20 replies to this topic

[Shortpoet-GTD]

"Geoengineering techniques are highly controversial: while some climate scientists believe they
may prove a quick and relatively cheap way to slow global warming,
others fear that when conducted in the upper atmosphere, they could irrevocably alter rainfall patterns and interfere with the earth's climate.

Geoengineering is opposed by many environmentalists, who say the technology could undermine
efforts to reduce emissions, and by developing countries who fear it could be used as a weapon
or by rich countries to their advantage.

What is really worrying is that the same small group working on high-risk technologies that will geoengineer the planet is also trying to engineer the discussion around international rules and regulations. We cannot put the fox in charge of the chicken coop."
*Full article here:
http://www.guardian....ring?CMP=twt_gu

[iebo]

Wow, Bill Gates is looking older in that photo. I do support geo-engineering, because its something, and something needs to be done, which is less than what the governments are doing. Plus, the climate may have already  have passed its tipping point, and geo-engineering might be necessary anyways.

[still learning]

Whether to have a plan B or not have a plan B seems to be a major point of disagreement.

Right now plan A isn't working all that well.
Right now, chances don't look good that enough of the world will adopt plan A in time, enough reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to hold global warming to a reasonable amount.
Right now the reactionary proponents of business-as-usual have the influence to keep plan A from being adopted as fully as it needs to be.  Especially in the US, but in other countries too.

So, does having a relatively small effort in coming up with a plan B aid the reactionaries?  I doubt it.

I'd like to know the facts (if any) behind the statement in the article "believe they may prove a quick and relatively cheap way to slow global warming."  I saw a presentation a couple of years ago having to do with putting sulfate particles in the atmosphere to reflect sunlight, cutting global warming.  The estimate seemed pretty crude, a sort of "back of the envelope" calculation, but it wasn't cheap in dollars and the side effects, not dollar estimated, would be expensive too.

If more work on plan B shows it to be too expensive, seems like knowing that early on helps promote plan A.
If some plan B really does turn out to be inexpensive and the side effects are acceptable, seems like knowing that would be a good thing.
I've a notion that the "highly controversial" bit is a creation of the media.  Don't know for sure, but I imagine that those who want to research a plan B would prefer a successful adoption of plan A.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

I know there was a program on it (somewhere) where they had several solutions (?) to global warming.
Putting up satellites with large "solar" panels to reflect the suns rays back to the sun, planes with
chemicals in them to make more clouds, etc.
................trying to chase down the horse, after it escaped from the barn.

[artistry]

This would be all well and good , if these scientists and engineers were going to isolate this, in a lab. Or a place where they could test what they plan to do. Which may be impossible. But they have no idea of the effect that could happen, or how to undo something, if it worsens the climate  This is a bit risky to say the least. Very interesting, at least people are thinking, and trying to help.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Exactly. How do they know? They could make it worse by a long shot.

[Phil]

I think they are playing with fire.  All too often things go wrong without any hint before hand.  It is clear we really don't have enough science to know what we are doing.  Throwing more money down a rat hole doesn't do anybody any good, particularly with the economy in the shape it's in.

I think plan A is working, we are just in the "early adopter stage".  As pricing continues to come down, usage will continue to spread.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Phil, on 07 February 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

I think they are playing with fire.  All too often things go wrong without any hint before hand.  It is clear we really don't have enough science to know what we are doing.  

Like the folks that thought "Africanized" bees would solve the problems they were having at the time?
That didn't work out huh?

[jasserEnv]

There is a long history of people attempting to solve problems with a "quick fix" but given the complexities of climate change, it is dangerous to go down this route. It is hard to have as complex a laboratory as the natural world so ommissions will be made. That said, there are some reasonably effective strategies that could be applied that I would be happy with in the short term. The use of shades in space is a reasonable one as undoing/deactiviating it is the same activity as doing it in the first place. In contrast, putting materials into our oceans or our atmosphere is arrogant given the inability to control the long term effects. Of course, every effort we make to manage the problem without addressing the real problem of excessive consumption and use of unsustainable methods just means that we will be constantly searching new ways to buffer our abuse of the environment.

