Fighting global warming with pollution

In summary, CFCs are not the primary problem, other gases like CO2 and methane hold onto heat, and if we reduce pollution it may be a safer option than we think.
  • #1
corra
22
0
a thought occurred to me, it may be dangerous and completely idiot that's why i choose to run it past you folks.

late last century we had the ozone hole scare, CFC gasses/compounds were removing our precious ozone and skin cancer were a danger wherever it traveled.

but.. with the buildup of ozone gasses causing global warming now could that not be held in check by using CFC compounds to dillute the atmosphere and letting enough sunlight escape to keep global warming in check?

it seems to me we have the tools to regulate our planets heat levels.
CFC to cool.
Carbon to heat...

or is this way of base?
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #2
I'm sorry, a lot of what you said in your post did not make sense to me.

CFC's are not the primary problem, if you accept the anthropogenic version of current climate change.

In 1991 CFC's were though to contribute at most 17% to warming.

http://www.ciesin.org/docs/011-459/011-459.html

CO2 and methane hold onto heat, some sulfur-based compounds/particles reflect incoming sunlight. These are some of the really big players. CFC's are minor but powerful - at heating, not cooling.

On the other hand if you dumped enough CFC's into the atmosphere to have a big effect (heating) you would make the problem worse, not better. And you would possibly sterilize all life off the terrestrial surface with UV rays in the process. One reason cited for the reason there was no Pre-Cambrian terrestrial life is that UV killed anything not in the water way back then. UV doesn't penetrate water very far. Our current protective ozone layer came to be "strong" enough to block to UV later on.
 
  • #3
corra said:
late last century we had the ozone hole scare, CFC gasses/compounds were removing our precious ozone and skin cancer were a danger wherever it traveled.

Ozone depletion is still a possibility. CFCs catalyse the decomposition of Ozone. The CFCs aren't used up in the reaction. Therefor most of the CFCs we have put in the atmosphere are still there.

We have, of course, reduced the release of CFCs so hopefully the problem, if it existed in the first place, is under control.

corra said:
but.. with the buildup of ozone gasses causing global warming

I think you mean 'with the buildup of greenhouse gasses'.

corra said:
could that not be held in check by using CFC compounds to dillute the atmosphere and letting enough sunlight escape to keep global warming in check?

No. Even if CFCs were harmless we couldn't produce enough to dilute the atmosphere by any appreciable amount. Furthermore, CFCs are also a greenhouse gas, albeit a minor one.

Strangely enough there is one school of thought that particulates (ie. dust, smoke, salt crystals etc.) reflect enough sunlight to balance the warming caused by CO2 emissions. Meaning that the planet hasn't warmed as much as it should have based on the current CO2 levels. If this turns out to be true (and I'm not saying it is) then our cleanup efforts could actually cause the climate catastrophe we're trying to avoid.

In reality this just says to me that we don't yet know enough about the Earths atmospheric heat balance to be playing around with it. I'd say cautiously reduce pollution in all its forms without ridiculous expense.
 

Related to Fighting global warming with pollution

1. How can pollution help fight global warming?

Pollution, specifically certain types of air pollution like sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, can actually help fight global warming by blocking sunlight from reaching the Earth's surface and reflecting it back into space. This phenomenon is known as "global dimming" and can have a cooling effect on the planet.

2. Isn't pollution harmful to the environment? How can it be beneficial?

While pollution is undoubtedly harmful to the environment and human health, certain types of pollution can have unintended benefits in the fight against global warming. However, it is important to note that this is not a solution to the problem and reducing emissions of pollutants is still crucial for the long-term health of the planet.

3. Can pollution be a substitute for reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

No, pollution cannot be a substitute for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. While it may have a temporary cooling effect, it does not address the root cause of global warming and can have negative impacts on air quality and human health. It is important to focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions for a sustainable solution to global warming.

4. What are the potential drawbacks of using pollution to fight global warming?

The potential drawbacks of using pollution to fight global warming include negative impacts on air quality and human health, the risk of exacerbating other environmental issues, and the temporary nature of its cooling effect. Additionally, relying on pollution as a solution can distract from the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

5. How can we balance using pollution to fight global warming while also addressing its negative effects?

A balanced approach would involve reducing greenhouse gas emissions while also implementing measures to mitigate the negative effects of pollution. This can include investing in cleaner energy sources, implementing stricter regulations on emissions, and promoting sustainable practices. Additionally, investing in technologies that can capture and store carbon dioxide emissions can help offset the negative impacts of pollution. Ultimately, a comprehensive and multifaceted approach is needed to effectively address global warming.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
25
Views
7K
  • Earth Sciences
6
Replies
184
Views
44K
Replies
15
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
17
Views
8K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
99
Views
34K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
19
Views
6K
Back
Top