Discover Yahoo! With Your Friends

Explore news, videos, and much more based on what your friends are reading and watching. Publish your own activity and retain full control.

To get started, first

YOUR FRIENDS' ACTIVITY

    Could Pumping Aerosols into the Atmosphere Stop Global Warming?

    Heat waves. Drought. Storms. The extreme weather that has battered much of the planet in the past few years, up through the heat wave cooking most of the United States this summer, has more scientists thinking about extreme solutions to the climate crisis.

    Geoengineering – making large-scale changes to the environment – is no longer fringe science, with the debate shifting from whether it should be done to how.

    One controversial idea gaining traction among scientists is injecting small particles, known as aerosols, into the stratosphere to block the sun's radiation.

    Aerosols reflect solar radiation back into space, lowering Earth surface temperatures. They can also provide "seeds" around which water droplets coalesce to form clouds, thus further increasing the planet's reflectivity. The particles are fairly long-lived in the stratosphere, a stable region of the atmosphere that begins five to six miles up. This makes the idea of aerosols' use as a worldwide planet-cooler fairly attractive.

    The effects of aerosol injections are at least somewhat known, since volcanic eruptions produce aerosols naturally and have produced cooling in the past. Mount Pinatubo, a volcano in the Philippines that erupted in 1991, spewed so much sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere that the planet cooled by 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.55 degrees Celsius) and stayed cool for more than two years.

    Skeptics of the idea, however, say it's one thing when a volcano erupts; imitating nature would be another thing entirely. While Pinatubo-like amounts of sulfur (roughly 20 million tons) pumped into the atmosphere could linger three to four years, cooling the planet within the first months, reversing sea ice melt, and possibly even promoting tree growth, the side effects are uncertain. A 2009 paper found that stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) could lead to drought in Africa and Asia and deplete the ozone layer, and it would not stop ocean acidification.

    A miscalculation in the injections could be a costly mistake, ushering in a new ice age. And if scientists were to stop regular injections without cleaning up the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the rebound effect could be worse for crops, animals and ecosystems than if they had done nothing. [Could Space Mirrors Stop Global Warming?]

    Beyond that, critics say, regular aerosol injections would change the sky's color, ruin astronomy for optical telescopes on Earth, and remove the incentive for nations to clean up their own acts. And in a final act of irony, with less sunlight reaching the Earth's surface, solar panels would produce less power.

    Despite these potential drawbacks, research continues. A group of Cambridge scientists recently published a study of the proposed options for getting the aerosols to the stratosphere. (The report favored using a large tethered balloon with a hose attached to a high-pressure pump.) A study in mid-2012 found that the sky would look no different post-geoengineering than it currently does in urban areas, which have higher levels of aerosols due to pollution. And many scientists have concluded that aerosol injection is the most effective, most timely and cheapest solution to warming that has been proposed thus far, costing about $50 billion per year.

    However, until scientists know more about the potential side effects of geoengineering through tests (as opposed to computer models), it's not likely to happen. A 2010 government report found only one field experiment related to aerosols and noted that the U.S. spent only about $2 million over two years investigating solar radiation management techniques.

    The problem? Testing large-scale climate engineering techniques in the field requires large-scale tests in the field. In the words of climate change scientist Mike Hulme, writing in Progress in Physical Geography: "Research and deployment become one and the same." To test the technology, it has to be put into effect  –  and the consequences of that are still largely unknown.

    This story was provided by InnovationNewsDaily, a sister site to LiveScience. Follow InnovationNewsDaily on Twitter @News_Innovation, or on Facebook.

    Copyright 2012 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
     

    773 comments

    • Yane  •  10 hrs ago
      Environmentalists took the aerosol component out of my asthma inhaler cost previously 19.99 and replaced it with an environmental friendly type cost 49.99.
      • A Yahoo Abuser 37 mins ago
        You fellows should really look up the definition of the word aerosol. You sound like a bunch of poorly educated nimrods blathering about a subject, of which, you quite apparently know nothing about.
      • ManoftheRepublic 10 hrs ago
        Ozone is essential to life AS long as that ozone is in the UPPER atmosphere.....Ozone at the ground level is BAD...... is the reason that they declare Ozone Alert days..... Bad for EVERYONE, especially bad for people that already have problems breathing......

        Now you explain how a substance (Freon) that is HEAVIER than air and instantly reacts with the ozone that we constantly have around us at ground level makes it to the pole to cause a hole in the Ozone.... Then explain how a hole in the ozone over the POLE, causes cancer in the middle of the country......

        The reason that we have increasing cancer is that we cleaned a lot of the particulate pollution out of the air and there is GASP more sunlight making it through....Plus we are in an period of GASP increased solar activity....

        Now WHERE is my #%@$ cheaper inhaler....that by the way WORKED BETTER....
      • ManoftheRepublic 10 hrs ago
        I would rather have a cheaper inhaler and less ozone alert days.......
    • Mike  •  2 days 18 hrs ago
      Makes sense . . . however . . . pumping REEFER smoke will cause the atmosphere to CHILLLLL.
      • Kevin 16 hrs ago
        Why would you thumbdown the truth?! Dang trolls...
      • Kevin 1 day 11 hrs ago
        I believe they are already doing this. Look up in the sky sometime. Contraila disappear, chemtrails linger. They do this in my city from 8am to 8pm, daily. Check out "What in the world are they spraying?" They only do this in NATO countries.
      • Conservative Liberal, Lib ... 2 days 8 hrs ago
        That sounds like a much safer alternative
    • Fed UP  •  1 day 4 hrs ago
      What could possibly go wrong? Maybe a giant red spot like Jupiter or an oven like Venus?
    • Edd  •  10 hrs ago
      Plant a tree and grow a garden, that is the best form of carbon capture.
      • JG 2 hrs 25 mins ago
        Ya, until it dies and releases that carbon back into the atmosphere.
      • ManoftheRepublic 9 hrs ago
        Yep, now how do I do that in an apartment?......
    • Shakika  •  Shirley, Indiana  •  13 hrs ago
      dangerous
      • James 11 hrs ago
        Dangerous for people but what does that matter to 'them'. Agenda 21.
    • Anonymous33  •  16 hrs ago
      Use Extreme caution! Many things man does man does poorly, ie: cars that accelerate by themselves, toxic "life saving drugs," etc. If we do this and we screw it up we may never get the opportunity to fix it..........You have been warned.
    • americanspartan  •  12 hrs ago
      so this is how the matrix starts. I guess we are near the end of the replay and we'll have to reset to the beginning again
    • Bad Products  •  3 days ago
      What could go wrong with that?
    • Zack  •  3 days ago
      DONT DO IT!!
    • Jimmy  •  Richardson, Texas  •  10 hrs ago
      I Live in the Sub Tropical South,let the Aerosols go into the sky.Damn this Heat.
    • ......  •  1 day 8 hrs ago
      You might think I'm crazy, but I have the solution!!! A giant tin foil hat for the Earth!!! Shiny side out!!!......Oh yeah! A tin foil diaper for the south pole!!!
    • William  •  Fort Worth, Texas  •  16 hrs ago
      theres an old saying,dont fool with mother nature !!!
    • americanspartan  •  12 hrs ago
      women and minorities most affected
    • Bob  •  Greenville, South Carolina  •  10 hrs ago
      Many, many years ago, the world was throwing fits about aerosol sprays and the harm they do. Now they are saying it might be good. No wonder the world is so screwed up - make up your minds and stop making us have to change ours all the time.
    • Cloudy2Clear  •  Waco, Texas  •  8 hrs ago
      "...with the debate shifting from whether it should be done to how." The debate WHETHER was never concluded. Not just no, but HELL NO!
    • Jim  •  3 days ago
      To those who think this is a case of scientists being wrong about aerosols, you might be thinking of a different type - the earlier ban was for CFCs. They destroy ozone. The aerosols that are being considered to cool the atmosphere don't destroy ozone, but they reflect the sun's radiation (instead of trapping its energy, like CO2, methane, etc.). We've had a form of it for quite a while - sulfur dioxide (another by-product of coal use) reduces the warming of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, but it also causes acid rain.

      The phenomenon is called global dimming. Personally, I think we'd be playing with fire (we have a habit of making things worse than better), but if the effects of warming become more severe, it'll be hard to argue against it. The other risk would be that geoengineering could be used as an excuse to burn every single bit of fossil fuels we can dig up. CO2 lasts in the atmosphere FAR longer than sulfur dioxide, so we'd have to keep dumping dimming aerosols into the atmosphere for 100+ years even after all the extractable fossil fuels are gone. It's Sisyphus pushing the rock.
    • jim  •  Issaquah, Washington  •  3 days ago
      hmmmm. mother nature seemed to like trees!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • Jeff Dowda  •  Defuniak Springs, Florida  •  1 day 1 hr ago
      Wait a minute, didn't we go through this in the 80s and 90s with the scientist and the EPA banning the use of R-12 Freon and all canned aresols, resulting in millions of dollars in increased cost for home and auto air conditioning, as well as canned products requiring pressure to be dispenced. And now they are saying that the use of it may actually be beneficial. Now, if that doesn't put global warming into question, what does? And this is not the first time that a government ban or government negative publicity has been wrong, and it always ends up costing the consumer and the taxpayer, and this latest one is a nation destroying agenda, put on as usual, by the left.
    • TimD  •  Glenview, Illinois  •  1 day 5 hrs ago
      Everyone go back to using Aquanet ...
    • Gary  •  1 day 5 hrs ago
      Since 'geo-engineering' is less studied than 'clean coal' and fusion combined (both are unusable still) - and since we do need the sun to grow more food each year - Why not push for more of the panels the author is worried about shading with aerosols, combined with more efficient use? Jets already create this effect, as proven in an interesting study on 9/11 when air traffic was halted for days. We are still warming anyway
    • This image provided by NASA shows a high-resolution 360-degree color panorama of Gale Crater taken by the Curiosity rover, which landed on Mars on August 5, 2012. A low-quality version was released earlier. Curiosity is on a two-year mission to study whether Gale could support microbial life. (AP Photo/NASA)
      NASA's mega-rover landed on Mars. What's next?

