Obama May Block Sun's Rays to End Global Warming

[hiding behind a poster]

Would it be too simple to plant REAL trees??

I suppose with real trees it would take years before they were "operating at capacity" in terms of inhaling CO2, whereas you could ready-make them to be going at full pelt from day one.

[collinsite81]

Do you actually read or just let the chip on your shoulder form opinions for you?

Obama isn't going to experiment with the planet. The American Meteorological Society and National Academy of Science think it has some merit. Are you suggesting that geoengineering shouldn't be looked at?

The idea is to look at means of last resort - like a program for intercepting incoming meteoroids. It isn't going to happen next week, and it won't ever happen unless things have gone completely haywire down here. And even then it won't happen because no one provides money to look at averting global scale calamities. Except for F%*KING AMERICANS every now and again.

No, i've actually looked into global warming quite a bit and i know the climate models used by Gore in his scaremongering movie were selective with the truth. Weather prediction is one of the most inexact sciences out there. first it was a new ice age then it was global warming now it climate change.... and all within 30 years.

It's a political tool and nothing more. Read "The First Global Revolution" by the Club of Rome ISBN-13: 9780679738251, you can buy it online. I've looked at both sides of the argument and so should you. Oh and Al Gore is one of the leading members ! funny that.....

[silvernut]

I suppose with real trees it would take years before they were "operating at capacity" in terms of inhaling CO2, whereas you could ready-make them to be going at full pelt from day one.

Young trees use more carbon than mature ones. The carbon is used to make wood and leaves.

But planting more trees is not a viable solution as it doesn't lead to higher taxes.

[Timeisshort]

WASHINGTON — The president's new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air.

John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed.

One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.

"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table."

Holdren outlined several "tipping points" involving global warming that could be fast approaching.

Once such milestones are reached, such as complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, it increases chances of "really intolerable consequences," he said.

Twice in a half-hour interview, Holdren compared global warming to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."

At first, Holdren characterized the potential need to technologically tinker with the climate as just his personal view. However, he went on to say he has raised it in administration discussions.

Holdren, a 65-year-old physicist, is far from alone in taking geoengineering more seriously.

The National Academy of Science is making climate tinkering the subject of its first workshop in its new multidiscipline climate challenges program.

The British parliament has also discussed the idea.

The American Meteorological Society is crafting a policy statement on geoengineering that says "it is prudent to consider geoengineering's potential, to understand its limits and to avoid rash deployment."

Last week, Princeton scientist Robert Socolow told the National Academy that geoengineering should be an available option in case climate worsens dramatically.

But Holdren noted that shooting particles into the air — making an artificial volcano as one Nobel laureate has suggested — could have grave side effects and would not completely solve all the problems from soaring greenhouse gas emissions.

So such actions could not be taken lightly, he said.

Still, "we might get desperate enough to want to use it," he added.

Another geoengineering option he mentioned was the use of so-called artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide — the chief human-caused greenhouse gas — out of the air and store it.

At first that seemed prohibitively expensive, but a re-examination of the approach shows it might be less costly, he said.

[source]

"Geoengineering" Were already there. !! Look up some time.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7be0eE__yxs]YouTube - Chemtrails over Dublin, Ireland, 2007.[/ame]

[EarlyBird]

Are you suggesting that geoengineering shouldn't be looked at?

Of course not. It is a fuc*ing crazy, insane idea to "solve" a contrived, fictional problem.

[Gimpanzee]

No, i've actually looked into global warming quite a bit and i know the climate models used by Gore in his scaremongering movie were selective with the truth. Weather prediction is one of the most inexact sciences out there. first it was a new ice age then it was global warming now it climate change.... and all within 30 years.

It's a political tool and nothing more. Read "The First Global Revolution" by the Club of Rome ISBN-13: 9780679738251, you can buy it online. I've looked at both sides of the argument and so should you. Oh and Al Gore is one of the leading members ! funny that.....

You read a book, good man. I have a rule, anyone who mentions Al Gore in relation to climate change hasn't a notion what they are talking about, regardless what side they are on.

