Selective use of Global Dimming has been put forward as a possible solution?

Question

to Global Warming, since it is thought to have marked the effects for many years. This is due to the fact that a large part of the radiant heat being reflected back into space before it could hit the surface and warm the planet. However these ideas were rejected due to the fact that global dimming relies on particles and gases in the atmosphere which have a deleterious effect on human health, specifically the particles aggravate asthma and the gases can cause acid rain and contaminated water sources.

The jury for current effect of programs like the Kyoto Protocol and carbon offset scheme is still out, with many now saying that it is and will not be enough to halt current production levels, with countries like the US being told they may have to scale back GHG production by as much as 80% to have any hope of stemming the apparent tide, which many analysts are saying could plunge world economies in unimaginable recessions.

So my question is, knowing that there would be deleterious effects to human health and the environment would you encourage or support the advent and use of technologies that selectively employ the Global Dimming effect as a way to either buying more time to reduce atmospheric GHG loads or as an offset to Global Warming?

Please explain Why/Why Not?

Thanks.

Answer 1

It would be useful to plan an experiment to establish potential success, volumes of materials, what materials and perhaps evaluate risks. We would not like to find that we have waited too long to slow GW down, and have no proven alternative plan.

There is adequate evidence that a series of volcanoes could do the job, but  we really do not have a plan to get comparable results.

This is part of a fall back plan, if we can not make  emissions controls do the job, or if we can not agree to cut emissions enough, and soon enough. Now even having a fall back plan is an invitation to fail on plan number 1.

Let us understand that the consequences of a runaway GW would make us yearn for a backup plan. We might even find ourselves needing a supply of unburned fossil fuels to carry out a backup plan. Ironic, is that not?

There are definitely some risks in attempting to duplicate the services of a series of volcanoes. and there are risks involved in not doing so if we are unable to stop GW with only reducing emissions.

Based on observations that the oceans are taking in less CO2 as time goes on, we may indeed need to reduce CO2 emissions by 75 to 80 % just to bring atmospheric concentrations to a steady (not rising) state. The oceans can get rid of some volume of CO2, by Brownian motion. It was once thought that as atmospheric CO2 increases, the oceans will continually increase the amount of sequestration they preform. But now that we see  reduced disappearance we have to consider that we may have passed a limit to the rate the oceans can do the job. This could well mean that we have to cut burning by 75 to 80%.

Just think of what that means, converting our methods to use half as much fuel per unit of work, and cutting the amount of work we try to so in half as well. We could do that, but it would leave a lot of money floating around that we now use on fuel... how would we get rid of it?

But should we put a dimming plan into full scale ACTION  without first trying it with a near full halt to extraction and importing of fossil fuels?

I think that is failing to have a primary plan  just in case the backup plan does not work. We likely still need to control CO2 emissions.

Answer 2

Solar Power Socialism could  help with poverty  which contributes to Global Warming and put a stop to it as well. Solar Power could drain energy off from hot places  and use it up like The Dimming.

Answer 3

With China and India growing as much as they are, I am sure we will see the effects of global dimming. It is said that it is what caused the droughts in Ethiopia during the 80s. Could be interesting.

Answer 4

I'm already on record as favoring intervention (see the link).

Hitting the stratosphere with a bunch of aerosols both causes cooling and slams the brakes on CO2 accumulation; if you look at the Keeling curve around the eruption of Pinatubo, you can see that the CO2 level froze for about 2 years (probably because cooler water held more CO2).  I've read that there was also a global drought around the same time; I do not recall this and have no evidence of it.

The reason NOT to use dimming to offset warming is that it is a ready-made excuse to do nothing about warming.  But faced with a choice between that and 30,000 deaths from summer heat waves, I'll take the excuse.

Answer 5

it has already been put forward as a last ditch solution another problem with it is that one study has linked sulphide partials with low rain fall.

Answer 6

Global dimming is an untested as a method to reduce the impact of global warming.  Instead, I believe we should promote the massive weatherization of all residential and commercial buildings in the U.S. to high levels, thereby significantly reducing the energy requirements of users. We will gain far more efficiency in this manner than attempting to avert disaster using technologically dubious methods, and we could dramatically reduce our energy use such that solar panels or wind turbines might power all needs.  Moreover, we should all be clamoring for more efficient products and tell companies that we do not want "standby" modes built into our products.

Answer 7

Thetype of pollution that would be required to combat global warming via "global dimming" would result ina sharp rise in the level of deaths worldwide from resiratory diseases-which now kill an estimated 2-3 million people a year. Millions more would die.

For an idea tha tis not confirmed? Global dimming is probably a factor--but it isn't confirmed as yet.  The value of reducing CO2 emissions, however, IS proven. The jury is NOT  "out."