NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is some ideas out there and I mean out there to change the climate. I would say that more research needs to be done on the causes before we try and find a solution. I personally don't think we should be going to these extremes just yet.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/03/18/climate.technology.ap/index.html

"We are playing with fire here," Keith said." Now that is an understatement.

Build titanic engines on our planet so we can move ourselves to a more distant orbit.

:D

Here is some ideas out there and I mean out there to change the climate. I would say that more research needs to be done on the causes before we try and find a solution.
Yeah yeah talk talk talk talk talk, no action. til it's too late

Build titanic engines on our planet so we can move ourselves to a more distant orbit.

:D

Well, jeez. The radiation from the galatic core isn't going to reach us for another 20,000 years. Why act now?

Well, jeez. The radiation from the galatic core isn't going to reach us for another 20,000 years. Why act now?

So our childrens childrens childrens childrens childrens (continues for 5 hours)... childrens children may yet prosper.

So our childrens childrens childrens childrens childrens (continues for 5 hours)... childrens children may yet prosper.

Truely.

Truely.

Indeed.

Theory is fine. Future models and warnings about them is fine. General environmental awareness and conservation of our resources is an excellent idea whether one believes in global warming or not. But actively attempting to alter future climate to 'repair damage'? No thank you. I don't want people who can't accurately tell me what the weather is going to be like five days from now altering climate 30 years from now. Call me crazy. :p

While flipping through channels I happened to catch Glen Beck of MSNBC saying "blah blah blah....I would be the first guy to sell my SUV and drive a Prius if it helps...but it has not been established that...blah blah blah"

I smacked my head with my forearm and changed the channel.

Theory is fine. Future models and warnings about them is fine. General environmental awareness and conservation of our resources is an excellent idea whether one believes in global warming or not. But actively attempting to alter future climate to 'repair damage'? No thank you. I don't want people who can't accurately tell me what the weather is going to be like five days from now altering climate 30 years from now. Call me crazy. :p

im crazy too then. to think that we know enough to decide how to actively change the climate for the better is just hubris.

Theory is fine. Future models and warnings about them is fine. General environmental awareness and conservation of our resources is an excellent idea whether one believes in global warming or not. But actively attempting to alter future climate to 'repair damage'? No thank you. I don't want people who can't accurately tell me what the weather is going to be like five days from now altering climate 30 years from now. Call me crazy. :p

Determining an overall climate pattern is a hell of a lot easier than determining specific weather for one day, and weather prediction has become much more accurate every day. I know I've seen my local news being right about the weather every single day for the past ten months now, with a previous streak of three years, broken only by a single day where it rained when they said it was going to be partly cloudy.

That said, I don't think we should try altering the climate either, at least not with current methods. Maybe if/when we can control weather absolutely we can feel free to mess around with our climate(think about how useful that would be: if there's a raging forest fire somewhere near a town and you need to control it, just dial down the wind and order up some heavy rain. Piece of cake. And you can prevent most hurricanes and tornadoes and other devestating bits of weather from striking population centres.) but until then absolutely not.

im crazy too then. to think that we know enough to decide how to actively change the climate for the better is just hubris.They're comming to take us away, haha!

Actually, trying to change the earth's climate, especially to make it colder, is rather easy.


It's only hard when you don't want to release huge amounts of dust, ash, and/or radiation into the atmosphere.

Determining an overall climate pattern is a hell of a lot easier than determining specific weather for one day, and weather prediction has become much more accurate every day. I know I've seen my local news being right about the weather every single day for the past ten months now, with a previous streak of three years, broken only by a single day where it rained when they said it was going to be partly cloudy.

That said, I don't think we should try altering the climate either, at least not with current methods. Maybe if/when we can control weather absolutely we can feel free to mess around with our climate(think about how useful that would be: if there's a raging forest fire somewhere near a town and you need to control it, just dial down the wind and order up some heavy rain. Piece of cake. And you can prevent most hurricanes and tornadoes and other devestating bits of weather from striking population centres.) but until then absolutely not.