      After a spectacular landing on Mars, the rover Curiosity wasted no time embracing its inner shutterbug, delighting scientists with vistas of Gale Crater complete with sand dunes, mountain views and even … More »NASA's mega-rover landed on Mars. What's next?

      This image provided by NASA shows a high-resolution 360-degree color panorama of Gale Crater taken by the Curiosity rover, which landed on Mars on August 5, 2012. A low-quality version was released earlier. Curiosity is on a two-year mission to study whether Gale could support microbial life. (AP Photo/NASA)

      After a spectacular landing on Mars, the rover Curiosity wasted no time embracing its inner shutterbug, delighting scientists with vistas of Gale Crater complete with sand dunes, mountain views and even haze.

    • These before-and-after images provided by NASA show a plume of dust, left, that disappeared. NASA thinks a camera aboard Curiosity caught the rocket stage crash-landing in the distance. Curiosity landed on Mars on August 5, 2012 to begin a two-year exploration of Gale Crater. (AP Photo/NASA)
      NASA: Mars rover snapped pic of rocket stage crash

      Space enthusiasts have been abuzz for days over whether the Mars rover Curiosity captured an extraterrestrial crash. On Friday, NASA declared the mystery solved. More »NASA: Mars rover snapped pic of rocket stage crash

      These before-and-after images provided by NASA show a plume of dust, left, that disappeared. NASA thinks a camera aboard Curiosity caught the rocket stage crash-landing in the distance. Curiosity landed on Mars on August 5, 2012 to begin a two-year exploration of Gale Crater. (AP Photo/NASA)

      Space enthusiasts have been abuzz for days over whether the Mars rover Curiosity captured an extraterrestrial crash. On Friday, NASA declared the mystery solved.

    • In this still image made from video provided by NASA, the methane-powered Morpheus lander burns after it crashed in a test flight at Kennedy Space Center in Florida Thursday, Aug. 9, 2012. NASA spokeswoman Lisa Malone says nobody was hurt, but it appears the prototype lander is a total loss. (AP Photo/NASA)
      NASA's 'green' planetary test lander crashes

      Earlier this week NASA safely landed a robotic rover on Mars about 150 million miles away. But on Thursday here on Earth, a test model planetary lander crashed and burned at Kennedy Space Center in Florida … More »NASA's 'green' planetary test lander crashes

      In this still image made from video provided by NASA, the methane-powered Morpheus lander burns after it crashed in a test flight at Kennedy Space Center in Florida Thursday, Aug. 9, 2012. NASA spokeswoman Lisa Malone says nobody was hurt, but it appears the prototype lander is a total loss. (AP Photo/NASA)

      Earlier this week NASA safely landed a robotic rover on Mars about 150 million miles away. But on Thursday here on Earth, a test model planetary lander crashed and burned at Kennedy Space Center in Florida just seconds after liftoff.

    • How Depression Shrinks the Brain
      How Depression Shrinks the Brain

      Certain brain regions in people with major depression are smaller and less dense than those of their healthy counterparts. Now, researchers have traced the genetic reasons for this shrinkage. More »How Depression Shrinks the Brain

      How Depression Shrinks the Brain

      Certain brain regions in people with major depression are smaller and less dense than those of their healthy counterparts. Now, researchers have traced the genetic reasons for this shrinkage.

    • New Robot Crawls Like an Earthworm
      New Robot Crawls Like an Earthworm

      Dubbed the "Meshworm," a new bio-inspired robot stretches and contracts to crawl across the ground like an earthworm. But unlike its living, breathing counterpart, this artificial creature is durable enough … More »New Robot Crawls Like an Earthworm

      New Robot Crawls Like an Earthworm

      Dubbed the "Meshworm," a new bio-inspired robot stretches and contracts to crawl across the ground like an earthworm. But unlike its living, breathing counterpart, this artificial creature is durable enough to survive being bludgeoned by a hammer.