Follow this blog:
RSS

Could putting sunscreen in the sky combat warming?

By | June 3, 2012, 8:47 AM PDT

Scientists are looking to the protective power of sunscreen to combat global warming.

Chemical engineer Peter Davidson is championing an idea to spray titanium dioxide, an ingredient in sunscreen, into the sky to reflect some of the sun’s rays back into space to cool Earth.

The plan is to carry the nontoxic chemical up to the stratosphere in high-altitude balloons and then spray the particles into the stratosphere.

National Geographic News reports:

“About three million tons of titanium dioxide—spread into a layer around a millionth of a millimeter thick—would be enough to offset the warming effects caused by a doubling of today’s atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, according to project leader and chemical engineer Peter Davidson.”

This is just another in a series of geoengineering projects scientists have come up with to combat global warming. But this one, Davidson say, has a good chance of working out right.

To show how this method might work, Davidson points to the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. When this volcano erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it sprayed millions of tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. The sulfur dioxide created a layer of sulfuric acid in the air “that reduced global temperatures by about a quarter of a degree Fahrenheit (half a degree Celsius) for two years,” National Geographic News reports.

Unlike sulfuric acid, which causes ozone depletion, titanium dioxide has no known harmful effects.

And the method devised for getting the titanium oxide up there, a balloon-dispersal system, is cheaper than previously thought up plans, which involved rockets or aircrafts.

“Project leader Davidson estimates that his balloon dispersal system would cost between U.S. $800 million and $950 million a year, plus $2 billion to $3 billion annually for the titanium dioxide,” National Geographic News says.

Of course, we still don’t know what effect any method of climate intervention will have on the planet. But Davidson doesn’t see his idea being deployed for at least a few decades so there’s no need to worry. In the meantime, it’s probably best to wear sunscreen on those hot days.

Sunscreen in the Sky? Reflective Particles May Combat Warming  [National Geographic News]

Photo via flickr/Michael Kirwan

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Amy Kraft

About Amy Kraft

Amy Kraft was a contributing editor for SmartPlanet in 2012.

Amy Kraft

Amy Kraft

Contributing Editor

Amy Kraft is a freelance writer based in New York. She has written for New Scientist and DNAinfo and has produced podcasts for Scientific American's 60-Second-Science. She holds degrees from CUNY Graduate School of Journalism and the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Follow her on Twitter.

Amy Kraft

Amy Kraft

Amy Kraft does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what she covers.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
33
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
-2 Votes
+ -
Chemtrail Geoengineering is taking place globally already...
You folks are Smart Planet must not look at the sky very often because millions of people all over the world are spotting CHEMTRAILS almost every day in the skies over their homes. Excellent books and documentary films backed by solid research have been out for years on this phenomenon, and there are literal "smoking guns" criss-crossing our skies almost every day, but you write as if nothing unusual is happening.

Want to see some pics of chemtrail geoengineering in action? Check out my Facebook Photo Albums or just google search "What In The World Are They Spraying?"

https://www.facebook.com/max.mogren/photos
Posted by Max_Mogren
3rd Jun
0 Votes
+ -
Hoax
Oh god, not another contrails theorist. That was proved a hoax years and years ago. Do some more research and stay away from the contrail tin-hat bunch. You may get a little red-faced, but just deal with it.....
Posted by Tinman57
4th Jun
+2 Votes
+ -
chemtrails? Really?
The so-called chemtrails are pollution, but not anything suspicious. When hot exhaust is thrown into cold air, a cloud forms from the water vapor. Hundreds of private and university atmospheric test projects around the world would detect anything unusual. Thousands of ground-based chemical testing projects around the world would detect something. Relax. Worry more about the pollution being sprayed out of jet tailpipes than about any world chemical mind control plot.
Posted by waltsyd
4th Jun
0 Votes
+ -
contrails
Mad Max is correct in that the pollution from jetplane exhaust is having a unintended ameliorative effect on CO2 climate warming as was observed during the 3 days grounding of the entire US commercial air fleet (and many around the world too due to disruption of international travel). As Wiki summarizes: During this period, an increase in diurnal temperature variation of over 1 ??C (1.8 ??F) was observed in some parts of the U.S.
The effect, called global dimming, is due to aerosol particles that directly reflect sunlight back to space, or act as nuclei that seed cloud formation. And in earlier times sulphur dioxide which reflects infrared back into space. All manner of industry, volcanoes and bushfires contribute to this but planes make a fairly big contribution due to their emission at such height.
Posted by rhodez
4th Jun
0 Votes
+ -
Mass Transport
However, one aircraft transporting hundreds of people from point A to Point B in a straight line will consume less fuel than if all those people had driven their vehicles, which would also be a lot more mileage traveled.
So do away with those evil aircraft and their evil contrails and what you have is more people driving more vehicles more miles spewing out a lot more pollution....
Posted by Tinman57
4th Jun
-2 Votes
+ -
Only making them richer.
From the people who sold you pointless carbon credits for a huge profit comes the next big global warming scam.

