• Shading Earth Could Combat Global Warming.
    78 replies, posted
Giant mirror in space? This is obviously going to come crashing back down to us at some point. I hope it's not where i live.
[QUOTE=Bomimo;37479418]Giant mirror in space? This is obviously going to come crashing back down to us at some point. I hope it's not where i live.[/QUOTE] If it were a sturdy glass mirror, fp is safe, I doubt the shards could pentrate to our basements
Why just a mirror of stratospheric particles? Why not a massive array of solar panels to harvest that precious unfiltered sunlight and generate plenty of clean energy? It'd supply us with power, AND help block out the sun, so we won't need to fight in the shade of the oil wells in the East.
Honestly this is a very bad idea in the long term. (Not referring to above post)
[QUOTE=FreakySoup;37477497]We don't know who struck first, us or them, but we do know it was us who blackened the skies.[/QUOTE] scortched the sky*
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;37477080]What are these particles in question.[/QUOTE] Asbestos! [img]http://niggaupload.com/images/bJzYA.jpg[/img]
When they say 'Affordable' I want to fucking go and shoot myself, if something IMPORTANT is needed for our continuation as a species THEN WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO USE PAPER AND CIRCULAR METALS TO DO IT.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTLMjHrb_w4&feature=related[/media]
This purely symptomatic treatment of global warming is both retarded and disgusting.
i'm not a scientist, not by a long shot and i'll most likely be flooded with enough boxes to actually build a new earth but why are we trying to stop global warming? isn't this a natural thing after an ice age? (bracing myself for boxes)
[QUOTE=_Maverick_;37481191]i'm not a scientist, not by a long shot and i'll most likely be flooded with enough boxes to actually build a new earth but why are we trying to stop global warming? isn't this a natural thing after an ice age? (bracing myself for boxes)[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png[/IMG] It's unlikely that that peak since the industrial revolution is natural. (the black line is fact, the rest is a reconstruction from a wide range of scientific publications)
[QUOTE=_Maverick_;37481191]i'm not a scientist, not by a long shot and i'll most likely be flooded with enough boxes to actually build a new earth but why are we trying to stop global warming? isn't this a natural thing after an ice age? (bracing myself for boxes)[/QUOTE] because in the process the oceans will flood, raise, and knock out a shitload of cities, create a very untsable ecosystem, and make it substantially more difficult for humans to survive on this planet. in addition, it might kill some wildlife or some shit that a bunch of tree huggers worry about. but mainly the first part.
[QUOTE=_Maverick_;37481191]i'm not a scientist, not by a long shot and i'll most likely be flooded with enough boxes to actually build a new earth but why are we trying to stop global warming? isn't this a natural thing after an ice age? (bracing myself for boxes)[/QUOTE] This is not your standard warm up, this is mankind driven it is warming too fast and too much. It is because of this major change we are starting to see more and more severe weather. If we continue down this path we could cause some serious problems, first of all a lot of flooding (as in cities disappearing beneath the ocean), more heat waves and drought which will cause further food shortages, increase of disease as warm climate pathogens move northward, etc.
[QUOTE=_Maverick_;37481191]i'm not a scientist, not by a long shot and i'll most likely be flooded with enough boxes to actually build a new earth but why are we trying to stop global warming? isn't this a natural thing after an ice age? (bracing myself for boxes)[/QUOTE] Because humans don't like change. Have you seen how they react when you remove a button from their OS interface?
[QUOTE=Polyethylene;37478911]Plant. More. Trees.[/QUOTE] Incorrect, produce more algae.
I think we shouldn't be actively trying to stop global warming; that's far too complex an operation and obviously any solution we come up with is going to have consequences we weren't expecting. I think we should just cut our air/heat/water/ground pollution as much as we can and let the planet settle back down into how it should be.
[QUOTE=_Maverick_;37481191]i'm not a scientist, not by a long shot and i'll most likely be flooded with enough boxes to actually build a new earth but why are we trying to stop global warming? isn't this a natural thing after an ice age? (bracing myself for boxes)[/QUOTE] The correct response would be a full-pager, but you're partially right. We're heading for a mini-warming, but since meassurements show an unreasonable increase in temperature compared to usual mini-coolings and warmings AND because an Ice-Age or Warming, where these temps would be usual, takes much longer time to have this effect, everything implies that it's human made. However not much supports the notion that it'll end all life on earth. THAT is crazy talk. It's been both way warmer and way colder with life surviving. There's also been way more CO^2 and way less oxygen and the other way around, with life prospering. So the totally extreme "we're all gon die" conclusion is pretty insane. We could lose some cities at water lines, we could face a restructuring of civilization on a global basis and if we're going to be as paranoid as we can, worst case civilization will collapse and anarchy will reign. But this planet isn't facing death if we stay reasonable when looking at the data. All that could die, would be us. And let's be honest. We could easily spare 90% of us, as we are so fucking many. None of us really wants to be the ones to go, though. [editline]1st September 2012[/editline] So we really have a reason to stop burning fossil fuels. But 'Merica doesn't fuck a give.