Well, here's the deal:

Changing Earth's climate is easy. Hell, Climate is in a constant state of change. Look at the models; the universal truth is that climate has always changed. Climate will continue to change. Assuming the science of climatology is to be believed, mankind has been altering climate for the last several thousand years. In the last hundred, the 'mankind effect' has increased considerably. We affect the climate and we aren't even trying!

I think the queston scientists need to ask is can climate be controlled? Personally, I don't trust in any attempts to try.

Well, here's the deal:

Changing Earth's climate is easy. Hell, Climate is in a constant state of change. Look at the models; the universal truth is that climate has always changed. Climate will continue to change. Assuming the science of climatology is to be believed, mankind has been altering climate for the last several thousand years. In the last hundred, the 'mankind effect' has increased considerably. We affect the climate and we aren't even trying!

I think the queston scientists need to ask is can climate be controlled? Personally, I don't trust in any attempts to try.

True, true. We're altering the climate inadvertently, but I was referring to deliberate attempts to change the climate. I too would be a little wary about trying to CONTROL the climate, as we have no idea what kind of power that truly is and who could be trusted with it...but I think considering the lives we could save, the environments we could preserve, and the overall benefit to our way of life it could hold, it's worth a shot. To do otherwise would be to live in fear of every little action that could cause us harm, and that is no way to live.

True, true. We're altering the climate inadvertently, but I was referring to deliberate attempts to change the climate. I too would be a little wary about trying to CONTROL the climate, as we have no idea what kind of power that truly is and who could be trusted with it...but I think considering the lives we could save, the environments we could preserve, and the overall benefit to our way of life it could hold, it's worth a shot. To do otherwise would be to live in fear of every little action that could cause us harm, and that is no way to live.

And I think that a total environmental awareness package; planting more trees, preserving the rain forests, conserving electricity, recycling materials and finding alternatives to lumber and gasoline are all we need to do. I think the constant shrieking about global warming is distracting us from actually doing anything about it.

And I think that a total environmental awareness package; planting more trees, preserving the rain forests, conserving electricity, recycling materials and finding alternatives to lumber and gasoline are all we need to do. I think the constant shrieking about global warming is distracting us from actually doing anything about it.

Certainly, certainly. All too often people bluster on about problems without realizing that the way they're trying to get their message across makes people refuse to listen. Hell, you know what I think global climate change advocates should do? They need to hire a few advertising companies to help them put together a message that people WILL listen to.

Or a spokesperson that doesn't make you want to gouge out your eyes and/or ears.

Pity I'm not famous. :p

Hey, you never know. You could enter the comedy scene and work your way up from there. You're certainly funny enough for it. The question is, do you have the charisma?

Certainly, certainly. All too often people bluster on about problems without realizing that the way they're trying to get their message across makes people refuse to listen. Hell, you know what I think global climate change advocates should do? They need to hire a few advertising companies to help them put together a message that people WILL listen to.

Or a spokesperson that doesn't make you want to gouge out your eyes and/or ears.

Pity I'm not famous. :p

Or a spokesperson that doesn't make you want to gouge out your eyes and/or ears.

Pity I'm not famous. :p
Even speaking as someone who voted for Gore way back, that is so made of win it's unbelievable. Yep, he's definitely part of the 'image' problem the whole issue suffers from. And as a result, all the back-and-forth bellyaching about "whether and why" to fix the problem is keeping us from doing the needed "what and how" until it's too late. As usual...:rolleyes:

Yep, he's definitely part of the 'image' problem the whole issue suffers from. And as a result, all the back-and-forth bellyaching about "whether and why" to fix the problem is keeping us from doing the needed "what and how" until it's too late. As usual...:rolleyes:

yes, the back and forth is al gore's fault. certainly not the result of paid liars and a compliant media that refuses to call them such...

