Slashdot Mirror
Climate Engineering As US Policy?
EricTheGreen writes "The Associated Press has an article featuring Obama administration science advisor John Holdren discussing potential climate engineering responses to global warming. Among the possible approaches? His own version of Operation Dark Storm — shooting micro-particulate pollution high into the atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. I'm sure the rest of the world would have no issue with that at all, of course. Yikes ..."
...what the rest of the world says. Bush made it policy that the US acts unilaterally when the administration believes it is in our best interest.
As Obama has made clear with warrantless wiretapping, he intends to hold onto Bush's powers.
Let's test it on Venus first.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
Nice way to conmemorate the 10th year since that movie... scorching the skies as Morpheus said, just that "the machines", this time, are just spambots.
Wow, ya think the self-destructing AP PR machine could put anymore negative spin on this article?
An official of an administration that was voted in for "change" has suggested something different to the status quo - which, on climate change, seems to be "let's wait and see" - shock!
When shit gets bad enough people will finally start calling for solutions. Let's have some ready. Hopefully it won't be too late by then.
How we know is more important than what we know.
What even makes them think that the U.S. has the right to tinker with the global climate. I'm an american citizen, not a U.S. hater, but we don't have the jurisdiction to make changes that will affect the global climate.
Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
This is not a reversal of climate change.
Reflecting more sun from the top of the atmosphere while increasing greenhouse gasses will place us in yet another unknown region of the earths dynamics.
It might work in controlling temperature - for some small part of the earth - if you get it right, but this is a multi variable system, people might not like your attempts to control temperature if rainfall patterns are altered, winds and currents change, and we get less sunlight to run solar and wind power and grow crops.
We already have one uncontrolled multi decade experiment running, lets start another. I'm quite certain there are no precedents that would indicate that rapidly constructed fixes to problems cause any more problems than the original one.
Evidently, the amount of Greenhouse pollution spewed by the average new car these days is the same as the amount of CO2 that a half-acre of trees sucks up into growth.
If every new car sold came with a certificate that an acre of trees was planted and maintained somewhere, cars would be responsible for slowing and then reversing the Greenhouse.
Getting the trees to grow back seems a lot safer and less stupid than continuing to pretend we can mess with the complex and sensitive atmosphere like we know what we're doing, which is what got us into this mess.
--
make install -not war
Jeesh, Obama doesn't work here anymore, you know that was years ago.
What do you mean the entire northern European Continent's former residents now want reparations now that their countries are under an ice sheet?
After all it was just a little dust, not even what a volcano produces.
It must have been the fault of the relative lack of Solar sun spots.
Oh, what? 100 million people are now claiming they "own" the U.S.? Ice reparations?
You'll destroy us just like, well, the Treaty of Versailles did to Germany a century ago...
The real problem with any such approach, they argue, is
This religiosity in climate-change politics fascinates me - it's why I like the Michael Crichton essays/speeches on the topic even though he says "climate change is fake!" and it's pretty much Not Fake. More recently, I've seen stuff in that same Libertarian magazine comparing the current climate-change political scene to "denigrating HIV treatment and blocking condom distribution in order to discourage promiscuity. [It] is every bit as callous and irresponsible."
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
The world sure could use a distributed, online, citizen-driven, meta government to organize this sort of issue. And wouldnt you know, one is forming: http://www.metagovernment.org/
Isn't this kinda the same idea as what killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, just on a slightly smaller scale?
Solar along with thermal, will no doubt, be the future of our energy.
One can claim ownership of land and now, they, "the few" will attempt to own the light.
Quite honestly, I believe this is just a cycle change for our planet and people are over reacting.
Yes we see the results of global warming, but I am cautioned to see that maybe we are letting our fears get the better of us here.
Instead of inventing new ways to pollute our atmosphere with these particles, or attempts to "control" light, we should rather be cleaning up our existing mess.
I see yet again, the combination of media twisting fears, greed of money and desire for supreme control over the masses driving us to a new set of future conflicts.
Oh and lets not forget shear boredom as well. I am not impressed.
I dunno about you guys, but the idea of a bunch of "scientists" directly messing with the climate scares the hell out of me. I'm envisioning a climate equivalent of "The Happening" or "I Am Legend".
... well, *somebody* has to!
This is postponing the problem until some future generation has to fix not only the original problem, but also the problem created by this "fix".
