Geoengineering To Cool the Earth Becoming Thinkable

johkir writes "As early as 1965, when Al Gore was a freshman in college, a panel of distinguished environmental scientists warned President Lyndon B. Johnson that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels might cause 'marked changes in climate' that 'could be deleterious.' Yet the scientists did not so much as mention the possibility of reducing emissions. Instead they considered one idea: 'spreading very small reflective particles' over about five million square miles of ocean, so as to bounce about 1 percent more sunlight back to space — 'a wacky geoengineering solution.' In the decades since, geoengineering ideas never died, but they did get pushed to the fringe — they were widely perceived by scientists and environmentalists alike as silly and even immoral attempts to avoid addressing the root of the problem of global warming. Three recent developments have brought them back into the mainstream." We've discussed some pretty strange ideas in the geoengineering line over the last few years.

Comments

No need to

[vvaduva]

The sun is the coolest it has been for a long time...there is no need to even attempt to do this. What such an attempt would illustrate is (1) the outright arrogance of mankind, thinking that we can actually terraform and manage an entire planet when we can't even handle a hurricane in New Orleans or poverty in Africa, and (2) the attempt by a few socialists to use the green movement to control the lives of others.

The green movement has been long ago hijacked by the extreme left. Wake up people!

Re:Arrogance!

[aurispector]

God help us. Nothing of this sort ought ever be attempted. If CO2 causes global warning, then cut back CO2. There's enough argument about THAT without introducing a whole new variable the mix. Whacky untestable schemes have no place outside of science fiction. Anyone with aspirations toward geoengineering needs to be shot for the greater good of humanity.

Re:No they didn't

[Goaway]

No, it wasn't. No, we weren't.

Read the goddamn linked article, will you?

Re:No they didn't

[Goaway]

What part of sun cycles and sun weather don't you guys get?

Gee, it's too bad an entire field of science just doesn't get "sun cycles and sun weather"! Good thing you showed up to tell them!

Re:No they didn't

[gEvil (beta)]

So that's "evidence" to you?

Don't you know it's scientifically sound to use your own beliefs on a subject as evidence on which to further support your beliefs on that subject?

Re:It was Global COOLING in the 70s.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

In 1965 and through the 1970s and early 80s, virtually all scientists were Not discussing global warming. They were discussing Global Cooling.

You must be using some new definition of "virtually all" to mean less than a quarter.

I remember sitting in elementary school while the teacher made us read a scary article about "the darkening of the earth" due to increased clouds.

So ... your elementary school teacher was a climatologist?

Listen up, bunky: if you want to argue about actual science -- about the accuracy of historical temperature readings, about surface vs. air vs. satellite measurements, about the chemistry of greenhouse gases -- go right ahead. Contrary to what global warming denialists like to believe, science is a big tent; bring on your evidence (you do know what the word "evidence" means, right?) and it will be considered along with everyone else's. But the "global cooling craze" claim has been debunked over and over again, and yet you people never learn. Are you just pathologically unable to admit when you're wrong, or is it just this particular issue? I mean, if you said, "Lincoln was assassinated in 1864" and someone else said, "No, it was 1865," would you then go around telling everyone you met that Lincoln was assassinated in 1864 every time any subject bearing even vaguely on American history came up? If you wrote a C program in which all the statements were terminated by commas, and Asked Slashdot why your program wouldn't compile, and a bunch of people helpfully pointed out that you really ought to be using semicolons, would you stubbornly keep programming with commas and insisting that the /. folks (and your compiler) must be wrong because of something you heard on Fox News? I mean, I'm really trying to understand this behavior. Help me out here.