Volcanos Vs Global Warming

[Airbrush]

If the Yellowstone supervolcano were to erupt, it would be the end of the USA, but it would also be the end of global warming. So what I propose is NOT to set off a supervolcano intentionally, but find a smaller, "safe" volcano (or volcanos), that are far from populated areas, that can be encouraged to erupt just enough to bring a halt to global warming. This can be done by excavating a tunnel down the cone, using conventional bombs. The ejecta will block out some sunlight and cool the climate. Why have I never heard this idea?

Edited November 12, 2014 by Airbrush

[Ophiolite]

Why have I never heard this idea?

Because you spend insufficient time on those forums where such crazy ideas are commonplace.

 

 

So what I propose is NOT to set off a supervolcano intentionally, but find a smaller, "safe" volcano that can be encouraged to erupt just enough to bring a halt to global warming.

The impact of this eruption would be unpredictable and locally extreme. What we can predict is that in some areas there would be massive failure of crops with consequent deaths in the millions, etc.

 

 

This can be done by excavating a tunnel down the cone, using conventional bombs.

I don't understand what you mean by "tunnel down the cone". Do you mean tunnel down the cone (shape) of the volcano, or tunnel down to the core, or something else?

 

At any rate, conventional bombs will not provide a pathway for magma. They would be more effective at closing any existing pathways. Even if you were able to establish a pathway to the magma chamber the flow rate would be insignificant and the magma would quickly solidify, blocking the route.

 

A more practical approach, because it is controllable, is to introduce artificial particulates to the atmosphere, but even that has immense technical difficulties and uncertain outcomes. At least it is not impossible.

[Airbrush]

Then how about launching millions or billions of reflective-white, helium-filled ping pong balls, or big beach balls, or giant balloons hundreds of yards in diameter (like the Macy's parade balloons) with square-mile reflective sheets suspended between the balloons, that will stay in the upper atmosphere? I did see an article in "Astronomy" magazine that proposed sending massive numbers of sun screens into orbit.

 

What we need is a pause in global warming so we have time to develope alternative energy sources.

 

Buy why do you suppose that ANY volcano that can be caused to erupt in a sustained, predictable manner, will result in "massive crop failures with deaths in the millions"? Are there no volcanos that are far enough away, and the prevailing winds would not bring the ejecta near people and crops? Any country that could accomodate a constantly erupting volcano could be paid by all other nations for moving people and crops out of the way of the ejecta.

 

You are correct that explosives by themselves will not open a pathway for rocks, dust, and gasses. Then use some kind of tunneling machines that start at the top (I'm thinking of the traditional cone-shaped volcano) and tunnel down deep enough, with the final excavation done by explosives.

Because you spend insufficient time on those forums where such crazy ideas are commonplace.

 

So that means you already heard this crazy idea. Please provide me the link.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Airbrush

[Ophiolite]

Then how about launching millions or billions of reflective-white, helium-filled ping pong balls, or big beach balls, or giant balloons hundreds of yards in diameter (like the Macy's parade balloons) with square-mile reflective sheets suspended between the balloons, that will stay in the upper atmosphere? I did see an article in "Astronomy" magazine that proposed sending massive numbers of sun screens into orbit.

Might work. You would need to do a cost benefit analysis, including the energy required to construct and launch the balloons, and take into account the declining stocks of helium.

 

 

But why do you suppose that ANY volcano that can be caused to erupt in a sustained, predictable manner, will result in "massive crop failures with deaths in the millions"?

No volcano can be caused to erupt in a sustained predictable manner. That's pretty much an absolute. If you wish to assert otherwise you need to produce some serious citations. Good luck with that. The literature of vulcanology is awash with examples that contradict that notion.

Since the injection of particulates into the atmosphere will be uncontrolled, sporadic and random, and the worlds weather/climate system is complex and at times chaotic, we may reasonably anticipate that some parts of the world will experience extreme conditions (like the year without summer) that automatically lead to crop failure. Massive death tolls are a consequence of that.

 

Are there no volcanos that are far enough away, and the prevailing winds would not bring the ejecta near people and crops?

