Geoengineering
- Started
- Last post
- 18 Responses
- reanimate
Prominent scientists now calling for experiments to test whether pumping sulfates into the atmosphere could safely counteract global warming,
- teh0
Haven't they already been doing this for the past 10+ years?
- GeorgesIV0
I thought global warming was called climate change now? Anyways, here are some quicklinks
http://www.theguardian.com/polit…
http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB1…
http://www.ksdk.com/news/article…
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/O…
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/O…
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/O…
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…
- GeorgesIV0
ooops dropped this one from last year,
http://www.popsci.com/science/ar…
dhttp://www.theguardian.com/envi...
- moldero0
I think its more about controlling weather than global warming.
- yurimon0
the problem is some of the spray contains chemicals that are not so good.
Also monsanto, I heard patented seeds to survive the conditions of the same chemicals they spraying that would kill normal plants.
- xpxhxoxexnxixx0
global warming> a circumstance which we have no idea about because we were'nt around a million years ago to start monitoring weather patterns. But lets assume its all true!
- 'assume'? the people who 'assume' anything are the same people who tend to be happy ignoring 'evidence'detritus
- reanimate0
"We have no idea about" isn't exactly true. People who study the issue (climatologists) agree that it's happening and caused by humans. The only question is how bad the impacts are going to be.
- if a climatologist tells you he can accurately predict what would happen with the weather around the world, slap himGeorgesIV
- we can barely predict the weather 3 days in advance and a "prominent scientist" wants to play god by seeding the clouds, when it has been repeatably proven to be unpredictableGeorgesIV
- when it has been repeatably proven to be unpredictable,GeorgesIV
- vs playing God by pumping massive amounts of fossil fuel into the atmosphere?reanimate
- xpxhxoxexnxixx0
the fact that we are on this earth and have been churning out toxic shit into every part of this planet for over 120 years shouldnt surprise anyone. Anyone in denial that it could affect the planet should just jump off a bridge.
The idea of climatologists is like people who study politics or some other tainted field. half of them are paid from some 'anti this or that' company on the back end.
Is the climate changing? sure, because we're still here. How much is it changing? We dont really have that much data to compare it to, other than years of our own toxic mess being around.
- reanimate0
I'm not saying it should be done without careful study, but pollution is already a form of "geoengineering" in a negative direction. Humans have been engineering their environment since the beginning of civilization. For instance Native Americans would burn large areas of forest to alter the kinds of plants and animals that lived there.
- GeorgesIV0
it's a big leap you're making there and I'm about to go to bed so I can't go into the details,
anyways, saying burning swath of land to aid the regrows isn't similar to seeding the clouds with aluminium or other untested chemicals,btw, this technic has been used for millenias because it promotes the growth of new plants, I believe you're confounding modern geoengineering to rural farming
..“There is no strong evidence that Indians purposely burned large areas....The presence of Indians did, however, undoubt- edly increase the frequency of fires above the low numbers caused by lightning.” As might be expected, Indian fire use had its greatest impact “in local areas near Indian habitations.”[10][11]
Generally, the American Indians burned parts of the ecosystems in which they lived to promote a diversity of habitats, especially increasing the "edge effect," which gave the Indians greater security and stability to their lives... >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat…
read the reasons for burning section, I'm not disagreeing with you, just that I rather not play god when we just don't know how it will end up,
on this note good night to yall :)
- You're right it's different, similar principle is all I meantreanimate
- I found this interesting
http://en.wikipedia.…reanimate
- reanimate0
Don't you see the slight contradiction though...you are suggesting we keep pumping fossil fuels in the atmosphere because the negative effects are not 100% known...but shouldn't look into seeding clouds because it's dangerous to alter the environment and it might have unintended consequences. Seems to me either way we are altering the environment.
- one volcanic explosion has the amount of all we burn in fossil fuels in a year.yurimon
- I would say the issue is more to do with deforestation as forests are the lungs of the earth..yurimon
- co2 is fine because trees can process it. however once you have less trees then its an issueyurimon
- Depends on the amount of CO2. The greenhouse effect is real though, you can see it on other planetsreanimate
- ZOOP0
"Antarctic ice cores show us that the concentration of CO2 was stable over the last millennium until the early 19th century. It then started to rise, and its concentration is now nearly 40% higher than it was before the industrial revolution (see Fig. 2). Other measurements (e.g. isotopic data) confirm that the increase must be due to emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel usage and deforestation. Measurements from older ice cores (discussed below) confirm that both the magnitude and rate of the recent increase are almost certainly unprecedented over the last 800,000 years." http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_…
The fastest large natural increase measured in older ice cores is around 20ppmv (parts per million by volume) in 1000 years (a rate seen during Earth’s emergence from the last ice age around 12,000 years ago). CO2 concentration increased by the same amount, 20ppmv, in the last 11 years! Methane (CH4), another important greenhouse gas, also shows a huge and unprecedented increase in concentration over the last two centuries. Its concentration is now much more than double its pre-industrial level.