[QUOTE=Bomimo;37486784]However not much supports the notion that it'll end all life on earth. THAT is crazy talk. It's been both way warmer and way colder with life surviving. There's also been way more CO^2 and way less oxygen and the other way around, with life prospering. So the totally extreme "we're all gon die" conclusion is pretty insane.[/QUOTE] 2 problems with this: the first is that it's almost unheard of for temperatures to change this [I]quickly[/I]. animals take time to evolve, when you have a really sudden change in climate it leaves life little time to evolve, so you tend to get mass extinction events paired with large climatic shifts. the second is that human civilization was built with the background assumption that the climate would stay relatively how it has been for the past millenium or so, notwithstanding events like the little ice age and medieval warm period. we aren't prepared for this sort of thing. to those saying we should just cut pollution - even if by some miracle we all collectively agreed to slash emissions and pollution [I]tomorrow[/I], it would be too little, too late. a better solution is to cut emissions and do geoengineering. (by the way I really dislike that buzzword. it has this aura around it where you get the image of mad scientists putting doomsday weapons in space) [editline]31st August 2012[/editline] also I disagree about the part where you said it would be okay to kill over 5 billion people
Surely the answer is to reduce hydrocarbon fuel usage and replace it with lots of photovoltaic power stations in North Africa, Central America and the Middle East, and then also make more efficient use of nuclear power?
[QUOTE=CanadianBill;37476886]Why not this instead? [img]http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090629004815/en.futurama/images/thumb/7/74/GiantIceCube.jpg/570px-GiantIceCube.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Because we all know Haley's comet was completely drilled out of its ice! I mean, we needed a clean source of ice that didn't have bugs in it from somewhere.
[QUOTE=CanadianBill;37476886]Why not this instead? [img]http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090629004815/en.futurama/images/thumb/7/74/GiantIceCube.jpg/570px-GiantIceCube.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Why not these instead? [IMG]http://www.sindhcoal.gos.pk/images/RO-Plant.jpg[/IMG] Reverse osmosis plant, turns sea water into fresh water with affroidable costs.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;37486512]I think we shouldn't be actively trying to stop global warming; that's far too complex an operation and obviously any solution we come up with is going to have consequences we weren't expecting. I think we should just cut our air/heat/water/ground pollution as much as we can and let the planet settle back down into how it should be.[/QUOTE] Well, if we're being honest with ourselves, we CAN'T stop it; trying to stop a process like this is tantamount to stopping the tide from coming in. While we definitely appear to be accelerating the process, the gradual warming would have happened regardless of our existence on this planet. What we SHOULD be doing is coming up with ways to adapt our society to an inevitably warmer world and all the effects that will have, rather than wasting an immense amount of time and money trying to stop something that can never, ever be stopped. We can certainly work on slowing it down; I'm all in favor of reducing emissions as much as possible, but we really need to stop acting like this is something we can just put a halt to.
I also think that the idea that we should be fighting nature in order to preserve ourselves is silly. People researching ways to remove tsunamis because they damage our civilisation, etc. Just let the earth do what it wants and try to fit in where you can.
[QUOTE=Polyethylene;37478911]Plant. More. Trees.[/QUOTE] hurr [QUOTE]Estimates for the amount of carbon dioxide emitted from "anthropogenic sources" (sources due to man's activities) - this is mainly from fossil fuel burning - are around 22 billion tons per annum. The amount of carbon dioxide taken up and held by forest in biomass of the trees is variable, but a figure of 120 tonnes of carbon per hectare as suggested here has been taken for the basis of the following calculations. This is in line with the range of similar values for a number of species of forest tree here and of Brazilian forest here. 120 tonnes of carbon per hectare corresponds to 440 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per hectare of mature forest trees. Carbon - atomic mass = 12 Carbon dioxide - CO2 - molecular mass - 12 + 16 + 16 = 44 So a mature forest can soak up the equivalent of 440 tonnes of atmospheric carbon dioxide per hectare in the 50-100 years it takes to reach maturity - that's a one-off total - not per year and may take several decades to get there. In order to deal with currently generated carbon dioxide, an area of forest equivalent to: 22 billion tonnes divided by 440 tonnes per hectare - is needed = 50 Million hectares per annum or 500 000 square kilometres per annum ...to be planted with forest and held in perpetuity (not cut down or allowed to revert back to atmospheric carbon dioxide). This is approximately equivalent to the entire land area of Spain, twice as big as the United Kingdom and bigger than any US state other than Texas (696,621 sq km.) or Alaska (1,717,854 sq. km.) To be forested anew each year and held as such forever. Therefore planting trees alone other than on a colossal scale is not going to even allow us to stand still - let alone start to reverse the effects of global warming.[/QUOTE]
better get planting then
treehouses as the future standard house
Taming nature sounds like a bad idea. What if we end up fucking up our own genetic code because we threw everything out of whack. Humans are the next dodo birds I tell you what.
I read something about shading earth might dry out everything because a lot less clouds will form. Geo-engineering is dangerous because you can't calculate everything, hell we don't even manage to forecast the weather for tomorrow.
[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA[/URL] Watch this, it's all about the BS of spraying chemicals into our air to combat global warming.
[QUOTE=Kaihong;37481008][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTLMjHrb_w4&feature=related[/media][/QUOTE] I always hated the Matrix.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.