Salt Throwing into Atmosphere

Scientists have proposed throwing salt into the atmosphere to aid in stopping global warming. The salt will reflect sunlight back into outer space which help cool the earth. However, some scientists are against this idea because it relates to geoengineering which will change the environment but counteract global warming. This plan may not work because the amount of salt needed to complete this idea or the negative effects this would cause to the ozone layer or the stratosphere.

https://www.livescience.com/62140-can-salt-stop-climate-change.html

Comments

  1. AnonymousApril 6, 2018 at 9:14 AM

    Why would we waste salt on something like this. I mean if we want to cool the earth and help prevent global warming, why don't we just blow up volcanoes and let the ash and soot do the job. The entire idea of this is stupid. I mean maybe put some mirrors up there, that sounds a bit more realistic.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousApril 6, 2018 at 9:50 AM

    I think that this is not the best idea because they are not getting to the real main causes of global warming.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousApril 8, 2018 at 4:35 PM

      This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousApril 8, 2018 at 4:35 PM

      I agree that this is not the most intellegent or probable idea, but that main causes of global warming are exponential rates of carbon emissions in addition to air, water, and ground pollution in excessive and harmful amounts.

      Delete
  3. AnonymousApril 8, 2018 at 4:32 PM

    If mass amounts of salt were to be shot up into the troposphere like the articles indicates, would the salt continue to fall back down to the earth's surface due to the gravitational pull still present? Clouds, which produce precipitation, are also located within the troposphere, and therefore the gravitaitonal pull that will be applied to the salt would theoretically be that of percipitation. Salt is often used to help metls snow and ice, so if salt were to be shot in the troposphere from various climates and environments on the ground surface of the planet, would it not be cause for additional warming to arctic areas? From my analysis, this proposal seems to create stationary progress at most.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dual-fuel vehicles

A recent study shows that dual- fuel vehicles are benefiting the population but, turns out they are costing the environment. While substituting gasoline for ethanol gases, it causes an increase of ultra fine particle matter, with a 30% increase of atmospheric concentration. The problem is that they are less then 50 nanometers in diameter. The nano particles are also not track or regulated by the environmental agencies. We inhale these gases everyday, inhaling ethanol. The most practical way to reduce greenhouse gases is using electric, hybrid and biofuel care.   https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170828124546.htm
Read more

Acid Zone in Chesapeake Bay Found

     According to the University of Delaware, the Chesapeake Bay is becoming acidic as it has gone to 7.4 pH from an average of 8.2. The oxidation of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide may be the factor that is leading to the higher acidity levels in coastal oceans, but it can eventually lead to more of open oceans. Naturally the waters of the Chesapeake Bay have a regulatory system that holds back the increase of acidity levels in the area, and this works as the dissolving of living shells, non-living aragonite, and calcite minerals. Though nature has a path to keep the waters in the Chesapeake Bay, humans should take more care of our Earth as we have a role in polluting the water and rising the acidity levels in coastal oceans. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170828093737.htm
Read more