Hydrogen Bombing To Prevent Global Warming?

Climate change is one of the largest and most problematic environmental issues that could ever be addressed, with many scientists racing to be the first to introduce radical new theories that could well save the world. Global warming and how to prevent it is a popular topic with everybody these days, though not one easily resolved, unless of course you are a geo-engineer.

Geo-engineering is the deliberate modification of Earth's environment on a large scale "to suit human needs and promote habitability. In other words, tinkering with the planet to see if any theories may result in an actual working model of planetary preservation. Some of these theories are believable, some sound half-cracked, yet all will have to be addressed eventually regardless of the present, and future, state of climate change.

Geo-engineering is thought to be unethical and also highly aggressive and irresponsible because remedies that may be a permanent solution to the problem still don't address the actual issue. If a solution like H-bombing the planet out of its own orbit to distance itself from the sun can be done in 2050, cutting back on greenhouse emissions no longer seems to be so urgentwhich, of course, it is. The need to reduce the use of fossil fuels, cut back on greenhouse gases and stop wide-scale pollution is just as great even with back up band-aid methods. However, some scientists believe that more research and better funding for geo-engineering is a responsible path to follow. This is because, even though it is better to focus on the problems than fix the symptoms later, a coupling of the two, prevention and solution, could only benefit all and give the Earth a fair chance of survival.

Some of these geo-engineering theories are fairly surprising, and also expensive. Like launching dust and particles into the atmosphere to scatter the sun's light. Or spraying saltwater into low ocean clouds to promote further reflectivity. Will it be possible to add large amounts of iron to the sea, effectively fertilizing plankton that would absorb larger amounts of carbon dioxide? Would our children be happy for us to move their planet out of its own orbit? Dr. Caldeira of the Carnegie Institute of Global Ecology (Stanford University, California), calculates that it would take the energy of five thousand million, million H-bombs to move the Earth 1.5 million km out of its usual orbit. Did Edward Teller or any of his minions ever think that the bomb they built to destroy life might actually safeguard it? It's an interesting idea with many ethical and ecological hazards.

Scientists have also suggested launching millions of tiny mirrors into space to reflect the sun's light which would cut down on half of the doubling of carbon dioxide. With less sunlight, plants would absorb more carbon dioxide, use water more efficiently and as a result grow faster. But it's an expensive option, just like geo-sequestration, where CO2 is transformed into a liquid and pumped underground where it can be stored safely for years. The most economical and easily implemented solution is to simulate a volcanic winter by injecting sulfate particles into the stratosphere to block the sun. It would have to be done regularly every one to four years and would create the same cooling effect for the climate as a volcanic eruption.

Ironically, the thought of dumping iron into the ocean or indeed moving the planet itself stems from the fact that we have already negligently altered the planet and its eco-systems, with species extinction and large-scale pollutants. It seems like a nasty joke to rely on geo-engineering for the earth's future, knowing that if not for our poor mismanagement we would not need to implement these radical ideas at all.

http://www.wikipedia.org/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/

http://www.nytimes.com/