Scientists Think Giant trees & Fying Saucers Might Be The Answer To Climate Control

funny how people can propose anything without being laughed out of the room as loig as it's supposed to cure global warming.

can't you see that these 'plans' are exactly the kind of grandeur-driven, deluded, centralized, one dimensional plans that got us into a world where refridgerators are planted into heated rooms (contemplate that for a second), where hybrids are two cars in one chassis (one electric, one with classic, mechanic transimssion), where biofuels are grown on formerly forested land - to reduce global warming, of course - ??

Aren't YOU riding BIG OIL's train ('bandwagon' ?) because you're embracing technologies which were designed - and groomed - from the start, to fail, like the 'hydrogen economy'? (search for it on ATS then consider overall efficiency). the worst part is that you're doing it for free, if only you took money for it, would set them back a dime or so

in the end, once systems start failing everywhere, they will sell you nuclear power then procceed and limit your mobility to 200 miles/week via artificially limited batteries in your - then mandatory - electric car. forget rapid recharging, it'll be supressed or ignored, their tech only serves one purpose: control. you think gas prices are bad? imagine monopolized electric energy after the artificial crash? $$$$...

any honest, decentralized approach will be nipped in the bud, either by ridiculous, one-sided guidelines (think exemptions for already existing companies), taxes and simply by lack of adequate tools on the market or a combination of these methods.

PS: proposing an exotic scientific theory and advocating the use of coercion for grant money, reputation and your pet projects are two completely different things. I for one will take GW over chemtrails, and money-sink-style space projects any day.

I have to ask whether it is responsible for us to try and intentionally change the amount of sunlight coming down to the earth. We may unwittingly create a problem more dangerous than we are trying to solve.

Part of this requires a realization that we can't control everything (at least not yet) and that we need to be 100% certain that this is what is needed to fix the problem.

I feel like the solutions often bandied about are impractical, extreme, and sometimes primarily political in nature.

We need to understand, at least in this case, that we are talking about blotting out the sun here, the one thing that we all agree is what sustains life on this planet. It is the main source of energy. I find even the suggestion that we try to regulate it reckless.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Science is wrong, oil lobbyists are right. Better to drown the city of Miami than lose a fraction of your stock option, I suppose.

That's not fair to say. I own one share of stock, I don't have any interest in the oil companies. I agree that they are bad for the market.

The only way to reduce global warming is to - get this - stop emitting so much freaking carbon into the atmosphere while simultanously BIRNING the carbon filters nature already provided. I don't know why this is difficult to grasp. Can someone please tell me why these "scientists" are talking about smokescreening hte atmosphere, rather than coming up with new ways to reduce carbon emissions in the first place?

I have trouble with this statement on three levels. First is the assumption that there is a definite correlation between carbon dioxide emissions and the temperature of the planet. The research suggests that the sun plays an important role. One the one hand, the system may be coupled, meaning that sunlight may somehow influence the amount of CO2 and thereby increase warming.

The second assumption is that the predictive models are correct. History alone tells us to be wary of that assumption. The atmosphere is chaotic, so any model purporting to predict the atmosphere is very susceptible to initial conditions: tweak the initial numbers you put in the model, and you get a large variance in predictions. Our current models cannot account for the totality of global temperature because we don't have thermometers everywhere. This requires scientists making educated guesses about the temperature of the ocean, guesses that may be untrue and therefore, as seen, create large variances in the predictions of the climate models.

Third, there is the assumption of scientific harmony on this issue. The UN report that spurred this debate actually does not claim definitively that human impact is the sole and final cause. It is a complicated issue, it suggests, and proposes that other avenues of research need to be done. That is responsible science. Furthermore, although I have been unable to confirm this, there are scientists who want their names off the UN report; they claim that the report misrepresents their research. I only heard this in passing, but if it is true, it suggests that there is no the harmony on this issue that is being claimed.

I am not going to defend the oil companies. They obviously have no one's best interest at heart but their own. In a sense, I can't fault them for that, because they are rational actors. The problem is that we have allowed them to grow too large.

I don't think that global warming is necessarily the problem in many people's minds, and perhaps I am discrediting myself here. I get a sincere impression that many people think that warming is a result of excessive consumption and consumerism. There is an understandable hostility towards such consumerism, and there is, and has been, attempts to try and undercut it. Climate change, being a possible symptom of the problem, is something so necessarily drastic that equally drastic measures must be undertaken in order to curb it and thereby curb the consumerism. I am not going to defend people buying big cars or otherwise engaging in gross largess. But I think it is fair to ask whether those motivations are behind this. If so, then it is possible that there are irrational elements manipulating the rational among us. The Bush administration has done so in the past, and I think it's fair to posit that there are elements in science and academia who are trying to do the same thing. No one is blameless in these things, unfortunately.

TheWalkingFox: Yeah that's right I have oil stock options Maybe if you would look at the UN report itself you would see that man-made global warming is a hoax, no scientists found evidence.

So stop BS yourself.

Blocking out the sun would do more harm then good. Its not the heat from the sun thats causing global warming, its the greenhouse gases. We need to stop releasing so much carbon dioxide in the air and plant more trees. Blocking the sun will just kill the trees and plants. Also, we need to stop building new houses, roads, stores, etc and let trees live and breath so they can do there friggin job. It really isn't hard, and I'm pretty sure we all learned this when we were 10-12, so why can't we get it right now? Oh thats right, we need another Wal-mart and Home Depot every 2 miles apart just so we can consume faster/ easier

Originally posted by TravisT
Blocking out the sun would do more harm then good. Its not the heat from the sun thats causing global warming, its the greenhouse gases. We need to stop releasing so much carbon dioxide in the air and plant more trees. Blocking the sun will just kill the trees and plants. Also, we need to stop building new houses, roads, stores, etc and let trees live and breath so they can do there friggin job. It really isn't hard, and I'm pretty sure we all learned this when we were 10-12, so why can't we get it right now? Oh thats right, we need another Wal-mart and Home Depot every 2 miles apart just so we can consume faster/ easier

That is not sufficient; we have more trees than in any time in recent history because fires used to destroy large, CT-sized swaths of forest, and we prevent that now.

Originally posted by 2manyquestions
Another ridiculous "solution". Anyone heard of Australian scientists trying to develop a vaccine that would stop sheep from passing gas? Yep,... that's really happening. In fact they have already started testing it on sheep.

someone has got to find the first video of a sheep exploding because of this... PLEASE!!!


=P

Coven out

Originally posted by coven

Originally posted by 2manyquestions
Another ridiculous "solution". Anyone heard of Australian scientists trying to develop a vaccine that would stop sheep from passing gas? Yep,... that's really happening. In fact they have already started testing it on sheep.

someone has got to find the first video of a sheep exploding because of this... PLEASE!!!


=P

Coven out

Hey! This is some good research. When my dog Yabaastad eats hot dogs he passes some pretty strong gas!

It's a misnomer that land-based foliage takes care of most of the carbon sequestration and oxygen production (the rainforests and whatnot...)

The REAL oxygen producers are the algee and phytoplankton in the ocean--70% of the Earth is water.

Polluting the oceans and causing the marine plant life to die off is doing more damage than cutting down trees and buring fossil fuels.

Originally posted by Togetic

That is not sufficient; we have more trees than in any time in recent history because fires used to destroy large, CT-sized swaths of forest, and we prevent that now.

Got stats on that?