The issue is not the larger ejecta. The whole principle you are proposing is based upon placing particulates high in the atmosphere on a global basis. The only volcanoes far enough away not to cause a problem are on Io, but they fail to provide a solution.

 

 

You are correct that explosives by themselves will not open a pathway for rocks, dust, and gasses. Then use some kind of tunneling machines that start at the top (I'm thinking of the traditional cone-shaped volcano) and tunnel down deep enough, with the final excavation done by explosives.

My professional specialty is drilling holes in the ground. Your idea won't work. I've already explained that even if you completed the borehole it would quickly be blocked off.

 

So that means you already heard this crazy idea. Please provide me the link.

Multiple times, generally in connection with drilling into Yellowstone to "relieve the pressure". I don't bother to take a note of where I have seen crazy ideas. You could try searching for Yellowstone and Ophiolite (John Galt) on this, and other forums.

[Acme]

...

My professional specialty is drilling holes in the ground. Your idea won't work. I've already explained that even if you completed the borehole it would quickly be blocked off.

 

Multiple times, generally in connection with drilling into Yellowstone to "relieve the pressure". I don't bother to take a note of where I have seen crazy ideas. You could try searching for Yellowstone and Ophiolite (John Galt) on this, and other forums.

There is another possibility to chocking the hole, and that is precipitating a massive eruption due to the sudden release of pressure. I have been looking for a YouTube video on this effect since you first made the hole point to Airbrush but I can't seem to find it. Anyway, the video is of a lab experiment wherein a tall closed flask with some tree resin & acetone in the bottom is heated. While the flask remains closed the resin bubbles & boils, but then when the top is opened to a vacuum the resin flashes to vapor and uncontrollably erupts out the top. IIRC the experiment was particularly related to illustrating super-volcanoes if not Yellowstone itself. Duck & cover!

In any case, I agree drilling into a volcano is not going to have the result that Airbrush expects.

 

Edit: Found the video.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Acme

[Ophiolite]

I agree that there is possibility of what you describe, but I think this extremely unlikely. I base this view not on some detailed modelling, or high quality peer reviewed research, but on a qualitative gut feel arising from reasonably extensive knowledge of volcanic behaviour as revealed during eruptions and in the rock record. Either way, we seem agreed that attempting Airbrush's approach would end either in failure or disaster.

[Airbrush]

"Volcanos Defeating Global Warming" could only be possible after perhaps a few hundred or thousand years when humans develop technology to enable us to control a volcano. That will be MUCH too late to deal with our immediate crisis which must be dealt with during the next few decades, or face massive migrations of coastal populations to higher ground (and surfers would have bigger waves more often ).

 

If we had the luxury of time to develop methods to cool the Earth, I propose giant sun screens, miles in diameter, that are transported to an orbit around the Sun, closer than the orbit of Mercury. These would be positioned to cast LARGER shadows on Earth, to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching Earth. Would their shadows have a magnified effect, or would their shadows be no larger than if they were much closer to Earth in an orbit around the Sun (because the Sun's diameter is about 100 Earth diameters)?

 

Any ideas how to stop and reverse global warming in the near future? Irrigate deserts? Have a nuclear war that kills billions of people so human population returns to a sustainable size?

Edited November 14, 2014 by Airbrush

[StringJunky]

..."If we had the luxury of time to develop methods to cool the Earth, I propose giant sun screens, miles in diameter, that are transported to an orbit around the Sun, closer than the orbit of Mercury. These would be positioned to cast LARGER shadows on Earth, to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching Earth. Would their shadows have a magnified effect, or would their shadows be no larger than if they were much closer to Earth in an orbit around the Sun (because the Sun's diameter is about 100 Earth diameters)?

A space sunshade or sunshield is a parasol that diverts or otherwise reduces some of a star's rays, preventing them from hitting a planet and thereby reducing its insolation, which results in less heating of the planet.

 

A sunshade is of particular interest towards mitigating global warming through solar radiation management. Such shades could also be used to produce space solar power, acting as solar power satellites. Proposed shade designs include a single-piece shade and a shade made by a great number of small objects.[citation needed]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade