Why don't we increase our smog to lower the Earth's temperature?

Question

If we built up a thick layer of smog that would help to block the sun's rays and cool the globe. Why isn't anyone proposing thick smog as a solution?

Answer 1

Strange as it may seem, this is something that has been proposed.

Prof Paul Crutzen is a chemist and recipient of the Nobel Prize, which was awarded to him for explaining the formation and depletion of the ozone layer. His idea is to create a layer of 'smog' in the stratosphere, several miles above the Earth's surface. To do this he proposes similating volcanoes.

When volcanoes erupt they inject huge quantities of sulphur dioxide into the atmsophere, this gas has a reflective property that reflects solar radiation (sunlight) back into space before it reaches Earth's surface. Following major volcanic eruptions the average global temp falls, most recently this happened in the wake of the Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991 when global temps fell by up to 0.6°C and took a few years to fully recover.

Prof Crutzen's proposal is to launch rockets laden with hydrogen sulphide into the stratosphere (or higher), this would then be burned in oxygen and the resulting sulphur dioxide released.

The proposal is in it's early stages and there are complications to overcome. Crutzen isn't proposing that we go ahead with his idea but that we test it out and make it available should climate change reach a more critical level.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

It was a built up of smog back in the middle of the 20th century that led to a fall in temps - known as global dimming.

The pollutants our factories, industries and houses released, actually blocked out the sunlight and paradoxically negated the effects of global warming.

The problem being that these pollutants are dangerous to humans's, causing, as they do, a variety of respiratory disorders. In London in 1952, weather conditions were such that they trapped the pollutants within a blanket of fog cloaking the city in a toxic cloud that claims the lives of thousands of people a day. This was the catalyst that led to the passing of the first of the Clean Air Acts, the rest of the world followed and by about 1970 the air had been cleared of much of the harmful pollutants. Ironically, the air was now safer to breathe but it meant global warming could return.

There are other schemes that have been proposed to combat global warming that don't involve deliberately polluting the atmosphere. These include ginat solar mirrors, solar sunshades and the removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere using natural and chemical processes.

Answer 2

Maybe because that would either increase warming, then global cooling, because after a while the layer would become so thick that it would block the sun, horrible for the environment, and in case you don't know, but smog kills and causes cancer, and this idea is just plain stupid!!!!

Also, Larry, it is clearly obvious that you don't know that a .7 degree Celsius is actually a large temperature change. You see .7 degree Celsius is equivalent to a 33.26 degree change in the earth’s average temperature! Maybe it is time you started doing more research and learn how to do math.

Answer 3

Aside from the toxic properties of smog?

Have you ever noticed that it is warmer on a cloudy winter's day than on a clear winter's day? That's because the cloud cover is trapping the heat - as would smog.

of course, that's only in the short term. Eventually yes, the earth would cool. But - have you heard of the concept called "nuclear winter"? The idea that, after a nuclear war, the debris blasted into the atmosphere would block solar radiation and global temperatures would plummet? A smog layer would probably have the same effect - and we'd probably initiate an ice age. A "nuclear winter" scenario is thought to have killed the dinosaurs after an asteroid strike blasted dust into the stratosphere. Your plan would have a similar effect!

Answer 4

Would you be willing to breathe all that nasty stuff in? That would be disastrous to the environment. I would think the amount of smog required to cool the earth would be absolutely enormous. Plants would die off from the lack of light which is required to photosynthesize and then everything else will all the way up the food chain. Seems counterproductive to me...

Answer 5

It is a trade off for what is a bigger problem. If global warming is as big a problem as people like Al Gore would have you believe, then the smog might be worth it. It would certainly reduce the planets temperature, like volcanic ash does.

Personally, I do not think Global warming is a big enough problem to warrant that kind of action.

Answer 6

Hmm.. wasn't aware of that. How do you turn an aerial banner into an air filter? That would be a sweet way, and wouldn't need to change the plane using it one bit.

Answer 7

Why would we want to pollute our atmosphere to correct a measly .7ºC temperature change? If we wanted to reflect sunlight, it would make more sense to increase cloud cover. I don't believe we are at such a drastic point that we should start trying to change our environment. If I have a vote, I say we wait to see what happens and confirm that there is not a natural explanation to our .7ºC increase.

Answer 8

Cough Cough Cough.

That'd be even worse than a temperature increase.

Answer 9

you would do this at the great risk of endangering the health and lives of people, as well as plants and animals..