It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Regardless of Climategate, should we still try to gain control of the weather?

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 8 2010 @ 03:46 AM
Explanation: Ok, regardless of whether you are for or against the concept of anthropogenic driven change in the earths climate, should we still press technically towards being able to selectively cool and or warm the planets environment?

If not, then why not?

If yes, then why and how?

Personal Disclosure: It would be a shame to miss out on becoming a stage 1 Civilization!
Oh and there be $$$'s in it by the way!

P.S. This thread was inspired by this article on ClimateGate!...

Climate Change and the Integrity of Science []

Related ClimateGate links...
Scientists Decry "Assaults" on Climate Research []

Climate debate derailed: scientists []

Please Note: If you would like to debate the merits [or not] of ClimateGate ect. then I fully recommend any of the threads linked via this ATS search...

ATS search on ClimateGate

Please stay on topic and discuss the pro's and con's plus the technical feasibilities of gaining full control over our planets weather systems OK! Thanks and

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 03:48 AM
reply to post by OmegaLogos

When man meddles, confusion and disaster follow.

We have done enough damage to the weather already.

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 04:12 AM
reply to post by catwhoknows

Explanation: Thanks for your reply!

If, in your opinion, we are beyond the point of no return i.e....

We have done enough damage to the weather already.

... then is there really any harm in continuing to actually gain control?

If we are past the point of no return and yet we somehow do end up with a method and infrastructure that is capable of controlling the weather, then would that not be a worthwhile risk taking endevour?

Personal Disclosure: IMO it would solve the problem we have created for ourselves and would also help protect endangered environments the world over and thats not even mentioning how we as humans would benefit!

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 04:23 AM
reply to post by OmegaLogos

We will never control the weather.

Look at the earthquakes. look at the tsunamis, look at the floods and the droughts!

We cannot control the weather.

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 04:46 AM
I would suggest an absolute No ! Don't touch it !

Why ?
Climate change as it's happening now is not completely understood. They say no, we don't cause a climate change or Yes ! we are the problem.

My idea is, we do ad our part however this is not really a big part. We have data that showed the Earth Ice free in between ice ages with co 2 levels rising with a 500 year Lapp after temperature..

According to Harald Lesch

Harald Lesch (born 28. July 1960 in Gießen) is a German physicist, astronomer, natural philosopher, author, television presenter, and professor of physics at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (LMU).

We are just about to start a warm period and we are actually still living in an ice age.

Not really important tho.
The fact that the options vary shows our obvious lack of understanding. Any manipulation of the weather could mean we screw up the natural flow of the Earth.
There is no way how to now any meddling will mean for the other side of the globe, given the fact that the Earths oceans and atmosphere are one big system.

Each effect will cause another.

So please God no !

Good question

What's up with the explanation : Personal disclosure : thing you got going on here ?

[edit on 5/8/2010 by Sinter Klaas]

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 04:56 AM
reply to post by catwhoknows

Explanation: I agree with you on the earthquakes and tsunamis... BUT I totally disagree with you on floods and droughts!

Here is why...

If, by some technical means, we could actively control the weather [atmospheric as opposed to geological and marine] then creating a rain cloud [or not] at GPS co-ordinates xyz would be a snap of the fingers and a button push away and therefor goodby unexpected floods and droughts!
The how becomes the problem instead of the why and it then becomes a case of just weighing up the cost benefit ratio in the short, medium and long terms!

Cloud seeding [wiki] is a current example of how we do attempt to control the rain and or the lack of it.

I'd also agree with you on volcanos, but only to a certain extent as I believe that deliberately setting the right one off at the right time and place would help cool the earth dramatically if global warming became seriously problematic!

Personal Disclosure: Instead of pro-actively controlling the weather, do you believe we could have systems and infrastucture that would effectively react and compensate for natural changes in the weather, such as the volcanic cooling mechanism I described above?

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 04:56 AM

Originally posted by catwhoknows
reply to post by OmegaLogos

We will never control the weather.

Look at the earthquakes. look at the tsunamis, look at the floods and the droughts!

We cannot control the weather.

Some would argue that the things you listed can be caused by human control.

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 05:41 AM
There is a big difference between deliberately controlling the weather and inadvertently affecting the weather.

The former would make us a Type 1 Civilisation, the latter is what happens as a result of urban pollution, for example (affecting rainfall over and downwind of large urban areas) - which we've been doing for a long time but only recently have come to realise we're doing.

I certainly don't see us to be anywhere near a Type 1 Civilisation yet and like many I question whether cloud seeding really works at all. We certainly cannot seed clouds to make it rain where, when and how much we want it to (as, indeed, Moscow's mayor found out last winter after he'd promised cloud seeding would reduce snowfall in Moscow, and they ended with some of their heaviest snow on record).

If the question is more in terms of general geoengineering in order to reduce (perceived) anthropogenic global warming then I firmly say no, we should not. The law of unintended consequences means chances are we'd only make matters worse. We need to grow up and become a more mature civilisation before we start playing around with things we barely understand.

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 06:40 AM
reply to post by idontKNOWanything

Explanation: Thanks for your input!

I could not view the vid you embedded but I hope to fix that here...

Personal Disclosure:
I completely forgot about HAARP!

I feel like a

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 07:26 AM
Incidently, if we could control hurricanes we would have virtually limitless energy. Just one 'cane can produce between 50 and 200 terrawatts - that's at least 15 times as much as the US consumes in any one year.

Of course, on the other hand, just how much energy might we have to expend to control one hurricane?

posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:43 AM
Explanation: Bumped to help generate ad revenue!

Personal Disclosure: Enjoy!

new topics

top topics


log in