I'd hate to be alive for that, and I have a feeling I will be. We're suckers.
The article didn't mention of any space based proposals. I've seen a group argue for a large "solar umbrella" to be placed at the Earth-Sun L1 lagrange point. While the L1 point is unstable, it is possible to make a craft that can stably orbit the L1 point. Just a relatively small umbrella (1-5 miles across) would be enough to block 10% of the incoming solar energy. It'd be expensive, but its doable. I wish I had a link.
A similar group came up with a results to show that 2% of incoming solar energy can be blocked with a *lot* of tiny umbrellas that might fit in a single large rocket (delta IV heavy): http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technovel_sunshade_061111.html
We'll do the next best thing. Block it out.
Will you guys put away the heavy words? The wonk was talking possibilities. How much does climate change get fixed by hyper-cynicism? Perhaps the effort on real solution consideration is beyond your capabilities.
Please have respect for people with different abilities, especially children.
Most of these Dire Global Warming predictions are based on computer models which are known to be flawed.
Any measure taken to counteract perceived Global Warming must be reversible if found ineffective (or worse, a hindrance). Injecting more particulate pollution into the atmosphere to counteract Global Warming doesn't sound to me like an easily reversible thing. Far safer and easier to do, me thinks, to park a large asteroid in synchronous orbit between the Earth and Sun to occlude solar radiation. If it's "too effective" then it can be (comparatively) easily moved or removed, if it's "not enough" then more can be gathered.
... I'm a climate engineer!
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
...and tell them that Obama is planning to bring "change" to the climate.
I'm sorry, but are you saying that Obama is NOT trying to change the climate and that you need to be a tin-foil-hat-wearing-conspiracy-nut to think that he is?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Preventing a cancer before it starts is far more effective than attempting to treat it after years of abuse. But yeah in these types of topics I generally get modded Troll for telling people they need to give up their cars and ride bicycles if they want to stop (or slow down) climate change. Yes there are certainly a very great deal of reasons why, for example, people can't ride bikes: weather is too hot, weather is too cold, work is too far away, biking causes sweat, etc. Yep, just mark me Troll.
The Global Warming Cult is going to be using my tax dollars to build this high-tech altar? Doesn't seem kosher to me...
...you voted for this stupid dumbass. Obama...Osama...and Chelsie's Momma...
Everybody wants America (as well as most of the west) to do major cutbacks. The simple fact is, that ALL countries need to cut back. Obama appears certain to join the cap-trade idiots. So far, all the countries that are participating in it, are cheating their ass off. Now, ppl are talking wild ideas. Totally insane.
The best approach is to instead have the west put in a VAT on ALL GOODS based on amount of Pollution created in its production. It should be PHASED in, rather than just hit the economy. By taking that approach, ALL countries/states will be penalized that have lots of fossil fuel usage esp. if not cleaning them up. By taking this approach, it would give time to companies to adjust by cleaning up as well as changing their medium and long-term plans. By taking the approach of saying that the "rich" nations, they are really saying western nations. Even now, China is the number one polluter in the world AND oddly, one of the richest. Yet, they will be overlooked with many of these approaches.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I know this is somewhat off topic, but did anybody else ever watch The great global warming swindle? Have we actually determined that the warming models are correct, and that we actually can reverse the course of climate change? I have the feeling that global warming continues to be more of a politically driven argument than a scientific one.
The global temperature hasn't risen in about 8 years (in fact, it has slightly gone down). So what's to fix?
But either way, this is kind of stuff is confusing. Supposedly pollutants in the air increased the global temperature but now we want to inject more of them into the air to decrease global temperature? How does that make sense?
I guess it's the same as fixing the the huge credit problem in the U.S. by telling banks to issue more credit to more at risk lenders?
Or by cutting the country's deficit by increasing spending?
Or by decreasing unemployment by giving illegal immigrants legal status so they can compete for the already limited number of available jobs?
Or by fixing solving the global nuclear threat by reducing our nuclear arsenal while Iran and North Korea continue to push theirs.
Is his Administration pulling these ideas out of their asses or what?
(I know I'll be rated a troll by all the kool-aid drinkers, that's okay)
does anybody knows the global average temperature for the last 600 million years?...counting ice ages, hot eras, etc.....no?...the average global temperature is 22 degrees Celsius.
