AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Latest Global Warming Fad?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
The fact that this makes the major news is amazing of itself. Space Ring Could Shade Earth and Stop Global Warming

Quote:A wild idea to combat global warming suggests creating an artificial ring of small particles or spacecrafts around Earth to shade the tropics and moderate climate extremes.

There would be side effects, proponents admit. An effective sunlight-scattering particle ring would illuminate our night sky as much as the full Moon, for example.

And the price tag would knock the socks off even a big-budget agency like NASA: $6 trillion to $200 trillion for the particle approach. Deploying tiny spacecraft would come at a relative bargain: a mere $500 billion tops.

But the idea, detailed today in the online version of the journal Acta Astronautica, illustrates that climate change can be battled with new technologies, according to one scientist not involved in the new work.

Anyone who looks at the proposed price tag will quickly realize that the odds of this actually happening are less than nonexistent. $6 trillion plus Dollars could definately be spent in other places far better.
I like the article, particularly
Quote:"Whatever the cost and regardless of whether there is any major risk due to global warming," Peiser said, "it would appear to me that such a space-based infrastructure will evolve sooner or later, thus forming additional stepping stones of our emerging migration towards outer space."
. Thanks, John.
If you consider the anticipated costs for a Space Elevator, which is somewhere around $14 Billion each, it makes far more sense in that than this form of wishful thinking.

And just imagine what we would do after spending all that money, it was proven that we were in the opening stages of the next ice age that is a sure thing soon?

Would the proposer of this scheme still be alive? Would be be able to reap revenge, and how would we be able to stretch it out so as to get the most of our "money's worth"?
If we keep lofting space junk into orbit, like we have been, eventually we will have the particle belt.

But is there really any global warming?

Even if there is, do we want to try to counteract it and let the world slip into another ice age?

Michael Crichton's latest novel, State of Fear, really takes serious issue with the entrenched global warming establishment, citing study after study which show that there is no global warming, and that all studies used as evidence for it by proponents are falsified or invalidated by their selectivity, not considering a wide enough range, etc. It is unusual to see a fiction novel with such extensive use of documents and footnotes.
Now that you know what Michael Crichton thinks about global warming establishment, you can read what they think about him.

RealClimate
Quote:Like the recent movie "The Day After Tomorrow", the novel addresses real scientific issues and controversies, but is similarly selective (and occasionally mistaken) about the basic science.

That is as far as I intend to go. Any one who thinks that the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" addresses real scientific issues, is not playing with a full deck, and I automatically discount them from the discussion.

Anyway, I am certain that the site does just about everything short of sticking voodoo dolls looking like Michael Crichton. Wink1 They really have no choice, as his critique has been not only negative, but calm and straight forward.
I agree with you that the best way to develop an objective opinion is to ignore one side of the argument S5

Agree on "The Day After Tomorrow", though. That was stupid. Hey, why don't you go ahead and tell them what you think.
shurochka Wrote:By the way:

Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates

I'll keep an eye on this theme. I am sure that John Cristy and Dr Fred Singer will have something to say on it in the coming week or two. While I will not argue that the world is indeed warming up, I still contend that man is not the real culprit. I will go with the sun on this one. And too, the evidence indicates that a warmer climate will have a net plus side effect on the environment and on Man.
John L Wrote:I still contend that man is not the real culprit. I will go with the sun on this one.
This is almost obvious, right? After all, it's only a small matter of disentangling natural climate variability, changes in solar irradiance and greenhouse forcing. BTW, have yo heard about Solar Dimming? If not, don't let it bother you.