Since they cannot get the smart developed nations like China and India to pay for carbon credits they have a new scam for the gullible westerners.

How much you want to bet this guy is on Al Gores payroll.

How much do you want to bet a company owned by Gore gets the contract?

Just like the carbon offset scam.
Posted by Hates Idiots
4th Jun
+2 Votes
+ -
Effect on Solar Power?
What about all the people and corporations who have invested in solar panels? If a portion of the solar energy is being reflected back into space, then so are the cost savings they were assured of when they installed the panels. I guess air conditioners working a bit less offsets this, but only in places where the solar energy is being used for cooling.
Posted by frd1963
4th Jun
-1 Votes
+ -
Don't worry...
...I'm sure you'll get a tax credit to make up for any loss.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
4th Jun
+2 Votes
+ -
Hate Name-Callers
You lose crediblility when you sound like a crotchety old man on the porch yelling at the neighborhood kids on the lawn. Are you on board with all of the coal-fired power plants popping up around China? Do you actually dispute that things like that are bad for the planet?
Posted by LuluAZ
4th Jun
-1 Votes
+ -
So the solution to China...
...which expands it's coal-fired electrical grid by the size of Great Britain's every single year is to purposely deploy even more pollution?

Brilliant.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
4th Jun
+5 Votes
+ -
What happens to the titanium dioxide after it's sprayed?
I'm not remotely a scientist or engineer, but I wonder about the unintended effects of spraying a protective shield of titanium dioxide around the earth. I'm not keen on breathing or eating it.
Posted by ARzondzinska
4th Jun
+2 Votes
+ -
All too often...
...the remediation efforts of the do-gooders cause more damage than the original problem.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
4th Jun
0 Votes
+ -
You've got that right
the track record on these things is atrocious. There are so many instances of ecological disasters because of brilliant solutions to problems when we're convinced the ecosystem is incapable of dealing with things.
Posted by gitmo
4th Jun
+1 Vote
+ -
I'm thinking of a story I read a few weeks ago...
...about all the damage now being attributed to the chemical "dispersants" used in the wake of the Gulf oil spill. All too frequently in these scenarios, nature is far more effective and efficient and cleanup than people are, and deploys automatically.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
5th Jun
+2 Votes
+ -
long term effect
"titanium dioxide has *no known* harmful effects."

"no known" (yet?) is the key here. What about long term effects? What about reduced solar power (and all forms of life that depend on it)??

And even though it does prove to be unharmful, better get your math right and not spray too much TiO2, I'm not sure an ice age is a better alternative...
Posted by sethlegoauld
Updated - 4th Jun
0 Votes
+ -
Destroy mankind as we know it!
Easy to spray tons of material into the air, how will you remove it when you realize it is killing the earth and all those that inhabit it? Another cure that is worse than the disease. So how much is the cut these climate fear mongers will make?
Posted by pduffy211
4th Jun
0 Votes
+ -
Units conversion.
Someone at Nat Geographic needs to review their units conversion. With 180 degrees F between freezing and boiling and only 100 degrees C in the same range, it should read 1/2 degree F (1/4 degree C). Sloppy. What else is wrong?
Posted by zclayton3
4th Jun
0 Votes
+ -
Let's don't and say we didn't....
Oh, please don't. No one ever sees every contingency in endeavors like this and the fallout could be devastating. It's best we just leave well enough alone and try to fix it through less "quick fix" methods.
Posted by chaserblue
4th Jun
+2 Votes
+ -
Anthropogenic climate change has one cause.
Anthropogenic climate change has one cause - people in quantities that alter biolocial and climatic balances. It is also a self-limiting problem. We'll either learn to control our population and it's by-products and return natural balances similar to those experienced by our ancestors, or we'll continue on until the lack of balance creates a condition that limits or destroys our population. Spraying even relatively inert chemicals in the air even it worked perfectly, is only a temporary solution limited by the availability of the chemical and its related economics - and we still have not affected any resolution for the source of the problem. All farming activities that humans manage are necessarily managed such that the farmed species population is controlled at optimum densities for maximum efficiency and minimal risks - to prevent population collapses from disease, food and resource competition and related aggression. Why is it so hard for the same humans to understand that their own human populations are in no less need of management to maintain optimum population to resource ratios - as the species they farm?
Posted by dduggerbiocepts
Updated - 4th Jun
+2 Votes
+ -
Are you ready for the tough solutions dd?
For 40 years I have listened to a parade of people and charities tell me the people of Africa are starving. For over 60 years the developed western nations of the world have pumped massive amounts of food and cash in Africa and all we still hear is PEOPLE ARE STARVING.

