Global Warming Answers and ChemTrails

[vorblesnak]

I have been reading the proposals to inject sulfur into the atmosphere to combat global warming. I perused a couple of the global warming threads here but did not see what I was looking for. So ..

Has anyone seen a posting on any of the fringe sites, or anywhere else for that matter, referencing the sulfur proposal, then pointing to the chem trail conspiracy and saying, "I told you so."

Well, that wasn't too convoluted, but it is somewhat confusing.

David Davis
Toledo, OR 97391

[Ronald Brak]

It's a serious suggestion, aslthough it might not be good for the ozone layer. I recall an estimate that said something like 40 billion dollars a year spent on areosols could have a significant impact on global temperatures. Currently I think that money would be better spent on replaceing fossil fuels in transport and electrical generation, or possibly sequestering carbon through seeding the southern ocean with iron and/or changing agricultural practices since that's more of a long term solution with less possilbly nasty side effects such as increased acid rain.

[vorblesnak]

It's a serious suggestion, aslthough it might not be good for the ozone layer. I recall an estimate that said something like 40 billion dollars a year spent on areosols could have a significant impact on global temperatures. Currently I think that money would be better spent on replaceing fossil fuels in transport and electrical generation, or possibly sequestering carbon through seeding the southern ocean with iron and/or changing agricultural practices since that's more of a long term solution with less possilbly nasty side effects such as increased acid rain.

No question that it is a serious proposal. I read a couple of articles about the proposal and some of the best minds in climate science have said it is worth looking at. They almost seem desperate to buy some time to work on the cure. One likened the project to chemotherapy, destroying the pathogen while they search for the cure.

My interest is in the fringe groups. They have been going off on Chem Trails for a few years now. I am just surprised by the lack of any comment to this story. When it broke a couple of weeks ago, (at least that is when I saw it), I expected to see a blow up of postings about going mainstream with a covert process .. or some such thing. I suspect I have just not gotten to the right news group or web site. I know there are others here that monitor the fringe and so I was hoping to find a comment from someone else about where they had seen a response.

If no response?? How odd! It seems a natural to me that they would link the two.

David Davis
Toledo, OR 97391

[vorblesnak]

It's a serious suggestion, aslthough it might not be good for the ozone layer. I recall an estimate that said something like 40 billion dollars a year spent on areosols could have a significant impact on global temperatures. Currently I think that money would be better spent on replaceing fossil fuels in transport and electrical generation, or possibly sequestering carbon through seeding the southern ocean with iron and/or changing agricultural practices since that's more of a long term solution with less possilbly nasty side effects such as increased acid rain.

I saw some discussion of the iron seeding proposal a year or better ago. The theory was good but the application was not realistic. How many boats would have to do the seeding to make a difference? AND, what affect would the process have on the oceans?

David Davis
Toledo, OR 97391

[Ronald Brak]

I saw some discussion of the iron seeding proposal a year or better ago. The theory was good but the application was not realistic. How many boats would have to do the seeding to make a difference? AND, what affect would the process have on the oceans?

It might not be too difficult to apply. Australia has iron deposits and the infrastructure to transport it. Then it's loaded into an old ship or barge which sails to a suitable spot in the Southern ocean and blown into the air with a fan or other device and the strong prevailing winds act to distribute it over a wide area of ocean. I have heard cost estimates that vary greatly so I'm not sure just how economical it is, but it sounds promising. As for number of boats required, well if it turns out to be a cheap we'll soon round up enough. Old clunkers will do. It's not as if we need anything fancy for this job. boats. There is plenty of room in the Southern ocean for seeding and capturing carbon. The exact effects it has on ecosystems will have to be carefully measured and may limit how much carbon can be sequested. If it turns out to be good for fish stocks that will be a plus.

There hasn't been a lot of talk about this in Australia. I'm mildly surprised that coal and power companies haven't pushed this as part of their, "By talking about solutions we are making it look as though we are actually doing something," strategy. But I guess solutions involving complex machinery and pumping stuff underground comes more naturally to them as that's what they deal with everyday.

[Ozzy]

Does the seeding require iron ore?

If so couldnt BHP ships loaded with thousands of tonnes of the stuff, sprinkle a little as they sail to Port Kembla and Korea?

[Ronald Brak]

Does the seeding require iron ore?

If so couldnt BHP ships loaded with thousands of tonnes of the stuff, sprinkle a little as they sail to Port Kembla and Korea?

Yep, it requires iron ore, which is basically rust. You could use pure iron, but it's going to rust anyway when you put it in the water so iron ore should do. Problem is it might have to be a very fine dust so that it won't sink and will disolve very quicky. Working out the best substance to use and how to powder it is something that will have to be worked out.

As for current ships scattering a bit of it, they might not past through the best areas for seeding and at the moment they might be accused of littering.

[Ronald Brak]

Does the seeding require iron ore?

If so couldnt BHP ships loaded with thousands of tonnes of the stuff, sprinkle a little as they sail to Port Kembla and Korea?

