I simply posted an AP article on this blog last night on some discussions about placing artificial pollution in the upper atmosphere to stop global warming. I wish I had deleted the website (Fox News) and the headline (“Obama may block sun’s rays to end global warming”), so people wouldn’t have read so much politics into the story.
Here is the deal with the science of global warming, without political bias. If people are interested, I can post more details and graphics later. The sun emits mainly shortwave radiation (centered around a wavelength of 0.5 micrometers), while the earth’s thermal radiation is longwave radiation (centered around 10 micrometers). The incoming radiation from the sun is fairly constant. But, the earth’s outgoing radiation is proprtional to temperature. The solar radiation must balance the outgoing radiation, or there will be a change in temperature, and the balance is readjusted.
Some things (like low clouds, fog, smoke, and sulfur dioxide) allow the longwave radiation out, but block some of the incoming sun. This is why volcanoes tend to cause cool periods. Other things like carbon dioxide allow the solar radiation in, but block some of the outgoing radiation, causing warming. So, the idea of putting sulfur dioxide in the upper atmosphere to block some of the solar radiation has been around for a while. Other ideas to cool the atmosphere include placing a sun blocker in space (some miles long piece of aluminum foil or something, I guess); increasing the albedo, or reflectance of the earth by placing millions of white ping pong balls in the oceans; painting large parts of desert ground white; etc.
The unfortunate thing about the entire global warming issue is how politicized it has become. Many on the left feel that we are on a train headed for a cliff, and if we don’t take drastic measures soon (some of which could backfire, causing asthma, causing extreme cold, costing trillions of dollars, and keeping some of the poorest people in the world from getting electricity), sea level will suddenly rise and it will be 100 degrees every summer day in New York City by 2050. Many on the right feel that we should just leave it alone completely, continuing to drive larger SUV’s, putting our air on 72 in the summer, etc.)
Is either extreme correct? I like a lower power bill myself, so turning off the air or heat when I leave the house for a few hours is a good idea to me. I drive a Buick Regal. Not an MG, but not a Hummer. And, what’s wrong with using flourescent bulbs, leaving your blinds open in the daytime in winter and closed in summer, running the dishwasher only when it’s full, and bringing in cool air from outside in the evenings in spring and fall so you won’t have to use the air conditioning the next day? What’s wrong with planting more trees worldwide (to reduce carbon dioxide)? Why does your storage unit (where your excess stuff is) need to be climate controlled?
At the same time, do we want to treat carbon dioxide, something we breathe out in every breath, as a pollutant? Do we want to tax the power companies up to $2 trillion, money they will divert to us in higher power bills? Do we want pollutants put in the upper atmosphere? Do we want to pay a huge cost to prevent something that many climate experts say is not a big deal anyway?
I think we need to be careful when we start trying to alter the climate on a large scale. As I discussed with some other meteorologists the other day, we had a relatively cool period with few hurricanes in the 1940’s, 50’s, and 60’s, when we tested nuclear weapons regularly in the Pacific, releasing tons of pollution. But, do we want to do that again? Maybe one of these nuts like Kim Jong Il will do that for us.
