Comments on: Artificial Volcanoes

By: Overcoming Bias : Space Towers

Overcoming Bias : Space Towers — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:32:36 +0000

[...] it could be used for tourism, to reduce the cost of spaceflight, and for geoengineering, but those probably won’t cover its costs. I’m proud my culture seems able to do such [...]

By: Overcoming Bias : CO2 Warming Looks Real

Overcoming Bias : CO2 Warming Looks Real — Sat, 30 May 2009 22:00:47 +0000

[...] looks far more likely to be feasible and acceptable [...]

By: Tim Tyler

Tim Tyler — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 20:02:00 +0000

artificial volcanoes appears to be the current leading scientific proposal

In what way is scattering precious sunlight into space supposedly "scientific" - when much of the planet is still a sterile, frozen, icy wasteland for 365 days a year?

By: Philip Goetz

Philip Goetz — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 19:41:00 +0000

Nuclear power.

By: frelkins

frelkins — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 17:32:00 +0000

The American Geophysical Union yesterday seriously considered artificial volcanoes. The proposal was countered by the idea of robot-driven ghost ships to fire sea salt into the air for a somewhat similar reflective effect.

But artificial volcanoes appears to be the current leading scientific proposal:

"Sulfur injection into the stratosphere is considered to be the leading candidate for geoengineering, since nature has done this many times via volcanic eruptions, and we have some idea of what to expect."

-- Wunder Blog

By: Ken Ray

Ken Ray — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 13:47:00 +0000

Not being an earth scientist and certainly having no detailed knowledge of the causes and effects of induced geological activity I am very wary of such a solution. I think there are several arguments against such an approach:
1. It is not permanent. As we geometrically increase our CO2 emissions, we would have to geometrically increase the volume of our induced geologic activity.
2. There is not way to know (as far as I know) whether the induced geologic activity will affect any particular part of the earth. It is therefore likely that such activity will adversely affect significant portions of the globe as has happened during major volcanic eruption events such as Krakatoa or Mount Saint Helens. (The only events which I am even passing familiar with).
3. The volume of such activity would be enormous, since even Krakatoa does not seem to have had any lasting effect. This in itself would significantly affect some portion of the globe chosen for this activity.
4. Other products of geologic activity, such as heavy metals, other particulates and steam would seem to have separate adverse effects that in turn would have to be mitigated.
5. As per Number 1 above, even the successful use of such a technology would not obviate the necessity to reduce carbon emissions in the long term. The argument that postponing the reduction of such emissions simply pushes the much larger cost and environmental impact off to the future where it will most likely be too large to handle. (If it is not already).
6. Messing with the earth in this way is like handling a ticking time bomb. The results, in terms of environmental and economic disruption, could be catastrophic and I have no confidence that they can be predicted. (This objection could be reduced or removed over time though.)
7. The ozone depletion angle is worrying. It may be minor compared to the effects of global warming, but other solutions are or may be available that do not exacerbate this problem. (I am also not sure that this would be minor given Number 1 above.)
8. Use of this “solution” would deflect us from the real solution, which is reduction of CO2 emissions.
I am sure that others would have better and more informed opinions, but just my two cents.

By: Charles Weber

Charles Weber — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 00:05:00 +0000

Increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is undoubtedly increasing climate warmth. However I suspect that an even greater affect on warmth is the baring of soil by increase in annual crop acreage, roads, buildings, grazing, and desertification. You may see an article that discusses this in more detail in http://charles_w.tripod.com/climate.html

By: Robin Hanson

Robin Hanson — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 07:55:00 +0000

See my added to the post.

By: superdonk

superdonk — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:30:00 +0000

I think SO2 cannons would be useful because it might give us more time to observe the effect of CO2 on the climate and will let us make a more informed adjustment. If climate sensitivity is high then we will have to fire them quickly and we will be not much worse off than if we hadn’t waited and ignored the SO2 option. However, if climate sensitivity is low then we will make a much better adjustment.

By: Michael Tobis

Michael Tobis — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:05:00 +0000

Regarding Tim's and Mitchell's point, this strikes me as no more sane than any other form of superstitious last days romanticism.

There are few if any singularities in nature. It is far more likely that we are reaching the inflection point on a sigmoid.

Regardless of the plausibility of such an outcome, it seems to me very much more responsible to presume the more modest one and risk being happily surprised than the other way around.

I don't actually relish the idea of your Singularity, though. I have no idea why you would want to encourage such a thing.