blocking out the sun....Mr Burns all over.

[Beren Son Of Barahi]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/us-urges-scientists-to-block-out-sun/2007/01/28/1169919213362.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
THE US wants the world's scientists to develop technology to block sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming.

It says research into techniques such as giant mirrors in space or reflective dust pumped into the atmosphere would be "important insurance" against rising emissions, and has lobbied for such a strategy to be recommended by a UN report on climate change, the first part of which is due out on Friday).

The US has also attempted to steer the UN report, prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), away from conclusions that would support a new worldwide climate treaty based on binding targets to reduce emissions. It has demanded a draft of the report be changed to emphasise the benefits of voluntary agreements and to include criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol, which the US opposes.

The final report, written by experts from across the world, will underpin international negotiations to devise an emissions treaty to succeed Kyoto, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft of the report last year and invited to comment.

The US response says the idea of interfering with sunlight should be included in the summary for policymakers, the prominent chapter at the front of each panel report. It says: "Modifying solar radiance may be an important strategy if mitigation of emissions fails. Doing the R&D to estimate the consequences of applying such a strategy is important insurance that should be taken out. This is a very important possibility that should be considered."

Scientists have previously estimated that reflecting less than 1 per cent of sunlight back into space could compensate for the warming generated by all greenhouse gases emitted since the industrial revolution. Possible techniques include putting a giant screen into orbit, thousands of tiny, shiny balloons, or microscopic sulfate droplets pumped into the high atmosphere to mimic the cooling effects of a volcanic eruption. The IPCC draft said such ideas were "speculative, uncosted and with potential unknown side-effects".

The US submission complains the draft report is "Kyoto-centric" and it wants to include the work of economists who have reported "the degree to which the Kyoto framework is found wanting".

It also complains that overall "the report tends to overstate or focus on the negative effects of climate change". It also wants more emphasis on responsibilities of the developing world.

But Professor Stephen Schneider, a climate consultant to the US government for more than 30 years and a key figure in the panel process for more than a decade, says the world is "playing Russian roulette" with its future by responding too slowly to climate change.

The panel's draft report shows projections for average global temperature rise from 1990 to 2100 will expand slightly, with a new range of one to 6.3 degrees. The 2001 report's range was 1.4 to 5.8 degrees.

Professor Schneider said he was concerned the increase was more likely to be three degrees or higher, with a 10 per cent chance of a six-degree rise by the end of the century.

"Hell, we buy fire insurance based on a 1 per cent chance," he said. "If we're going to be risk averse … we cannot dismiss the possibility of potentially catastrophic outliers and that includes Greenland and West Antarctica [ice sheets breaking up], massive species extinctions, intensified hurricanes and all those things. "There's at least a 10 per cent chance of that. And that to me for a society is too high a risk … My value judgement when you're talking about planetary life support systems is that 10 per cent, my God, that's Russian roulette with a Luger."


what a great idea, instead of you know, doing something clever about the problems we face we could just block out the sun...when are these corrupt and blind people going to get the idea that the only way to solve these problems is to start deucing the amount of crud we spew out into the atmosphere...:wall:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

"Doing the R&D to estimate the consequences of applying such a strategy is important insurance that should be taken out. This is a very important possibility that should be considered.""

Sounds perfectly reasonable.

[Marshal Murat]

What about the Plants?
They need the photon's provided by the Sun to knock hydrogen and oxygen apart so they can convert ADP-ATP, and provide the extra oxygen to the world at large.

So are you against Oxygen?
How about orbiting biospheres since we seem to want to throw objects into orbit.

[Tuuvi]

You know whats funny in an episode of futurama they try to do the same thing :laugh4:
It seems like this whole global warming thing has gone completely out of control... I don't think I have seen any legitimite science on the issue, the scientists that support the global warming theory just say whatever the hell they feel like and people will believe them. Also where I live this winter has been a lot colder than usual, of course that doesn't disprove global warming but it makes be doubt it even more.

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

I don't think I have seen any legitimite science on the issue,

Perhaps you should look harder than watching out of your window to see it is sunny or snowing. Read some books, journals or perhaps the new UN report which was made with the help of 2600 qualified scientists with peer-reviewed publications.

Global warming should not be viewed in terms of politics. The liberals and the conservatives have made it their agenda. The liberals point to the scientists who say that humanity is increasing global warming and the conservatives refute everything and point to industry shills. Get over it and do something before you realise one day that you cant stop NY from becoming NY-underwater.

[Tuuvi]

I am not concerned with the politics of the issue, I just believe what makes sense to me. You do have a point, though, I haven't really actually studied up on it, which is something that I need to do.

[Beren Son Of Barahi]

The science of it is quite complex and in terms of weather patterns even more so, since increased temperatures in place means a shift in the normal weather patterns in others, in other words the weather moves from one place to another, i.e the rainstorms in the amazon that sustain the jungles might move north to mexico and texas thus killing off the jungle and changing things in a very dramatic way.

