff in the sky is a really bad idea.
posted by Pam on 6-8-2007 at 5:43 pm