Now the Current global average temperature is an abnormal 12 degrees Celsius, don't let the scaremongers get ya, the world is going to get warm again, not because Al Gore tells you, its because its going to return to normality. Its all in the planet and Sun cycles.
Im waiting to have my spring vacations, surf, get tan and have mai tais under the umbrella on the beautiful tropical Black Sand Beach, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska.
Venus's atmosphere has a few magnitudes more CO2 than the earth. So far the most workable modern plan for terraforming Venus would involve creating a sun shield to freeze the planet, then launch a bunch of CO2 blocks into space.
This is my sig.
China is way ahead of us at protecting the planet with particulates.
It's a silly thing but the operative part of a tree that we want is photosynthesis. A key challenge of absorbing CO2 is to optimize the surface area of the photosynthetic elements while keeping all of them illuminated. Nature did this pretty well, but one wonders if mankind could do better if we have LEDs inside otherwise dark areas.
This is my sig.
It rains. That gets the dirt out of the air. So the problem with mitigation will be, what will happen when all of these things we launch into the air come back and hit the ground.
We had a ton of pollution that essentially accomplished this effect and to some degree masked global warming. Once we got smart and lowered the size of and then got rid of particulate emissions of many kinds, that's when temperatures started moving up.
This is my sig.
... build more nuclear power plants.
Yeah, I know, -1 Flamebait.
But yeah in these types of topics I generally get modded Troll for telling people they need to give up their cars and ride bicycles
That's dumb. If you really wanted to be a troll, you could recommend that the nuclear nations go and nuke the third world, cutting the population of the earth down to a more sustainable 2 billion.
Really, with nuclear proliferation, this is probably inevitable anyway. Some American cities will survive because of a limited missile defense system, but the rest of the world will probably be exterminated.
This is my sig.
What about a giant space shield to reflect the suns rays? Could make it ultra thin from carbon fiber, probably wouldn't even need to be out there very long...
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Barack Obama convenes the Planetary Council!
Agenda: Launch solar shade
-----
Sorry, I know that makes two SMAC references in one week, but it couldn't be helped.
If the plan worries any of you, don't think too much about it, Sister Miriam will probably veto it anyway.
Madness ... bloody madness ... what fools!
But does this plan have as much plausibility as the environmentalists' plan to reduce anthropogenic carbon emissions by 200%? (Logically impossible, but this is what would be needed to reverse global warming, where it's unlikely that we'll even see a slow-down in the growth of carbon emissions without enormous sacrifices to our standard of living.)
What's this "rest of the world" thing people like to mention every now and then? I've never heard of it.
The science behind global warming isn't exactly uncontested.... I know its a Novel but go read Michael Creighton's State of Fear
What?!
You mean a democrat believes that the Government should meddle in EVERYTHING and that there nothing that it does not have any limit to what it should do?!
Shock and Horror.
-- Given enough time and money, Microsoft will eventualy invent UNIX.
Highlander II:
It's the year 2024 and all the ozone above Earth has gone. To protect people from dying, MacLeod helped in the construction of a giant "shield", several years ago. But, since there isn't left anyone Immortal after MacLeod's victory in the previous film, he has stopped being an Immortal himself. Now he is just an old man, until one day some other Immortals arrive on our planet. You see, the Immortals come from another planet... Planet Ziest.
Oh God! We've become a bad movie. There can be only one.
--
Toro
A more ambitious solution exists that does not hold such unpredictable consequences. We currently are investing billions in solar cell technology. The next step is to put mass produced panels in space and transmit power to the surface. It would kill three birds with one very large stone. And maybe some more birds would die from the microwave transmissions for power transfer, but I want to emphasize the benefits. It could provide us with a relatively clean energy source that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, provide a global cooling effect by blocking incident sunlight, and free up land space that is being taken up by solar crop fields. I know I'm not the first to think of this idea. Larry Niven's ringworld had a similar system to simulate day/night. Slashdot had an article earlier about how science fiction influences future technology. This concept is one that is ambitious, but could save the planet. The only thing to figure out is whether or not it's practical.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_ideas_on_climate_change.html
He brings up exactly this kind of geoengineering solution, talks about the good parts and the bad parts and the side effects of the idea. Then he suggests even if we don't do it, maybe China (or someone else) will do it in 50 years and we won't be able to stop them at that point. And we won't even have a good idea on what our response should be if they are planning to do it, since we won't have any idea of the consequences for a particular method.