Alot of the counter science to global warming is funded by corporations with a vested interest in maintaining their pollution to maintain the bottom line. I would be very skeptical of anything that the governments of china, India, Russia, the us, and Australia say in this regard as they all depend on industries that are high makers of pollution to maintain and grow their economies. none of which have signed up to the Kyoto protocol, however imperfect it might be, it is better then nothing and does set a platform for the future.:balloon2:

i loved this bit too:

Possible techniques include putting a giant screen into orbit, thousands of tiny, shiny balloons, or microscopic sulfate droplets pumped into the high atmosphere to mimic the cooling effects of a volcanic eruption
We could just use those annoying nuclear bombs we have been saving for a rainy day....

[Samurai Waki]

The only way to stop global warming is to start nuclear winter! :end:

[doc_bean]

It seems like this whole global warming thing has gone completely out of control... I don't think I have seen any legitimite science on the issue, the scientists that support the global warming theory just say whatever the hell they feel like and people will believe them.

Errr...didn't you just say in another thread that you're failing high school ? I don't want to sound like an a***hole, but these scientist are people who studied the issue for years and years. Sure they don't all agree (I believe the IPCC even includes the 'not are fault' opinion in its reports, and not just as an afterthought), but that doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about. You on the other hand just admitted not having studied the subject, yet you believe your opinion should carry as much weight as theirs ?

[Fisherking]

Hay! Unfair Doc…this is the back room!

Why should he have to have the slightest idea of what he is talking about when hardly anyone else does.
:dizzy2:

[doc_bean]

Hay! Unfair Doc…this is the back room!

Why should he have to have the slightest idea of what he is talking about when hardly anyone else does.
:dizzy2:

We're usually discussing politics, morality and religion, not science. The three former subjects are open to interpretation and personal judgement, debating science requires at least a bit of understanding of the scientific method and the subject discussed (although the later also applies to other discussions of course).

EDIT: If he would have provided an argument other than 'I just don't believe in it' I would have perhaps taken him more seriously.

[The_Mark]

Also where I live this winter has been a lot colder than usual, of course that doesn't disprove global warming but it makes be doubt it even more.
Here's something that doesn't prove global warming but makes it much less doubtful: At the beginning of this January, here in Southern Finland, we had the mean temperatures some 20-30 degrees celcius above the average January temps.

To continue on the line of worst proofs of global warming... Even the Bush administration has admitted that the supporters of warming might have a hunch on something.


--I haven't really actually studied up on it, which is something that I need to do.
Please, do so.
---------------------

In reply to the first post, that the last-ditch efforts are what they claim to be - last-ditch efforts. The Danish (IIRC) scientist who originally made the statement of pumping sulphur up to the stratosphere to halt global warming intended them to be nothing else than an absolute last-ditch effort and a provocation. When a respescted scientist suggest that we should pump sulphur up into the stratosphere (y'know, the same stuff that, when combined with oxygen and water creates sulphuric acid, y'know, the big bad acid from all those hollywood movies) some heads *should* turn to attention.

Too bad the US government doesn't still seem to get it properly.

"the report tends to overstate or focus on the negative effects of climate change"
Gah.

[caravel]

Global Warming is occurring. There is almost no doubt about it. The big sticking point is whether mankind is causing it, through carbon emissions, or whether it's simply occurring naturally. I would say a bit of both. The people that deny this do have their heads in the sand. Air pollution is bad for many reasons, not just global warming. Until the civilised world gets over being a car ownership obsessed society, and stops blaming this problem on farting ants or farting cows, and starts accepting the mess we're making of the planet this is highly unlikely to change in any of our lifetimes.

[Andres]

No more sunlight is considered to be the solution?

Hmmm, I have an even better solution: let's bomb our planet with all the nuclear bombs available, because: no more live on earth = no more global warming problem.

Can I have my Master degree in science cum laude please? Oh, and the Noble price too.

:end: and these are the solutions offered?

:wall:

[KukriKhan]

Re: science discussions in the backroom:

I think were have 4 groups:

1) actual scientists (we have a few)
2) people with some science training, education and experience
3) people who understand some scientific terms and issues
4) people with little to no science training, education or experience.

IMO, all 4 groups have value in a science discussion here - at the very least, to act as a 'check' of one group to another. For example, a group 1 guy (scientist) might explain how our sun keeps burning, seemingly perpetually. That might get the group 1 guys, and some of the group 2 guys nodding in agreement, BUT if it fails to convince some of the group 3, or any of the group 4 guys, even though the data are correct scientifically, then maybe the explanation needs to be re-thought and re-worked.

So, let's not under-value the opinions or understandings of the group 4 guys; rather place them in their appropriate 'column' (Layman) and move the discussion forward. Sneering at the relative ignorance of the layman does little to advance the issues of science POLICY, which is the actual subject of most science topics here.

:sermon concludes: :bow:

[English assassin]

Wise words.

Speraking from category 2, can I make a category 4 point. Which is that what this apparently fatuous idea shows is that there are many people who will not do anything about global warming until they are paid to do so. Why did the oil companies, car manufacturers, and their bought and paid for politicians, deny man made climate change? Well, OK, some of them probably ARE evil so and sos, but for the most part I would guess its because they see the world changing around them (as it happens quite literaly), and they see, correctly, that their current business would not be as viable in the new climate (the puns just keep coming).