Well if it is so bad there I ask you. How has the population gone from 200 million post WW II to over 1.2 billion in 2011?

Why do UN projections have the population of Africa exceeding Asia by 2030?

Why do UN projections have over 30 percent of the world population in Africa by 2030?

Would it be the best thing for the planet if the western nations stopped all of the food aid and allowed mother nature to clean up our mess in Africa?
Posted by Hates Idiots
4th Jun
+2 Votes
+ -
The ugly truth they dare not speak.
The population problem is easily solvable; stop subsidizing poverty. The problem is that we're not capable of stomaching the human tragedy that would soon ensue in the 3rd world. Plus, poverty has become an industry unto itself, with too many people and countries sustaining themselves under a permanent state of crisis.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
4th Jun
0 Votes
+ -
Um, that's redundant.
Anthropogenic climate change has one cause.

By definition.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 4th Jun
0 Votes
+ -
Good Points
The idea that the impact of the ever growing human population is having adverse effects on the enviroment is one that I can agree with. The problem with humans is that we rely on technology to fix problems that we cause by using technology.

I would certainly be nervous if a group of leaders decide to cull human population to a managable size. What criteria would be used to choose who lives and who dies?
Posted by sboverie
4th Jun
0 Votes
+ -
I would decide.
It's not at all a question about who lives and who dies. It's a question about not having more children than two for every couple. When You have had Your children then You will be sterilized. No one has the right to have more children at the expense of others. Taking normal deathrate, accidents and illnesses into account, the population will slowly decrease. There is no need to kill anyone, or decide who lives or who dies. That's just a populistic and provocative statement that some people use to create an antagonistic discussion.
Posted by Dukhalion
11th Jun
0 Votes
+ -
Population
Oh I do so agree with you on this. Our planet can SAFELY accommodate 2 billion people. We are now pushing 7 billion with projections of 12 billion in the next 20 years or so. Everyone in the free world chastised China for their population control method of 1 child per family, but China was smart enough to know that when people are tripping over each other and food supplies are short, it's time to do something about it. Until we get it in our heads that squirting out kids every year is the right thing to do, then our problems are going to get much much worse very quickly.
Posted by Tinman57
4th Jun
0 Votes
+ -
The Hoax that Won't Die!
Filter the sun! LOL! Welcome to the new Ice Age.
Posted by Bruce in San Jose
4th Jun
+1 Vote
+ -
Unpredictable Results
Man has meddled with the environment in many ways that were not as effective as predicted. Titanium dioxide might work but then it is hard to put it only where heat is too high and not in places where heat is normal. The poles are warming faster than the equatorial regions.

My guess that using titanium dioxide will work to a point and make a change that may not be beneficial. It is like importing cane frogs to deal with pests only to have the cane frogs become a greater pest.
Posted by sboverie
4th Jun
+1 Vote
+ -
Ocean Acidification
If this worked (and there are bound to be horrible unintended consequences that others highlight) then it may be able to control temperature of earth, however it would do nothing to stop Ocean Acidification that is destroying corral reefs and who know what other problems.
We often overlook the importance of the health of our Oceans and its bearing on life on land. Sylvia Earle has a great TED talk on this.
Posted by zeroco2
4th Jun
0 Votes
+ -
Sunscreen in the Sky
Seems like after crapping in your bed,
spray an anti-deodorant to overcome the resulting pong.
Posted by kwickset@...
4th Jun
0 Votes
+ -
titanium dioxide
would be enough to offset the warming effects caused by a doubling of today???s atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, according to project leader and chemical engineer Peter Davidson.???

But the CO2 levels have doubled with no published measurable effect on global temperature.

All we need is some vast global experiment producing the usual unintended consequences.
Posted by pauc1
8th Jun
0 Votes
+ -
CO2 has not doubled!
CO2 levels have not doubled yet. They've increased about 40% from pre-industrial levels, 280 ppmv - 395 ppmv. At current rates of emission it's estimated they will have doubled around the year 2070. So far temperatures have changed as expected with increased CO2.
Posted by riverat1
8th Jun
0 Votes
+ -
Carbon fibers
Why not make all cars out of carbon fibers created from CO2. The cars would be lighter and use less fuel, and they would be safer in traffic too. We would get more free oxygen.

I wonder how much CO2 there is locked in carbonated drinks worldwide.

And I think some large thin solarmirrors in space would be much safer. They could be deployed and removed depending on need, and they could all focus on solar powerstations on the moon, and sustain living quarters there.
Posted by Dukhalion
11th Jun
0 Votes
+ -
Good Points
The idea that the impact of the ever growing human population is having adverse effects on the enviroment is one that I can agree with. The problem with humans is that we rely on technology to fix problems that we cause by using technology.
Posted by babaluuu
17th Mar
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!