[inTHEsane]

Things like that worry me. If I knew 1OO% that going down that road and learning how to create these technologies as well as bioengineering, wasn't eventually going to be used for other more sinisters purposes then I'd fully support it. Also the room for human error and possible unknown side effects or damage we could cause even if only attempted to be used for good, is what also worries me about it. At the same time, what we are doing right now worries me the most, so at the very least some realistic brain storming in a public forum with all the top scientists is in order and long overdue.

[joeldgreat]

I think anything good used in the wrong purpose will always end up in jeopardy. The atomic energy use to kill people is difinetely the wrong purpose. Nueclear power used in generating electricity benifits millions of people. Then comes this geo-engineering stuff which aims to help our environment. If someone will use it for other purpose, then it will surely bring more evil than good.

[inTHEsane]

Yes but with nuclear power it has its bad effects as well. As we can see in Japan we keep building these things and more spots of the earth are going to become unlivable because of it. Not to mention so close to the ocean destroying more of the food supply. If terrorists get smarter I don't even want to imagine it. We need to stop going towards these massive solutions because they have massive risks. If we worked more on smaller things with little to no risk and just multiplied that and repeated it we would be better off. Having greedy parasites in control as the powers to be does not help any either.

[E3 wise]

I just have to wonder if these individuals used their money, time, personal names, and political capital to push for limits on green house gases or carbon tax , would that be a better solution.  I am also very dubious on one of the major contributors being the force behind tar sand, seems like a way to push an agenda while keeping things as usual and pushing tar sands.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Figuring out a better latch/lock for the barn door, once the horses have run off.................

[Hardison]

jasserEnv, on 12 February 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

Of course, every effort we make to manage the problem without addressing the real problem of excessive consumption and use of unsustainable methods just means that we will be constantly searching new ways to buffer our abuse of the environment.

I completely agree with this statement. We really could do a lot more damage with a plan B in many different ways including the idea that if the scientists can fix things then why do we really need to change our behavior.

[aphil]

Thanks for sharing this topic and article. The whole problem began with disrespect towards the environment; tampering with it, using resources in a damaging manner, not considering it in our daily affairs. The solution is absolutely not to tamper with it some more! The effort they are using for the engineering, needs to go towards protecting the environment and cleaning it up. The earth is already off cycle because of the severe damage to the ozone, forests, etc. and sending sulfur and whatever into the atmosphere could throw things off even more. Scientists are so enthralled with their experiments that they are forgetting people's lives are at stake and all the creations lives are at stake. Or, they just don't care! They absolutely should not be at the helm.

[Germs]

Personally i support geo-engineering, i think that the benefits far outweigh the potential negatives, but that is just my opinion.

[aphil]

Someone asked me, what is magnetic energy, from my reply to this post. Magnetic energy is produce using a magnetic generator, which can be built at home from supplies you get from the hardware store. Once it is set up, the magnetic pull of the magnets continually creates the motion and energy. So, this is why I say it is not dependent on if there is sun or wind; it is creating its own energy pull and source.

[still learning]

aphil, on 04 April 2012 - 01:01 AM, said:

Someone asked me, what is magnetic energy, from my reply to this post. Magnetic energy is source.....

I did on a different thread.

Regarding "magnetic energy"....

Baloney.  Tinfoil hat stuff.

Show me.
You're referring to a sort of perpetual motion variant.
You've apparently confused force and energy.

[Usty]

I think appling ht eworse case scenario can be done with almost anything. You can't knock this down by saying people could use this as a weapon of some sort, or it can be exploited by governments. Anything can be exploited. Why throw that idea out ot th ewolves, when it's better to keep into like that close?