In THEORY, what then happens if all that capitalist energy then forces them to adopt a new business model. But in practice, that is naive. It is rather like expecting natural selection to save the dinosaurs after the meteor hits. Some things, in this case oil companies, are just too big and too specialised to be abloe to adapt to a radically different world. So their only option is to try to halt change, which they have been fairly successfully doing at a political level, if not, sadly, and the atmospheric chemistry level.

That being so, alas, part of the solutiion may be to help these bozos make the necessary migration. Does it stick in my throat that we have to help these so called visionary business leaders see what is right in their faces, and move their businesses accordingly? It does. If that is the price to stop the world burning, well, so be it.

So long as all this big expensive science garbage is part of that agenda (see, you can still make money: go and design a big space mirror) then it may be OK. And, although the ideas themselves seem mad (hmm, rather than a sci fi fix, why don't we just not break the planet in the first place) if it heralds a sense of responsibility for the entire global environment, and a recognition that we can and do affect it, then it is not wholly negative.

[KukriKhan]

Hello Mr. NailHead, meet Mr. Hammer, wielded by EA. It might seem unfair to put the onus of responsibility on the science "community" for explaining why and how global warming happens, and how FordMotor Company(for example) fits into that larger picture... but it is the only way to effect change IMO.

If we're asking business to change their M.O. -which we acknowledge will increase their costs - they have to be helped to understand the longer-range benefit (and maybe even profit) such change will bring about.

[doc_bean]

If we're asking business to change their M.O. -which we acknowledge will increase their costs - they have to be helped to understand the longer-range benefit (and maybe even profit) such change will bring about.

Part of the problem is that information moves slow, even in the information age. Most current CEO are pragmatic people who learned the ways of the world when they build their career. The question is whether those same ideas that made them so successful in the past still apply to the present ?

There's a wealth of information of (strategic) management, a lot of good stuff written by consultants I hate to admit, but unfortunately a lot of the people in charge are unfamiliar with some concepts, or are unwilling to apply them because, let's not forget, it's all about the stock holders wallets in the end, and they care far more about short term profit than long term benefits. THEY can always move their money to another firm when the current one goes the way of the dinosaurs.

Looking ahead and doing the environmentally sound thing can lead to profit. 3M saved millions reducing energy needs and minimizing waste. Toyota is possibly the most successful car manufacturer today and they make some of the most fuel efficient cars out there. I believe they're still the only ones with a hybrid engine on the market, which could make them very profitable if the EU keeps to its schedule of reducing particle emission from cars.

[Rameusb5]

Here's something fun:

The world climate was a LOT different 2000 years ago. Europe went through a mini ice-age during the middle ages.

Most of the stuff I've seen said about global warming is self-important BS that blames humanity alone for the world's changing climate.


Sorry, I don't buy it. I'm a flaming liberal in almost every other category, but I'm SO sick of the "global warming" buzzword. I'm totally against pollution, and I'm ALL for reducing emitions because I don't want to be breathing the crap that spews out of factories.

But I do NOT think the changing climate has a lot to do with mankind. There is NO actual evidence that the climate change in the last century (1 degree C) wouldn't have changed that way without humanity's influence.

Also, the idea of blocking out the sun has already been done in at least 2 sci-fi movies I can name:

The Matrix and
Highlander 2

I don't think putting even MORE crap in the atmosphere is the answer... :dizzy2:

[English assassin]

Toyota is possibly the most successful car manufacturer today and they make some of the most fuel efficient cars out there. I believe they're still the only ones with a hybrid engine on the market, which could make them very profitable if the EU keeps to its schedule of reducing particle emission from cars.

Interesting example. The Prius is not in fact more environmentally friendly than a good diesel, but look at the brand benefits it is bringing Toyota. When we are all buying cars than run on skimmed milk and tofu, whose name is still going to be right up there?

I suspect things may change pretty fast. I wouldn't buy shares in lastminute.com even now, because to my mind they are too vulnerable to a sudden shift in consumer sentiment against short haul weekend break type flights. The public is pretty fickle, and regardless of the science sentiment is building against too much polution.


Most of the stuff I've seen said about global warming is self-important BS that blames humanity alone for the world's changing climate.

Possibly most of the stuff you have seen is self important BS. If so the fault lies in what you have seen. With apologies to George Monbiot:

Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas? (Clue: consider the surface temparture of Venus)

Are levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide now way above pre-industrial levels in a way that can only have been caused by human activity?

Unless you can answer no to one of the above, you do have to accept man made global warming. The fine detail, we can debate.

[lancelot]

I love it when governments come up with ideas like these...lets not tackle the root of the problem, lets just skirt around it...then we can still dump toxins into the seas, earth and sky and continue on our merry way....hoorah!

The seas wont rise anymore but at least all these sucker joe publics will still have to breathe crappy air...and then the air will be so bad, we can sell them speical breathing masks to stop their lungs melting.

Did anyone also see the dumping reflective particles in the air idea?....did anyone else think- animatrix?