Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Blocking out the Sun
Ashtangiman writes to tell us The New York Times is running an article about geoengineering in which many solutions to global warming include decreasing the amount of sunlight that the planet sees. The ideas are not new, many have been around for quite some time, however they have been relegated to the fringes of science and many have never been published because of this. From the article: "Geoengineering is no magic bullet, Dr. Cicerone said. But done correctly, he added, it will act like an insurance policy if the world one day faces a crisis of overheating, with repercussions like melting icecaps, droughts, famines, rising sea levels and coastal flooding."
They already do; Look at d.c.. Can you not feel your life being sucked out?
Seems like a lot of people want to avoid the one fact that sticks out like a sore thumb. Just as nature adapts to the environmental effects of humans, humans need to adapt to the environmental effects of nature. Instead of trying to stop the ice caps from melting, maybe it's time to move the houses on the shorelines back a mile or two and put in better flood control.
What's wrong with spending that money on engineering to reforest the huge deforested areas of every continent? Just replanting the native vegetation sucks CO2 out of the atmosphere, increases energy absorption by the greener surface, and produces material to consume. And lets the plants do all the hard work. Without another risky meddling in the poorly-understood, vastly complex feedback system we all depend on.
Instead we should blot out the Sun? That's insane, and therefore even more likely to burn us harder and faster.
--
make install -not war
Some people just don't get it. Perhaps the earth is supposed to get warmer. What happens when they decide block the sun and the earth cools too fast, or photosynthesis doesn't occur like it's supposed to?
The same people who can't get beyond the Rule of Unintended Consequences want to something like this?
Can I take the next ship to another planet now? Either let it evolve or destroy it, but try not to do both.
Why is it the same people who love evolution are the same people who want to keep everything the same?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You can see that in all facets of life, and thus in weather as well. However the weather used to be that's "normal" in the minds of most people so when it changes in any way that's "abnormal" and thus a problem. Even if they intellectually understand it most people don't really grasp that the only constant on the world is change.
I will say that such a plan, as a last resort isn't a bad idea because regardless of what the Earth would naturally do we want to keep it habitable for humans. The Earth may go through a natural cycle that would kill us off and we want to stop that, if we can.
However in general we shouldn't screw with things like this because it's clear we have a very poor graps of how climate actually works.
I think you'll find there never was a Highlander 2.
It was just a collective hallucination. We're better now. We just have to keep telling ourselves that, OK?
To think that dumping billions of tons of CO2 (and slightly less H20) into the atmosphere over the last 30 years alone (rough calculations indicate around 130 billion tons from early 70s to early 00s), while simultaneously deforesting much of the world's forests as fast as they can be cut, has little to no effect on the environment is the height of ignorance. CO2, the #2 greenhouse gas out there, right with H20 (which also comes from that gas combustion). And lets not forget that even modern gas engines aren't 100% efficient, so there's all that waste heat and energy dumped into the atmosphere that was previously buried underground. And this is only considering gasoline produced in the past 30 years. Figure the long-term gas use/production, not to mention coal and natural gas, and it is enough to make you sick (if you care, that is).
What we need are real solutions to undo what we've done and at least bring the global temperature down a bit. Remember that article about how the temp is as high as it has ever been for as long as we have accurate records? Yeah, what we're doing is real, you can feel it when you walk outside. Blocking the sun just gives us an excuse to keep doing as we've been doing, not to mention F'ing up the ecosystem in the process.
Do you also advocate moving away from places like Canada and Norway rather than building heated homes?
In the context of humans adapting to nature vs. adapting nature to humans, there is no fundamental difference between preventing the icecaps from melting and putting in better flood control. We are still adapting nature to our needs (i.e. controlling nature), not the other way around. In fact, preventing the ice caps from melting is an example of better flood control.
We finally start to recognize the negative consequences of some change that's happening in nature. There happens to be a preponderance of evidence that certain actions of human society are responsible for this change. So do we all say "Hey, I guess we need to change our habits" and try to fix the problem at it's most probable source? No. Instead, some of us say "Well, if messing around with part of our ecosystem without having a clue what we were doing got us into this mess, then, by golly, maybe messing around with a different part of our ecosystem without having a clue what we are doing will get us out of it!" This really is a sad indicator of human psychology. Even when we recognize our problem, and even when we recognize that we our the source of that problem, we try to fix things by doing anything other than changing ourselves. Mess with the oceans, mess with the clouds, put sun-shades in space, but certainly don't make humans alter their behavior or make society adapt to a new way of meeting our energy needs!
Then the entire planet would be tinted green, what would photoshop junkies do?
"Oh boy"
"Sure we do. I definitely would not contradict Steven Hawking in his field of expertise. But global climatology is an area where he's a layman just like the rest of us."
You can say what you want, but a scientist and author as bright as Mr Hawking is not a layman in anything that he talks about as a speaker at a conference.
Do you think that a thorough understanding of math, physics, chemistry, and astronomy, let's say "the universe" has nothing to do with climate? And when a highly intelligent scientist such as Mr Hawking talks about it, he doesn't know what he's talking about?
Wake up and smell the coffee.
A lot of fields of science are quite strongly related. For example, the famous physicist Niels Bohr was definitely not a layman in other fields, say chemistry.
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.