Next in line are the ones who trot out the 'they promised us an ice-age and now its global warming' brigade. Again, its like a label that says you are a complete gullible greenhorn that read a popular science book/the telegraph

Then there is an elite group, made up entirely of you, that asks "And what gives Obama the right to experiment on the planet? " in the context of someone suggesting we pump particles into the atmosphere to bring about a change. Which is a remarkable point of view, mainly because you seem certain that a program that hasn't yet got past brainstorming could produce serious consequences for the planet, yet a couple of hundred years of pumping stuff into the atmosphere by every industrial nation has had no effect.

[Gimpanzee]

Of course not. It is a fuc*ing crazy, insane idea to "solve" a contrived, fictional problem.

Sure it is. Its absolutely mental. But if things do start to get really messy, and we get to the point where it clearly isn't fictional, then what?

Do you think it is prudent to spend vast amounts of money watching the skies for objects that might collide with earth and planning on crazy ideas like pushing asteroids or nuking them?

[EarlyBird]

Sure it is. Its absolutely mental. But if things do start to get really messy, and we get to the point where it clearly isn't fictional, then what?

You should read what our wonderful altruistic friends at the CFR (of which Obama is a member) have been saying about Geoengineering..

Pdf here:
Geoengineering: Workshop on Unilateral Planetary Scale Geoengineering - Council on Foreign Relations

Geoengineering Strategies

Among all geoengineering schemes, those currently considered most feasible involve increasing the planetary albedo, that is, reflecting more sunlight back into space before it can be absorbed. There are a number of different methods that could be used to increase the planet’s reflectivity:

1. Add more small reflecting particles in the upper part of the atmosphere (the stratosphere which is located between 15 and 50 kilometers above the Earth’s surface).

2. Add more clouds in the lower part of the atmosphere (the troposphere)

3. Place various kinds of reflecting objects in space either near the earth or at a stable location between the earth and the sun.

4. Change large portions of the planet’s land cover from things that are dark (absorbing) such as trees to things that are light (reflecting) such as open snowcover or grasses.

Stratospheric Aerosols that might be engineered to migrate to particular regions (e.g. over the arctic) or to rise above the stratospher (so as not to interfere in stratospheric chemistry).

Adding more of the right kind of fine particles to the stratosphere can increase the amount of sunlight that is reflected back into space.

Applied to geoengineering, various technologies could be used to loft particles into the stratosphere, such as naval guns, rockets, hot air balloons or blimps, or a fleet of highflying aircraft. Potential types of particles for injection include sulfur dioxide, aluminum oxide dust or even designer self-levitating aerosols. [COLOR="Red"](Nano tech particles?)[/COLOR]

Do you think it is prudent to spend vast amounts of money watching the skies for objects that might collide with earth and planning on crazy ideas like pushing asteroids or nuking them?

No, an asteroid is the least of our worries..

[feargach]

3. Place various kinds of reflecting objects in space either near the earth or at a stable location between the earth and the sun.

Looks like the least bad suggestion on that list. If it doesn't work, we can just dump the idea.

Filling the atmosphere with particles? Christ no.

[collinsite81]

You read a book, good man. I have a rule, anyone who mentions Al Gore in relation to climate change hasn't a notion what they are talking about, regardless what side they are on.

Next in line are the ones who trot out the 'they promised us an ice-age and now its global warming' brigade. Again, its like a label that says you are a complete gullible greenhorn that read a popular science book/the telegraph

Then there is an elite group, made up entirely of you, that asks "And what gives Obama the right to experiment on the planet? " in the context of someone suggesting we pump particles into the atmosphere to bring about a change. Which is a remarkable point of view, mainly because you seem certain that a program that hasn't yet got past brainstorming could produce serious consequences for the planet, yet a couple of hundred years of pumping stuff into the atmosphere by every industrial nation has had no effect.

Hang on there a second.... popular science book? it's a paper put out by one of the most influential think tanks in the world The Club of Rome . The US and European powers listen to and use it's recommendations, also they work with the UN, so i would say they are a massive influence on a great number of things that affect our lives.

I never suggested there wasn't a danger of damaging the planet by pumping "stuff" into the atmosphere but i did however ask if was right to be manipulated by men in power. if the brainstorming leads to action and it goes wrong will we pay for it??? YES

And try not to be so patronising next time, you are the one called GIMPanzee after all.....