Yep, it requires iron ore, which is basically rust. You could use pure iron, but it's going to rust anyway when you put it in the water so iron ore should do. Problem is it might have to be a very fine dust so that it won't sink and will disolve very quicky. Working out the best substance to use and how to powder it is something that will have to be worked out.

As for current ships scattering a bit of it, they might not past through the best areas for seeding and at the moment they might be accused of littering.

[Maha Vailo]

changing agricultural practices

I'm curious as to how and in what ways would agricultural practices have to be changed in order to combat global warming. What might the connection be (other than fossil fuels in tractors and the like)?

- Maha Vailo

[Ronald Brak]

I'm curious as to how and in what ways would agricultural practices have to be changed in order to combat global warming. What might the connection be (other than fossil fuels in tractors and the like)?

Often farming exhausts the organic material in the soil and so can add to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But if you farm so that the amount of organic material in the soil increases each year then you are trapping carbon in the soil. Just how much carbon we can trap at low cost by changing agricultural practices I don't know but I imagine costs would be low in some areas and for some crops. We need a system so farmers can be paid for trapping carbon no matter where in the world they live. We will also need some form of inspection to ensure carbon is being trapped and to prevent corruption.

[Maksutov]

I have been reading the proposals to inject sulfur into the atmosphere to combat global warming. I perused a couple of the global warming threads here but did not see what I was looking for. So .....

I smell a rat...or at least a rotten egg.

Funny how there's this series of regulations and activities to prevent the burning of high sulfur coal.

[Maha Vailo]

Often farming exhausts the organic material in the soil and so can add to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But if you farm so that the amount of organic material in the soil increases each year then you are trapping carbon in the soil. Just how much carbon we can trap at low cost by changing agricultural practices I don't know but I imagine costs would be low in some areas and for some crops. We need a system so farmers can be paid for trapping carbon no matter where in the world they live. We will also need some form of inspection to ensure carbon is being trapped and to prevent corruption.

Would agricultural "carbon trapping" be as simple as using manure/compost on one's crops, or would something more complex be needed?

- Maha Vailo

[Ronald Brak]

Would agricultural "carbon trapping" be as simple as using manure/compost on one's crops, or would something more complex be needed?

Hmmm... I don't really know the details. It could be that simple in some cases.

[antoniseb]

Carbon trapping could be as simple as growing and stockpiling lots of fast-growing structural wood.

[BigDon]

Anton, "fast growing" and "structural wood" are pretty much mutually exclusive terms. Most fast growing wood is unsuitable for structures unless processed to fibers and reformed with glue.

[beskeptical]

I'm assuming some or most of you saw, Dimming the Sun on PBS? The Contrail Effect; by Peter Tyson; Are vapor trails from aircraft influencing the climate, and if so, should we worry?

[vorblesnak]

I'm assuming some or most of you saw, Dimming the Sun on PBS? The Contrail Effect; by Peter Tyson; Are vapor trails from aircraft influencing the climate, and if so, should we worry?

Well certainly the formation of Cirrus clouds, which is what mostly happens to stagnant comtrails, will affect the weather in the area of the clouds. Trace amounts of Sulfur are in the exhaust from the jets and should reflect the sun. But I think there is a lot more carbon in the contrail and like all exhaust it hangs around till it is broken down.

I think if you are near a major air hub you should be concerned, just like if you live next to the freeway in southern California. I am not sure what the over all impact of air travel is. I think the auto is a far greater concern right now. That and combustion electrical plants.

Now Maksutov! I am a observer of the fringe. How would that make me a rotten egg? Or were you speaking of the sulfer particle project?

David Davis
Toledo, OR 97391

[vorblesnak]

BTB: Here is a recent article in Rolling Stone on line ..

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/sto...he_world/print

This covers the basics of the sulfur particle proposal and it's introduction. It is in the somewhat mainstream media now.

Would high sulfur coal necessarily do the same thing for us? I don't think the delivery from a smoke stack would go high enough. We got to get it up there a few miles.

David Davis
Toledo, OR 97391

[vorblesnak]

You know, if I would get off of my duff and do a bit more research I wouldn't ask all the dumb questions I ask you folks. Yet another link to Rolling Stone ..

http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/?p=683

This one to the discussion on the article in the previous post.

David Davis
Toledo, OR 97391

[Fortis]

My interest is in the fringe groups. They have been going off on Chem Trails for a few years now. I am just surprised by the lack of any comment to this story. When it broke a couple of weeks ago, (at least that is when I saw it), I expected to see a blow up of postings about going mainstream with a covert process .. or some such thing. I suspect I have just not gotten to the right news group or web site. I know there are others here that monitor the fringe and so I was hoping to find a comment from someone else about where they had seen a response.

Having posted on chemmie boards in the past, I would guess that it is because they would see it as nothing new. They already believe that governments have said that they are spraying to stave off the effects of global warming. For them, however, this is just a cover for the "real" motive.

