Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Climate Engineering As US Policy?

Posted by samzenpus on from the get-in-there-and-fix-it dept.

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 ..."

11 of 355 comments (clear)

  1. It doesn't matter... by feepness · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...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.

    1. Re:It doesn't matter... by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nice trolling there.

      He's not trolling. He's just being uneducated when he thinks Bush the second started the practice.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    2. Re:It doesn't matter... by Toonol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, we can't leave playing god in God's hands. Nature has no particular desire to keep Earth habitable for man; that's something we need to take control of.

    3. Re:It doesn't matter... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nature has no particular desire to keep Earth habitable for man

      Judging by our actions, I'd say man doesn't either. I'd rather have it in the hands of God. He doesn't really do a lot lately, and if our governments recently taught me anything then that not doing anything can be a good thing when all you do makes things worse.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. Not reversal by alexibu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:negative spin much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'll tell you what Nathan Lewis at Caltech says about ideas like this. I'm sure they are included in the talk/seminars he has on his webpage. The climate is a massive machine we don't fully understand that we need to live. Now you want to walk up and turn a fairly random knob really hard?

  4. Re:negative spin much? by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No-one gives a shit about warning signs dude. Disasters will be the call to action. So basically only when the weather is completely out of control will people start demanding action.. and by then there will likely be nothing we can do.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  5. You want to reduce CO2 emissions, ... by drgould · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... build more nuclear power plants.

    Yeah, I know, -1 Flamebait.

    1. Re:You want to reduce CO2 emissions, ... by Cimexus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not flamebait at all.

      I'm a huge proponent of using nuclear power. It's the only proven technology we have NOW that is zero-emissions and can produce on the type of scale we need. Wind and solar are great too but cannot yet cope with the demand alone.

      You still have a large amount of CO2 emissions coming from the transport and agriculture sectors. But the energy sector still forms a big part of total CO2 emissions and nuclear power is, for the medium term at least, the answer IMHO.

  6. Re:negative spin much? by ElectricRook · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The ice shelves in that quote are ~10Kyrs old

    It's an amazing coincidence that the last ice age peaked about 10k years ago too.

    Hmmm maybe we are emerging from an ice age, and glaciers and such mmmm melt after an ice age...

    --
    - High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
  7. Re:negative spin much? by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or maybe it's because ordinary people recognize that chaotic systems are not predictable. The ice caps are melting does not imply that my house is going to be flooded next week, or next year or next century (and if it does, I probably don't give a shit, it's a century from now, meh), so how am I supposed to react? "Shit keeps changing, I don't like it!"

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.