A solution worse than the symptom?

[SteamWake]

Regardless of where you stand on the global warming debate this just seems like a bad bad idea.

Nathan Myhrvold also thinks that he has found a cheap and reliable way to solve global warming, which does not involve upending and perhaps destroying the world's economy.

The global warming solution proposed by Nathan Myhvold involves
running a hose up to the stratosphere with balloons and using that hose to pump out enough sulfur particles to dim the sun's heat just enough to counteract the effects of global warming.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ng.html?cat=15

[Skybird]

While he may be right in hinting at Volcanic activity having brought much higher ammounts of dust, ashes and sulphur into the atmosphere, the problem I have with it is that if the calculations prove to be wrong and adding to our porblems instead of redcuing them, the project nevertheless would be irreversible. that is a risk, as a matter of fact.

I would prefer to deflect solar energy by space-based installation, maybe huge fields of foil that eventually could even be used as solar energy collectors. Of course - the costs would be immense. But the costs of climate change will be immense anyway: either for adapting to it, or for dealing with the consequences that we allowed to catch us unprepared.

Originally Posted by Skybird

While he may be right in hinting at Volcanic activity having brought much higher ammounts of dust, ashes and sulphur into the atmosphere, the problem I have with it is that if the calculations prove to be wrong and adding to our porblems instead of redcuing them, the project nevertheless would be irreversible. that is a risk, as a matter of fact.

I would prefer to deflect solar energy by space-based installation, maybe huge fields of foil that eventually could even be used as solar energy collectors. Of course - the costs would be immense. But the costs of climate change will be immense anyway: either for adapting to it, or for dealing with the consequences that we allowed to catch us unprepared.

It is man that must adapt to nature, not the other way around.

[Skybird]

Sure, but we will not do it. with 42 years of age, I have become a pessimistic realist.

Also, things are runniong on autopilot already, driven by self-dynamics that a simple "back to the nature" will not chnage. We are doomed to try chnaging our behavior and adapting technologically at the same time. Technology must be our tool to speed up our evolution, or better: to compensate for the too slow speed of our biological adaptation. If we are lucky, we end with a teczhnology, in a far away future, that is in harmony and coexistence with nature.

But "back to nature", "back to the good ol' times" alone will not save us.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Sure, but we will not do it. with 42 years of age, I have become a pessimistic realist.

Also, things are runniong on autopilot already, driven by self-dynamics that a simple "back to the nature" will not chnage. We are doomed to try chnaging our behavior and adapting technologically at the same time. Technology must be our tool to speed up our evolution, or better: to compensate for the too slow speed of our biological adaptation. If we are lucky, we end with a teczhnology, in a far away future, that is in harmony and coexistence with nature.

But "back to nature", "back to the good ol' times" alone will not save us.

I've always been a pessimist.
"Expect the worst, and you'll never be disappointed".-(My father to me).

There is no returning to nature. We always have been, and always will be a part of nature, until extinction intervenes. Man is overconfident in his abilities.
Like any other animal, we have 2 choices. Adapt or Perish.

The simple reality is that we have over-populated and the "herd" will eventualy be kulled one way or the other. Global Warming has to stand in line behind the more pressing issues like Food, Clean Water, Clean Air, Energy Resourses.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

Global Warming has to stand in line behind the more pressing issues like Food, Clean Water, Clean Air, Energy Resourses.

All the latter are influenced by the first, or better by a intermittent variable: global warming changes the envrionemnt, and by that influences food, clean water, clean air, and probably also some energy source (fire wood for example). Though I do not say that global wamring is the only variable effecting thise things. As always, I say that the key issues are 1. overpopulation, and 2. too excessive living standards of people in the West. This is what stood at the beginning of the man-made share of global warming.

Originally Posted by Skybird

1. overpopulation,

This on is the key. When this problem is solved, voluntarily or involuntarily, everything else will begin the long and slow process of self-repair.

The earth was here long before man, man's technology and science, and it will be here long after man's extinction.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

This on is the key. When this problem is solved, voluntarily or involuntarily, everything else will begin the long and slow process of self-repair.

The earth was here long before man, man's technology and science, and it will be here long after man's extinction.

The second point - too excessive consummation of ressources, too excessive living standards in the West - also is key. Even if you delete all mankind outside Europe and North America, we still would be in a mess, in the long-term. We consume too much, and by that effect the environment more seriously than it could compensate for within timeframes that are of interest for human fate. The Western imgination of "living style" is totally unsuited to serve as a global model.

