Hot Air On Hot Air: Can Technology Fix Global Warming?
Mad scientists vs. global warming
Can technology fix global warming? Scientists are starting to pitch some pretty far-out ideas, including these:
- PROPOSAL: Use a fleet of blimps to pour up to 4 million tons of sulfur dioxide, which reflects solar radiation, into the stratosphere each year.
REALITY CHECK: And you thought weather balloons messed with the ufo crowd. - PROPOSAL: Position 20 million tons of reflectors between Earth and the sun, 932,000 miles away.
REALITY CHECK: International Space Station—just 240 miles away—will cost more than $100 billion. - PROPOSAL: Cover oceans with white Styrofoam beads.
REALITY CHECK: Marine life and Styrofoam don't mix. - PROPOSAL: Put anti-gas drugs in cow feed to reduce burps laden with methane, a greenhouse gas 21 times more powerful than CO2.
REALITY CHECK: This is actually happening...in Scotland. - PROPOSAL: Launch fleet of solar-powered satellites that will transform sunlight into electric power to be delivered to Earth as microwaves or laser beams.
REALITY CHECK: Everything after "solar-powered satellites" sounds really scary. - PROPOSAL: Cover large swaths of desert with giant sheets of plastic to reflect sunlight back into space.
REALITY CHECK: Think Laura Palmer. - PROPOSAL: Send thousands of unmanned yachts to patrol globe and thicken marine clouds by whipping ocean with giant eggbeaters.
REALITY CHECK: Think Exxon Valdez. - PROPOSAL: Use large artillery to shoot sulfate into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight and allow Arctic ice to thicken.
REALITY CHECK: Beware the flight to Reykjavik. - PROPOSAL: Genetically engineer a creature that would metabolize carbon dioxide.
REALITY CHECK: They're called trees. - PROPOSAL: Seed oceans with iron to stimulate growth of phytoplankton, microscopic organisms that convert CO2 into organic matter.
REALITY CHECK: Being tested, but other micro-creatures would likely eat phytoplankton and emit carbon, neutralizing effect. - PROPOSAL: Inject diatomaceous earth, the chalky stuff in cat litter, into the stratosphere above Arctic Circle.
REALITY CHECK: World beholden to Jonny Cat lobby.
Page 1 of 1 
It's funny how global warming skeptics claim the science isn't advanced enough to pin it on human activity, but then embrace dramatic schemes like these, most of which will likely have many negative unforeseen consequences. Only four of these do anything to reduce greenhouse gases or limit emissions. The rest seek to either cut sunlight or increase reflectance, none of which would restore pre-industrial conditions. Let them go back to the drawing board. It's going to take many new ideas and technologies to fix this mess - and of course I mean strategies for conservation, green energy, restructuring society to use less energy, etc. There's no silver bullet and we'd better get started now.
Let's be realistic: if CO2 emissions stopped rising now, very significant global warming will still occur, with fairly severe environmental consequences. Given the unfortunately slim likelihood of humanity stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions, it's a matter of balancing the probable risks and benefits of the proposed solutions.
Keep in mind that the scientific community is not full of "global warming skeptics"; nothing could be further from the truth. Dismissing people genuinely interested in coming up with the best solution to the problem, scientific or otherwise, as "mad" is unworthy of the environmental movement.
As for the proposals above, very few have been taken remotely seriously. The main exceptions are those involving the release of particulates in the stratosphere to tune the Earth's albedo. The reason this idea is taken more seriously is because that's exactly what happens in a major volcanic eruption - and we have very good data on the extent of global cooling that follows for any given eruption. It's by no means a permanent solution, as particulates would need to be released every year without fail more or less indefinitely, but if you want Arctic ice for the polar bears, it's the best plan we currently have.
i will recommend a book that does not prophesy that certain new technologies or schemes will save us, but, in fact, the opposite: of how civilization is past its breaking point and the key is to reintegrate and respect our natural world rather than to further detach from it and impose our (human) will on a world that was functioning so well and harmoniously before we started converted so many things from life to death as commodities much beyond our actual (rather than perceived) need. The revolutionary thought of "Endgame: Problem of Civilization" by Derrick Jensen, also author of "A Language Older than Words" and a "Culture of Make Believe," is more than worth a look. I
for being such a serious issue affecting the very fabric of special existence your attempt at humor is either pretensious or a grade F colbert. Leave the satire to Steve and keep with sreious reporting.