Quote:And too, the evidence indicates that a warmer climate will have a net plus side effect on the environment and on Man.
I wonder who was calculating plusses and minuses. For example, if N. American agriculture improves while African droughts will get even worse than they currently are (as is projected), does it count as good outcome or bad?
Thanks, Shurochka. Overall, the article is a pleasure to read. And I've got an impression that his (political) position on the GW is closer to Crichton's than to, let's say, Kyoto advocates.
There is also something I didn't know and that is actually quite interesting:
Quote:In Scandinavia the continents are still rebounding from the ice age and local sea level is receding.
And the "Global Dimming" might give us a tool to control the CO2 driven GW? :?
That was, essentially, the idea of the Space Ring: to artificially dim the Sun.
What is this Space ring ? Never heard of.
See the first post in this thread.
Quote:I wonder who was calculating plusses and minuses. For example, if N. American agriculture improves while African droughts will get even worse than they currently are (as is projected), does it count as good outcome or bad?
Yea, people always try to interpret everything to their (perceived) advantage, aren't they? :lol: I think, however, that your example is irrelevant: The N.A. agriculture will improve and the African one will not irrespective of any climate warming, cooling, or anything in between. The droughts actually might turn out to be useful as a backprop for various political posturing.

Oh, I competely forgot about it. :oops:
I agree that agriculture could be more significantly affected by other (than climate) developments. Yet climate will make some contribution. Unless we properly assess this contribution (as well as other consequences), the claims to the effect that the warming will be net-net beneficial (or detrimental) are groundless.
There are a number of alternatives to the space ring - seeding the southern oceans with iron will cause plankton blooms which can help absorb huge amounts of CO2 - you can also use huge transparent sheets of Mylar in much the same way as the particles mentioned by John - much cheaper and easier to manage and move around during the seasons as the Earth's axis tilts during each summer. There are a whole bunch of ideas out there.

The simple fact is Global Warming is real. No dispute even among the most strident of the anti-Global warming nuts. The real disputes are just how much is natural and how much is man made. The answer is most likely in the middle. But if you have half a brain - you can't help but notice that there are more industrialized societies that cover the face of the Earth then ever before, more huge burnings and clearing of forests then ever before in the history of man and if that's not enough - the use of fossil fuels is at an all time high through out the world.

Maybe this might have just a little something to do with the warming we are seeing - just a little.
Murdok Wrote:There are a number of alternatives to the space ring - seeding the southern oceans with iron will cause plankton blooms which can help absorb huge amounts of CO2 - you can also use huge transparent sheets of Mylar in much the same way as the particles mentioned by John - much cheaper and easier to manage and move around during the seasons as the Earth's axis tilts during each summer. There are a whole bunch of ideas out there.

The problem here, though, is that if we're not sure of the mechanics, we run the risk of unintended consequences. As you note below, there is no agreement over whether the situations we observe are natural, man made, or a combination. If, as some people suggest, we're unbalancing things by accident, I fear we could _really_ screw things up by _intentional_ meddling.

Quote:The simple fact is Global Warming is real. No dispute even among the most strident of the anti-Global warming nuts. The real disputes are just how much is natural and how much is man made. The answer is most likely in the middle. But if you have half a brain - you can't help but notice that there are more industrialized societies that cover the face of the Earth then ever before, more huge burnings and clearing of forests then ever before in the history of man and if that's not enough - the use of fossil fuels is at an all time high through out the world.

Maybe this might have just a little something to do with the warming we are seeing - just a little.

I wish the situation were not political. There is far too much chaff in the air to draw reasonable conclusions. Both sides have strong financial and political interests.

Your point about fossil fuels is well taken, but it is also a fact that the earth has been through tropical and ice ages long before man was on the scene. One thing seems certain, though. If we _are_ affecting things with fossil fuels, it is self correcting. Peak oil pretty much guarantees that, doesn't it?

As for the clearing of forests, I dunno what to do about it. We keep getting more people. We can wish people would be smarter, but that won't happen. The only real way I see to fix it is to have some really draconian laws and enforcement in place. Will that be better or worse, though? In the end, I see no solution but expanding into space. Barring that, nature _has_ solutions to population issues, they're just ugly. If we get too far out, nature will kill a lot of us, or we'll kill one another. It _will_ self correct, but space exploration and colonization certainly seems better than the default solution....
Random question: Who is the avatar Stayne?