Here is some ideas out there and I mean out there to change the climate. I would say that more research needs to be done on the causes before we try and find a solution. I personally don't think we should be going to these extremes just yet.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/03/18/climate.technology.ap/index.html

"We are playing with fire here," Keith said." Now that is an understatement.

Gore knows what he's doing. Don't worry, he can't possibly screw it up. Really!

And I think that a total environmental awareness package; planting more trees, preserving the rain forests, conserving electricity, recycling materials and finding alternatives to lumber and gasoline are all we need to do. I think the constant shrieking about global warming is distracting us from actually doing anything about it.

funny, it seems to me that this is exactly the position that has been consistently been put forward by the entire environmental movement for decades. and any of the counter-productive shrieking has not come from them at all, but from those with a vested short-term interest in not doing anything. in fact, they have done more than shriek, they have put up massive institutional roadblocks and called in the big guns to maintain the disastrous (for the rest of us) status quo.

Hey, you never know. You could enter the comedy scene and work your way up from there. You're certainly funny enough for it. The question is, do you have the charisma?

I think so. But then again, my opinion is rather biased. What I lack is the work ethic. :p

I personally don't think we should be going to these extremes just yet.

um, nobody thinks these are good ideas. except for noted nsg denialist llewdor, who is all in favor of blocking out the sun.

"These are costly projects of last resort -- in case Earth's citizens don't cut back fast enough on greenhouse gas emissions and the worst of the climate predictions appear not too far away."

""It's the lesser of two evils here (the other being doing nothing)," Wigley said."

"'It was meant to startle the policymakers,' said Crutzen, of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Chemistry. 'If they don't take action much more strongly than they have in the past, then in the end, we have to do experiments like this.'"

since you seem to agree with this assessment, i suggest you work to create policies that makes us all carbon negative, and right quick.

funny, it seems to me that this is exactly the position that has been consistently been put forward by the entire environmental movement for decades. and any of the counter-productive shrieking has not come from them at all, but from those with a vested short-term interest in not doing anything. in fact, they have done more than shriek, they have put up massive institutional roadblocks and called in the big guns to maintain the disastrous (for the rest of us) status quo.

Funny but I thought that 'Save The Rain Forest' was quite beginning to catch on. Certainly a lot more than 'Stop Global Warming' is. :p

ANd I'd like to point out the massive amount of good that saving the rain forest would do toward reducing carbon dioxide build-up. *nod*

ANd I'd like to point out the massive amount of good that saving the rain forest would do toward reducing carbon dioxide build-up. *nod*

yeah, it'd deal with about 10% of the annual anthropogenic emissions (assuming everything else stayed constant)

funny, it seems to me that this is exactly the position that has been consistently been put forward by the entire environmental movement for decades. and any of the counter-productive shrieking has not come from them at all, but from those with a vested short-term interest in not doing anything. in fact, they have done more than shriek, they have put up massive institutional roadblocks and called in the big guns to maintain the disastrous (for the rest of us) status quo.

Well, there are nuclear powerplant designs (fast breeders that don't use the current fuel cycle) that burn 90% of the uranium instead of less than 10%, and even burn nuclear waste, and are proven by test to eliminate the risk of meltdown, but Al Gore specifically wanted EBR 1 dismantled immediately because he hates nuclear power.

If we were generating our electricity using those, instead of coal-fired Phase I plants, and instead of the gas turbines that were pushed by both the Bush and Clinton Administrations, and instead of the oil fired plants, we would have drastically reduced our carbon output here in the US.

But we can't go nuclear on a wide scale, because environmentalists have a kneejerk hatred for it, and the oil and gas industry see it as a threat to their livelihood.

So we're fucked from both sides.

yeah, it'd deal with about 10% of the annual anthropogenic emissions (assuming everything else stayed constant)

Does that factor in the repleishment of some lost rain forest? DO you think that's a lot? It actually sounds like a lot to me. Just out of curiosity, where does that number come from?