Regarding proposal 5, the energy density of the microwave beams transmitted to earth is not sufficient to harm humans. NOT scary. By 2020 the efficiency of solar cells will approach 30% and covering .15% of the moons surface with these cells and transmitting the energy to earth via moon and earth based satellites would provide clean energy for 20 billion people.
One viable path out of the looming energy/climate crisis is geothermal (DIG A HOLE TO HERE IT'S HOT, POUR WATER DOWN IT & GET STEAM BACK) Then distribute electricity vis the current grid. The advantage is the big biz/gov retains control - they'll allow it to happen. The long term advantage to the individual is that it transitions to off grid tech better than the internal combustion engine, which is at the heart of why we can't let go of petro pollution - and why we continue to provide economic fuel to our enemies. The IC engine is the tech enemy.
Most of these proposals would not work anyway, but not for the reasons said/implied here. Because global warming is at this point self-sustaining, simply reflecting sunlight will not stop global warming; for example, the Antarctic ice cap will continue to melt because of water on top of the ice. The problem isn't a cheap, easy source of energy, either: this can be achieved through wind power, solar power, geothermal power, etc. No, what we need to do most is try to achieve pre-industrial proportions of gases in the atmosphere. Proposal 9 is actually one of the more realistic proposals; we can't plant more trees fast enough to combat g.w., but genetically engineering a creature that would reproduce more rapidly and metabolize more CO2 is a good plan.
Where did these ideas come from, the Creationism/Intelligent Design lobby?
I've only heard of number 1 actually making rounds in the news. And a discover magazine article (I think it was discover) ripped the solution to shreds.
The rest certainly don't surprise me people have thought them up, though.
If everyone did their small part, we could do A LOT in helping the problem. That's it. Why can't we do that?
How about a solar-powered car? No, you couldn't run day and night off of solar
power, but you COULD probably make it around town to do your errands in such a conveyance. Get four of those deep-cycle marine-type batteries, a golf cart, and a fiberglass shell of something reasonably car-shaped, set up the panels on that shell, install same
on golf cart chassis, put a license plate on it, a 'no freeways' restriction, and drive to Wal-mart in
that, instead? Low on charge? Park a while, drink coffee, and read your newspaper, in a pinch, run an extension
cord to someone's business for 5 bucks/hour, drive home, and plug the SOB in when you get there. =No gasoline car, fills the bill, does the job, doesn't give ANY money to OPECkers...
Only one way to fix global warming - establish a global carbon allocation by dividing green house gases by the global population. Any country whose citizens are pumping above the world average are levied and the money goes directly to countries where the population does not drive around in 5 tonne autos.
And the amount? $1 US dollar per carbon tonne for each rise of 0.01 degree Celsius from current temperature. If the skeptics are right, it won't cost anything once the sun spots are gone. But if the temperatire does rise - that SUV is could start costing some serious money
Cameron Scott sounds like he would be a
very good 'fair and balanced' commentator on FOX news. Ridicule is not a valid debate tactic. Dismissing out of hand scientists who are desperately working on a solution to the Number one problem facing Humanity, does no good at all. I strongly suggest to Mother Jones that they go back to their old professional standards of debating the pros and cons of any proposal factually, and to avoid this tactic of ridicule and flippant dismissal of ideas, which are the trademarks of the Right wing commentators who are trying hard to discredit the very idea of Global warming.
The best options and most
The best options and most feasible to solving our energy crisis is geothermal
We are providing all kinds
-
tagged as:
- result
We are providing all kinds of louis vuitton handbags, wallets and purses in ourgucci Online Store, all items of which have the most popular styles and are the newest and at discounted prices.
We also provide helpful shopping guide tips for you to choose and compare our bags and other accessories. Get your sale of replica handbags today and you will never be disappointed with it.
