On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 10:34:58PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>Of course an 88 years old physicist specialised in electricity is *the*
>authority when it comes to climate science. Now all other 97% of climate
>scientists have to abandon everything they know about the issue.
>Related (since off topic as well): Lern something useful instead of
>wasting other peoples time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOjSp5_YiF0.
>And in this case the host is someone with proven competence in the
>field :)
>good luck,
>Tom

This article    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/    describes how the injection of perhaps a 250,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2) each year, high into the atmosphere (say, 50,000 feet) will result in a cooling effect that will neutralize the greenhouse heating caused by increased CO2.

This won't last forever, which is why this process will have to operate continually.  But any given dump will last a few years, so the process will be doable and efficient.  It would also be readily reversible:  Simply stop doing the injections if there is some unanticipated problem.

Note:  SO2 is, of course, classified as a "pollutant". Much larger quantities are already being released into the atmosphere by burning coal and oil, as well as volcanos.  The difference is that such existing releases are done in the lower 10,000 feet (except for some occasional very energetic volcanic eruptions), and that SO2 is quickly washed out of the atmosphere by clouds and rain.  SO2 released high in the atmosphere does not have a ready removal mechanism, except for very gradual mixing with lower atmosphere, a process which is well-known to scientists.

Please note:  I am not a "man-caused climate change believer". Nor do I believe that there is definitely not a problem.   I am aware that climate models run on very powerful computers, using extremely sophisticated mathematical models that are being continually improved.  I am open to the possibility that there may one day be an apparent problem, qualitatively.  But science doesn't know, quantitatively, what the size of the problem is.

One beauty of the solution presented above is that it could be started quickly, would be relatively cheap, with minimal risk.  The rate of injections could, and would, be modulated as new global temperature data become available.  This solution will, however, piss off the AGW (anthropogenic Global Warming) fanatics, if for no other reason that it will seem to them to be too easy.

        Jim Bell