He concludes with the idea that whether geoengineering is a good idea or not, we should start thinking the various ways it could be accomplished now, rather than waiting, even if the purpose of thinking about it is to decide not to do it.
Say we do actually stop global warming and start to cool the earth.
Say, we can continue the way we live for few more decades burning fossil fuels.
So, will we then use the extra juice we can now c,ontinue to harness from burning fossil fuels to power the grow lights in on our crops?
Just sayin...
Paraphrased :
- We have got a lizard problem now, they will eat all the bird, not only the pigeon
- No problem we will breed and release chinese poisonous snake
- and what if the poisonous snake become a problem ?
- Then we will breed gorilla to hunt the snake
- Gorilla ?
- And winter will then take care of killing them
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Speaking as a Principal Engineer at a Fortune 500 company... geo-engineering is not engineering.
Where is the rigor?
Where is the testing?
What are the consequences of failure?
Might we make things worse?
The honest truth is that any geo-engineering is a global-scale gamble whose short and long term effects are completely unknown.
It is easy to see how geo-engineering could inflict more damage that it purports to solve — the climate is one of the most complex, chaotic systems known.
And we claim to have mastered our climate system enough to fix it??
Finally, fighting pollution with more pollution is counter-intuitive, to say the least.
what the fuck happened to the slashdot homepage? it has up down buttons, all this extra 'cruft' and also these giant blank white pop overs that say press to pause
WTF?
-
Not exactly. I was (attempting to) remark on the curious bent of a particular breed of commentators towards spittle flecked paranoia about things they once supported, or at least acquiesced to; but now associate with Obama.
The FEMA concentration camps story, for instance, is interesting in that it was extremely popular in militia circles during the Clinton administration, then became oddly quiet under Bush(despite the well documented increase in executive ability and willingness to conduct all sorts of detention), now it's back for Obama.
In this case, yeah changing the climate is precisely the proposal. My suggestion was that that proposal would be glommed on to by conspiracy theorists from a previously unrelated area, who would interpret it as evidence for their own pet project.
For a while the United States considered many methods for stopping a hurricane including detonating an atomic bomb at the eye of it. Eventually we decided not to even care about lesser methods of stopping a hurricane because if it was successful other nations would see us as a threat. If another nation had a typhoon, hurricane or tsunami, they may blame it on the United States and their weather control voodoo.
If we drastically alter the Earth's climate not in accordance with the international community, we'll be blamed(rightly) for causing longer and harsher winters.
God spoke to me.
Here's a simple solution I haven't heard anyone propose. Extensive renewable thinning of the forests.
Forests only absorb co2 as they grow, once they reach maximum density they become carbon neutral. When a forest reaches maximum density all carbon absorbed by new trees is offset by the trees that died and provided the room. But by continually thinning out our forests and allowing them to regrow we'd gain a infinitely renewable supply of zero net carbon fuel in the form of the harvested wood.
The wood produced could be used to generate electricity, or could be even chemically converted directly to combustible fuel. In addition, the wood could be used for cheap carbon negative building material.
The infrastructure for this would be cheap, the technologies available, and most importantly, it would be immediately profitable. I'm not surprised this hasn't been seriously considered though, both sides in this controversy seam more interested in using it for political leverage than approaching the problem with any sense of logic.
Rest of the world: a term used by americunts that means "those who our leaders listen to", as opposed to the American public, also: those who we hope will save us from the morons in charge.
He gets re-elected.
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
This is just a maneuver by the administration that sets the bar for AGW response so far out in wackyland that anything else seems reasonable by comparison. They know that there would be massive resistance (by The Rest Of The World, see above) if this was seriously considered. AGW, real or not, is making a lot of people rich, and those folks don't lead by example. This is not a problem that 'wants' to be fixed - it's making far too much money and keeping the pols in power. The result will be either 1) cook the numbers = yay it worked = reelect us, or 2) cook the numbers = still trying to save the earth = give us more money and reelect us. Want to bet which one happens?
I have an even better idea! Why dont we coat our bodies and everything around us with white paint. Not only is it cheaper but the technology is already available! That way we use the albedo effect to cool the planet thus saving the earth from overeheating. Now we just have to solve the chlorophyll problem, various other disorders that will arise. Why we now have an additional 1 trillion to spend on this anyway!!!