- earth 4 billion years, you should check why they never go more than 10k yearsGeorgesIV
- seriously, it is ridiculous to only compare the levels from 1000 years ago when we should compare it to a longer time span to make it validGeorgesIV
- That's not 1000 years it's 800,000, you'll need to slow down and read again.ZOOP
- GeorgesIV0
@reanimate,
you make your whole point by implying I believe in AGW,
I don't, which doesn't mean I hate this planet or agree with our polluting of it,my point is C02 is one of the many gases that populate our atmosphere, methane for example is more nocive, C02 is extremely beneficial to plants, so by diminishing the amount of it, we are slowly shooting ourselves in the foot, because it will lead to less yield in crops, but I digress
now, do we need to get our shit together, Yes,
but I want to see corporation which are doing most of the polluting (shell, exxon, coca cola, apple, dell, etc the list is long) pay their share to fix this planet,you make a point that other planets are experiencing greenhouse effect too, but they are not experiencing it, because of our increase of c02 in their sky, they're doing it because of the sun, you know that thing in the sky that produces effects that we're only starting to understand,
it irks me everytime someone pulls a chart with some dots and says things like "look you see, this is the coldest year since 1980, so global warming" it's low level alarmism,
eg 1: See will rise and by 2100 shit will be cray cray, but these are computer mapped projections, there's no real way to understand such a complex ecosystem, we may experience the most severe drought by 2100 nobody knows http://thinkprogress.org/climate…
eg 2: this one is good though, the icebreaker sent to study the melting of the antartica gets stuck in the ice, and all the other icebreakers sent to his rescue gets stuck too, you can't imagine how much diesel which was released into the air http://rt.com/news/rescue-icebre…
eg 3: you know why they're saying the polar vortex is the worst since 1980, because years before that, we went through a brutal winter and "climate expert believe we would be in a ice age now"
watch it, it's hilarious and so similar to the message their spewing todaycan't we honestly stop with the fear porn already because I swear in 20 years we will be back to saying we're entering a new ice age caused by cow farts
- GeorgesIV0
btw: be affffffraid the big bad ice age is coming,
just go through the extensive list at the bottom and don't forget to watch the video above,
- reanimate0
Well the greenhouse effect by definition is because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They trap the heat from the sun and keep it from leaving the planet, which creates a warmer atmosphere.
So yes pumping too much fossil fuels (not just CO2) into the atmosphere definitely produces this effect...scientists have known about this since the 1800s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gre…
Anyway I didn't really want to debate global warming. But I do think it's strange that people doubt scientists so much, but don't question why the same corporations you mentioned are spending billions of dollars trying to make people doubt the science.
Maybe it's just me but when it comes to conspiracies I see a much clearer motive on the side of the energy companies than there is on the side of the scientists...
- you say potato, i say p.... scientist aren't infallible, take 25min watch the doc I posted and re read your own wiki links :)GeorgesIV
- GeorgesIV0
I do not have biases, but gosh have i spent way too much time reading all I could get my hands on (except the peer review material which are ofter behind a paywall) from both side, and there's a lot more material pro then against,
it's fear porn mate, if you were born 50 years ago you will be fearing the global ice age because scientist say so, they were wrong then, what makes you think they're right now,
the ipcc is politics disguise as science and if you believe the same money isn't behind both camps, god, I've got some news for you.
btw: re.read your wiki links, you're mixing two things together, I'll paste it here so you can tell me where's the blatant fault in this paragraph
Strengthening of the greenhouse effect through human activities is known as the enhanced (or anthropogenic) greenhouse effect.[23] This increase in radiative forcing from human activity is attributable mainly to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.[24] According to the latest Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".[25]
CO2 is produced by fossil fuel burning and other activities such as cement production and tropical deforestation.[26] Measurements of CO2 from the Mauna Loa observatory show that concentrations have increased from about 313 ppm[27] in 1960 to about 389 ppm in 2010. It reached the 400ppm milestone on May 9, 2013.[28] The current observed amount of CO2 exceeds the geological record maxima (~300 ppm) from ice core data.[29] The effect of combustion-produced carbon dioxide on the global climate, a special case of the greenhouse effect first described in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius, has also been called the Callendar effect.
Over the past 800,000 years,[30] ice core data shows that carbon dioxide has varied from values as low as 180 parts per million (ppm) to the pre-industrial level of 270ppm.[31] Paleoclimatologists consider variations in carbon dioxide concentration to be a fundamental factor influencing climate variations over this time scale.[32]
- sorry, since I freelance I've way too much time on my hand :(GeorgesIV
- reanimate0
You might want to read this...the "global ice age" thing is basically a myth.
https://www.skepticalscience.com…
^ According to them anyway there was a grand total of 7 papers published during the 1970s that talked about this. It wasn't a widespread belief among scientists.
- "according to them"
let's agree to disagree,
read the comments there are some good arguments thereGeorgesIV
- "according to them"