Originally Posted by Skybird

The second point - too excessive consummation of ressources, too excessive living standards in the West - also is key. Even if you delete all mankind outside Europe and North America, we still would be in a mess, in the long-term. We consume too much, and by that effect the environment more seriously than it could compensate for within timeframes that are of interest for human fate. The Western imgination of "living style" is totally unsuited to serve as a global model.

A glance at the amount of trash generated by one household can easily be used to illustrate your point.

It costs a-lot of money to make a-lot of trash. I've often found myself pondering the question: "How can anybody possibly afford to make so much trash?". For me it can be a truely mind boggling question.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

We consume too much, and by that effect the environment more seriously than it could compensate for within timeframes that are of interest for human fate. The Western imgination of "living style" is totally unsuited to serve as a global model.

Says the guy with the extensive ignore list who wastes vital world resources on computer gaming and forums...

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by August

Says the guy with the extensive ignore list who wastes vital world resources on computer gaming and forums...

...

Compared to what? The resources from computer gaming/forums/etc. are nothing compared to some SUV guy driving around a state w/a robust infrastructure. If you in a city in a warm climate, do you NEED a Hummer?

[August]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

...

Compared to what? The resources from computer gaming/forums/etc. are nothing compared to some SUV guy driving around a state w/a robust infrastructure. If you in a city in a warm climate, do you NEED a Hummer?

So you're trying to tell me that something is not a waste if there is something worse to compare it to? That's an interesting theory you got there.

The point is that when you argue that we consume too much or that our living standards are too high you had better be prepared to have to live with someone elses definition of what is "enough".

Now maybe I'm wrong but computer gaming has to be pretty high on the list of unnecessary things. At least your Hummer is useful as a means of transportation.

[CaptainHaplo]

Not the first time I have heard that theory espoused. Is it a bad idea? Today, yes - because its a distinct over-reaction to an unproven "problem" that has yet to be truly proven. Even were I to accept GW as real man made issue, the idea should not be used until other, more controllable and reversible means of solving the problem are attempted. Ultimately, as a near the end and we have little other choice, then ok we start looking at the more extreme things.

One thing I have as yet to see proposed, would be a reintroduction of the previous water canopy that once encased the earth. If we can do this idea with sulfer, we could do it with water vapor..... And water vapor would be helpful, not harmful. Plus it could easily be reveresed if needed - and we could use the water that gets added to the oceans when all the ice caps melt - preventing all that nasty flooding.

Oh wait - this idea makes too much sense and would ruin the livelihood of too many GW "scientists"...

Oh well....

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

And water vapor would be helpful, not harmful.

Extremely simplified. With regard to moisture having very tremendous effects to weather building and atmospheric energy regulation, that statement is negligent and almost dangerous.

[Rockin Robbins]

Lost in all this "climate change" talk is the fact that any climate change, whether to warmer or cooler will have many beneficial effects. Our doomsayers focus on the bad effects, because promoting disaster is the surest way to power. And the global warming, climate change movement is purely a front for socialist political opportunists. And, as usual, this movement seeks not to increase the power of the people, but only to promote power and privilege for a small oligarchy, just as conservatives often do also. This is not the exclusive tool of any family of politics, it is just a familiar aspect of politics in general.

Posit a "crisis." Make sure it is not testable. Make sure that whatever you do and whatever effect you may or may not have on it will redound to your credit. Frame it as "climate change" instead of "global warming" so either way it's a disaster than only you can handle. Require expensive and life-changing action to combat the "crisis" to increase individual investment in the world view that brings you to power. OH! And set up a ganster corporation to extort money from the richest corporations on the planet in exchange for allowing them to continue to contribute to the crisis. No crisis, no power you know.

The fact is that in recent (within the past 100,000 years) times, the earth has been both much cooler and much warmer than it is now. I live on beachfront property (from about 90,000 years ago) that the cooling of the earth and the development of lousy icecaps have deprived me of. My property value has suffered because of current climate conditions. We have had periods with no icecaps at all. We have had periods where the ice caps reached to mid-Europe and the middle midwest United States. There have been rates of climate change much higher than today's. Through all of that, life has prospered, as it will regardless of what happens to the climate. There is no crisis. Chicken Littles just need to go away.