Are "solar shields" an answer to global warming?

One idea for a solar shield is mirrors in space reflecting some solar radiation away from the Earth. This would probably be more expensive than cutting down on CO2 emissions though, as a side benefit, we would develop the technology for space exploration.

The downside of space mirrors is that they could be used as weapons.

Another idea is to pump sulphur dioxide gas into the atmosphere,

According to Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution of Washington and Damon Matthews of Concordia University, Canada, this could be a quick fix. At a price tag of about $100 million it would be much cheaper than switching away from fossil fuels.

See New Scientist:

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11993-solar-shield-could-be-quick-fix-for-global-warming.html

My own feeling is that if a sulphur dioxide shield can be shown to work THAT'S WHAT WILL HAPPEN. Does anyone see any alternative? Are we going to stop China and India building coal-fired power stations? Are the rich countries of North America and Europe really going to reduce their CO2 emissions by 50% or more?

Can anything stop politicians taking what may appear to be a quick and easy way out of a dilemma?

Any comments?

have you tried breathing sulphur dioxide? i seem to recall having to put it in the exhaust hood in chem class. hard to sell putting poison gas in the air, but if you can sell the iraq war to a credulous american public, i suppose you get used to living in a gas mask.

and there are spin-offs, fashion designer unisex antigas burqas come to mind.

The concentration would not be noticeable DEMOS. A little SO2 or other cooling gas goes a long way. We're talking parts per million.

That's not really the issue. The real issue is some of the other environmental impacts. Climate is a complex system.

Steven, the New Scientist article you refer us to discusses sulphate particles, not sulphur dioxide. SO2 dissolves in water to produce sulphuric acid. SO2 in the atmosphere gives rise to acid rain, (http://www.ausetute.com.au/acidrain.html) which can be enormously environmentally destructive.

Oops, yep, you're right.

Sorry

thx, ludwig- i'll make sure the burqas are impervious to sulpuric rain.

Nonetheless DEMOS, despite my mix-up between sulphate particles and SO2 this does have the appearance of a cheap and quick fix. Do you think the politicians will be able to resist?

I'm not asking whether you think this is a good idea. I doubt it is.

But I'm inclined to think that if the initial research holds up it's going to happen.

How much would it cost?

WE don't need to do anything.
The IPCC report assumed an unending supply of fossil fuels.
Read this and see what was overlooked;

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5933

The author is a founder of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas.

Read his biography.

I tried the mirror thing ,every day after combing my hair I prop the mirror up on a stump in the yard, it had no effect apart from blinding a couple of birds and making them crash into trees, oh and getting bombed by a stray yank lost on his way to Iraq, he thougt it was a WMD.

Is there anything wrong with using a solution that is quick and cheap?

Sylvia.

Firstly, thanks for the article it was an interesting read.

Not to sound too critical but you say you're not asking whether we think it's a good idea but you asked for any comments. I think it being a bad idea and reasons for that help answer the other question:
"Can anything stop politicians taking what may appear to be a quick and easy way out of a dilemma?"

My comments are:
It's a bad idea because there is more than one reason why we should not be dependent on fossil fuels. Oil can be used to produce plastics and other useful things; yet we're determined to burn every last drop for the purposes of personal transport. Global warming is an effective stimulus for change toward a more sustainable existence. Ideally we would consume only renewable resources as to leave future scientists as much resources as possible to experiment with.

My response to the second question is:
Governments should take a responsible approach taking into account the future of the human race. We'll make life a lot harder for ourselves if we have less resources in the future. Just like biodiversity is important i think a wide variety of resources is important. Obviously the most cost effective path will be taken and so if this proves possible i think there will be little to stop governments from pursuing it. It's possible (maybe likely) we will take the quick fix and keep blindly polluting and squandering our finite resources but i hope not.

-Petroz

Petroz,

Perhaps one day we'll refuel electric cars on the fly like this?

http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn12014-wireless-power-could-have-cellphone-users-beaming.html

Or will genetically engineered bacteria produce environmentally friendly petrol?

See:

http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/18827/

Or perhaps potato power is the way forward.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18784/

I woukd forget this one;

Petroz,

Perhaps one day we'll refuel electric cars on the fly like this?

http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn12014-wireless-power-could-have-cellphone-users-beaming.html

The attenuation between source & car would cause too much loss.
At practical distances you would be lucky to get one billionth of the
power transmitted.

There has been one suggestion of electried roadways.
Only the main roads would be powered, and batteries would be used to
get the car from home to the main road. Much smaller batteries could then be used.

There are no cheap and easy solutions, there are solutions, some are easy some are not, none are cheap at the moment.They will be cheap in the future.
We tried cheap and easy and thats why we are in the sh!t.
Our grandkids are going to think we were stupid (and they would be right) we burned all the oil , gas and coal when we had alternatives like wind, solar, wave and geothermal and we didn't use them because dumb politicians and greedy corporations said "no".

Bazz,

It definitely would require apparatus embedded in main roads.

I'm not at all sure how practical this is for cars as opposed to cell phones or notebooks.

Alanpoi

There may or may not be cheap and easy solutions. But if this research holds up I'm pretty sure it will be tried.

Who knows? If all else fails spraying sulphates into the atmosphere may be our "safety net."

There is no way this could be used. Even for mobile phones it will have
dreadful inefficiency.
Probably over one metre the loss would be 100s of db.
You would put in 500 watts and get one watt at one metre;
Ha while I was writing this BBC World TV just had an item about it !

What a co-incidence. From what I read elsewhere they use a frequency
at 10 Mhz. It won't be exactly 10 Mhz because there is a standard
frequency transmission there. There is a scientific & industrial
frequency around 10 Mhz. However it is illegal to transmit a
signal of that level so close to people.

It will simply be prohibited even if anyone made them.
As far as using them over many metres, you would need megawatt
transmitters, its crazy, are you sure its not April the first
somewhere such as the Chinese calander ?