(I asked on one board to back up their claim that governments had admitted that they were already doing this, but their silence spoke louder than words.)

[Ronald Brak]

That Rolling Stones article throws up a figure of 100 million dollars. The estimate I read had a figure of 40 billion dollars a year. To me the 40 billion dollar figure seemed reasonable for the amount of material and the number of flights that would be required.

The article also has some stupid sentences in it: "Until recently, discussion of geoengineering -- intentional, large-scale manipulation of the Earth's climate -- has been taboo among scientists."

Gee, the council of witch doctors that determines what is and isn't taboo in science must have changed their minds.

[BigDon]

Ooops Ron, you blew it! You revealed the Council to the laymen. They are going to send a "Fetch" after you for sure now! I suggest you sleep within a circle of salt around your bed (at least 2 inchs wide). And wear a ball of wax and black goosefeathers around your neck to protect you from other sendings!

Just looking out for you dude!

[Swift]

BTB: Here is a recent article in Rolling Stone on line ..

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/sto...he_world/print

This covers the basics of the sulfur particle proposal and it's introduction. It is in the somewhat mainstream media now.

Would high sulfur coal necessarily do the same thing for us? I don't think the delivery from a smoke stack would go high enough. We got to get it up there a few miles.

David Davis
Toledo, OR 97391

That is my take too. Burning high sulfur coal mostly puts sulfur dioxide into the lower atmosphere, where it contributes to acid rain. You need to get it into the stratosphere to have a cooling effect. Volcanoes are pretty good at doing this.

It is similar to the difference between ozone in the lower atmosphere (smog bad) and the upper atmosphere (stopping UV good).

[greenfeather]

I saw some discussion of the iron seeding proposal a year or better ago. The theory was good but the application was not realistic. How many boats would have to do the seeding to make a difference? AND, what affect would the process have on the oceans?

David Davis
Toledo, OR 97391

Why not just seed with C02-eating cyanobacteria?

[greenfeather]

Often farming exhausts the organic material in the soil and so can add to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But if you farm so that the amount of organic material in the soil increases each year then you are trapping carbon in the soil. Just how much carbon we can trap at low cost by changing agricultural practices I don't know but I imagine costs would be low in some areas and for some crops. We need a system so farmers can be paid for trapping carbon no matter where in the world they live. We will also need some form of inspection to ensure carbon is being trapped and to prevent corruption.

You're talking about Composting and Organic farming... aren't you???? Say Yes and I'll set up my compost pile again.

[greenfeather]

BTB: Here is a recent article in Rolling Stone on line ..

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/sto...he_world/print

This covers the basics of the sulfur particle proposal and it's introduction. It is in the somewhat mainstream media now.

Would high sulfur coal necessarily do the same thing for us? I don't think the delivery from a smoke stack would go high enough. We got to get it up there a few miles.

David Davis
Toledo, OR 97391

I just don't think putting sulfur in the air is a good idea. I don't know anything about chemistry, but sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide are implicated in the Permian Extinction. A pretty high price to pay for being able to drive SUVs!!! Why not put the effort into higher efficiency cars instead of experimenting with our planet's atmosphere?

[Ronald Brak]

Why not just seed with C02-eating cyanobacteria?

They are already there. However the water in the southern ocean in lacking in an element, iron, they need to grow. The idea is we can get a lot of growth for just a little iron and trap many tons of CO2 for each ton of iron we sprinkle in the ocean.

You're talking about Composting and Organic farming... aren't you???? Say Yes and I'll set up my compost pile again.

Well kinda, yeah. But it doesn't need to be pesticide and herbicide free.

I just don't think putting sulfur in the air is a good idea. I don't know anything about chemistry, but sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide are implicated in the Permian Extinction. A pretty high price to pay for being able to drive SUVs!!! Why not put the effort into higher efficiency cars instead of experimenting with our planet's atmosphere?

At the moment I sure that would be the most sensible thing to do at the moment. Spending money of putting sulphur into the upper atmosphere while we are still producing vast quantities of greenhouse gases is a little like giving a patient transfusions while doing nothing to stop their bleeding. As an emergancy measure it nice to know we could do it, but I hope we will use our resources to cut emission rather than engage in desperate stop gap measures.

[Ozzy]

What would be the effects (besides removing carbon from the atmosphere), of cyanobacteria multiplying in the oceans?

Wasn't that a premise in Stark, and the reason the richies were leaving the planet?

[Ronald Brak]

What would be the effects (besides removing carbon from the atmosphere), of cyanobacteria multiplying in the oceans?

There might be more fish as they would have more to eat.

Wasn't that a premise in Stark, and the reason the richies were leaving the planet?

I don't think so. Hopefully there is nothing particularly dangerous about using iron to fertilize the Southern Ocean. If done right it presumably will just make the Southern Ocean like parts of other oceans that have higher naturally occuring levels of iron.

[Ozzy]

I thought the cyanobacteria was related to the dreaded blue/green algae.

I think I'll google it.