You think like a ReThuglican Jew
Others have pointed out that geoengineering is not new, and they are right. We started geoengineering on a global scale when we started removing vast quantities of carbon that had been sequestered in the earth, oxidizing it, and releasing it into the atmosphere.
And the energy community is already geoengineering how to get this released carbon back into the ground through carbon sequestration techniques. They are pumping carbon dioxide into oil bearing formations to increase well production. They are creating zero emission oil platforms that burn natural gas for energy, capture the CO2, and pump it back into the ground.
There are other, more complex, less studied ways to sequester carbon, such as seeding small parts of the ocean with iron, which will increase plankton production, which will draw down CO2 as they incorporate the carbon into their shells, which will sink and become part of the seafloor, effectively sequestering the carbon. Or by simply pumping liquid CO2 into places where it can't escape (basalt formations, subseafloor sediments, etc).
TFA states that pumping particulates into the atmosphere is a rather extreme solution, but sadly many other active sequestration techniques were not discussed. There are a lot of other, much more benign, better studied methods of geoengineering, it is a shame the article only discussed two relatively unstudied methods.
As another commentor noted, this stuff is confusing. And particulate pollutants are not the same type of pollutants that cause the greenhouse effect. Particulate pollutants are the reason why we see a decrease in global temperatures after a major volcanic eruption, the simply reflect sunlight back into space. But these pollutants are heavy and do not last long in our atmosphere. Greenhouse gases however can have a much longer residence time in the atmosphere, and operate on an entirely different principle than particulate pollutants.
Opinions were like kittens, I was giving them away.
It's far from the best SF book on the shelves. I read it when it came out, and many aspects grated quite irritatingly, especially the fandom crap superposed on the story. It was perhaps the only book with Niven among its authors which I almost abandoned before finishing, and never re-read. However, the book did criticise the mindless pursuit of eco-ideals far beyond their justification (which the GP alluded to), and this was one of its good points.
Fallen Angels appeared to be too much by Pournelle and too little by Niven or Flynn, IMO.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Back to the Future 2/Highlander 2 predictions coming true!
I realize this was a troll but it spawned a legitimate question. What is the statistical political affiliation of those who follow Judaism? I googled a bit and the first poll I found indicated 13% consider themselves republican, and 54% democrat.
AC because I'm ashamed of feeding the racist trolls.
This approach reminds me of the way they tried to control rabbit overpopulation on a small island south of New Zealand. Settlers introduced rabbits as a source of food. Of course rabbits, without predators, multiplied out of control destroying much of the local vegetation. They tried to control their population by introducing feral cats. Of course the feral cats preyed on the local fauna as well, decimating it. Finally, they had to hunt down the feral cats and now the rabbit population is back to previous numbers. Can we afford blunders of this kind on a global scale?
No sig is good enough for me.
The Government Is Already "Geo-Engineering" The Environment
http://www.infowars.com/the-government-is-already-geo-engineering-the-environment/
"However, a study of past and ongoing upper atmosphere aerosol programs confirms that the government has been active in this field for years.
The Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program was created in 1989 with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and is sponsored by the DOE's Office of Science and managed by the Office of Biological and Environmental Research."
See article for FULL details.
The Truth is a Virus!!!
All ur sunshines r b'long to us.
So "climate scientists" think they can reverse "global warming" by planned modification of the Earth's environment? Call me when those same "climate scientists" can accurately predict the local weather for a significant length of time. If they can't do a decent short range local weather forecast (involving far fewer independent variables than a long range global weather prediction), what the heck makes them think that they can predict global climate change?!?!
I consider a local weather forecast for 2+ days out that gets the temperature within 5 degrees a "success". Global warming only claims a temperature change of less than 1 degree; obviously, our climate models aren't sufficiently robust to accurately model the climate to the accuracy we need. I think the "climate scientists" have some work to do before they can claim to accurately model the global or local climate...
This sort of thing (a potentially irreversible and intentional attempt to modify the environment) damn well better be a last resort! The unintended consequences may well be worse than the original problem. Einstein famously said "God does not play dice" referring to the theory of quantum mechanics. Apparently, man may have the hubris to try...
If we all wear tin foiled hats; that would reflect enough of the suns energy back into space to cool the planet.
Why would we think that messing around with the environment on any large scale would possibly be beneficial? Haven't we already learned that lesson? What happens when we find out that global warming is just a normal swing in the Earth's billion year climate calendar? Much ado about nothing yet again.
How about testing in Ur anus?
Can't we get a whatcouldpossiblygowrong tag on this post? Please?
Nuclear energy is not zero emissions. It just doesn't emit carbon dioxide, which, unlike spent nuclear fuel, can be safely sequestered inside living organisms.
There are four fundamental problems with nuclear energy:
One thing that always struck me about nuclear power proponents was the myopia of the larger issues. Nuclear doesn't solve the energy crisis; it only defers it until a later date, adding additional problems as it does.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Unintended Consequences
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
Obama's plan for global warming research dollars is 400 million in 2009 http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjcyODIyZGM2MGU1ZDdkNDgxZDc3OTNjYjM4ZDY1ODI=
Size of the market for women's shoes in 1996 is 37 billion dollars: http://www.packagedfacts.com/sitemap/product.asp?productid=130270
So it looks as if we spend more money on the world womens' shoe market in one year than all of global warming research ever done. Guess we have our priorities in order when you consider the cost of global warming is probably not quadrillions but quintillions of dollars (think massive impact to world economy for 1000 years and possible end of market). I like my planets like I like my women!
Really either nobody really believes this threat is real, or the world is massively insane for not trying to understand the problem... You decide.
If you keep dumping CO_2 into the air, then we can dump whatever we like into the air too.
Are there any international treaties anywhere about dumping shit into the atmosphere? Is even something as specific as the CFC ban a treaty? AFAICT, world leaders pretty much assume that any sovereign nation can do whatever the fuck it likes to the atmosphere, the ocean, etc...
But what if we come up with a countermeasure so successful that we no longer have to reduce our CO_2 output? What if there are long-term quality-of-life issues or ecosystem implications that don't affect classical economics? Does anyone believe that those will have a voice?
Mostly, I'm delighted: after only 110 years of knowing how global warming works, and 50 years of evidence, a handful of our least ignorant leaders already recognise that there's a problem. Go humans!
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
Next time Obama has a weekend dinner date in Chicago, or wants to slam Special Olympians in Burbank, think about the huge amount of CO2 that is being generated:
1) Air Force 1. A huge 747 airplane. Did you know there is also a backup 747 that follows AF1 around just in case?
2) Heavy lift airplanes (C-130s?) The president's limousines and helicopters have to be transported to the site.
3) Support staff/security. You can just imagine the huge effort required to keep the president safe and in contact with his advisors/speechwriters/teleprompter.
So, Mr. President, how about doing instead of just talking?
This reminds me a bit of Maos Great Sparrow Campaign:
The sparrows are eating our crops. Kill'em! Oh! Sparrows were eating locusts, too. Locusts are eating more crops than sparrows did. Remove locust habitat by pulling up grass! Oh! Grass was keeping sand from creating dust storms. Great. Now we have neither sparrows, locusts, grass, food nor breathable air.
Bottom line. Don't mess with an ecosystem on which you depend and don't understand.
Actually, the Global Warming CULT is becoming the Global Warming MOB. Scientists who don't support IPCC (UN) claims are finding out what happens to them. Now with our newly elected Dear Leader, other countries are going to find out what happens to them if they don't comply with the UN Mafia.
From TFA:
"Another geoengineering option he mentioned was the use of so-called artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide â" the chief human-caused greenhouse gas â" out of the air and store it. At first that seemed prohibitively expensive, but a re-examination of the approach shows it might be less costly, he said."
Umm, how about this: Let's just stop cutting down the trees we do have, and let forests grow?
It seems like mother nature has a perfectly workable plan for recycling CO2; in fact it even USES CO2, making oxygen we so love and crave! Rather than trying to re-engineer and deploy fake trees that merely store the stuff for who knows how long, why not just let natural processes work for a change? Is this SO hard to do?
The link in your sig is broken (suspended account). What's the book that you were referring to in it?
Your brain is not a computer.
Now that's change we can believe in!
Anyone else reminded of the Stargate Atlantis Season 5 episode?
The Americans can modify the crappy earth all they want. The chinese and soviets however are aiming for space. But of course not until they waste the earth even futher with their space industries.