There is no good reason to expect a significantly different outcome from filling the atmosphere with other similar particles. It will become colder.
That's the whole point, to make it colder. But if people are carefully controlling the amount of aerosols, I wouldn't say that a nuclear winter type scenario becomes probable.
The possible increased temperatures and CO2 will just make for better growth conditions for all kinds of plants
Not necessarily. Plants work best in a fairly narrow temperature range that differs from plant to plant. Higher temperatures could easily slow down photosynthesis. Also, the higher temperatures could stimulate the growth of weeds and pests. Most plant growth is also not CO2 bound. Rather, plant growth is typically restricted by water, phosphorous, nitrogen and potassium, especially in the wild, where there are no farmers with fertilizers and irrigation.
All in all, it's a complex matter, and saying that higher temps + higher CO2 is a net benefit to plants is way too simplistic.
There are some negative feedbacks in the system. So, in a way you could describe that as a balance. For instance, CO2 is a negative feedback. Higher temperatures increase rock weathering, which sequesters CO2. Over the history of the earth, the increasing heat output of the sun has been counteracted by lowering CO2 levels on earth, keeping the temperature in a relatively narrow band.
There is nothing acidic involved with what is happening to the ocean from CO2.
CO2 dissolves in water to form carbonic acid. It's clear enough.
RTFA. I knew you alarmists were dense, but really.
I'm not an alarmist. I'm just stating the facts. It's perfectly reasonable to talk about increasing acidity when you're adding an acid. Even if you're starting with a base.
Mars has significantly stronger gravity than the moon, so the little rocket engine that they used on the moon lander wouldn't be able to reduce much of the orbital speed until it slammed in the surface. Also, the moon lander was operating in a vacuum. Designing a rocket engine that works against supersonic atmospheric flow is an entirely different matter.
And while parachutes are an existing technology, a parachute big enough to help with a Mars landing is not. You can't just scale up existing technology that's already at the edge of what we can do.
Believing that humans can control or ultimately break any paradigm in this planet's existence is pure nonsense and the ultimate hubris.
You underestimate our efficiency and perseverance. Humans have increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by about 35% since the industrial revolution, and we're still accelerating.
We have the technology to send people there and let them build up their own homes since decades. The only thing preventing that to happen is either political will or money.
Please show the technology that can land people safely on the surface.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no good reason to expect a significantly different outcome from filling the atmosphere with other similar particles. It will become colder.
That's the whole point, to make it colder. But if people are carefully controlling the amount of aerosols, I wouldn't say that a nuclear winter type scenario becomes probable.
The possible increased temperatures and CO2 will just make for better growth conditions for all kinds of plants
Not necessarily. Plants work best in a fairly narrow temperature range that differs from plant to plant. Higher temperatures could easily slow down photosynthesis. Also, the higher temperatures could stimulate the growth of weeds and pests. Most plant growth is also not CO2 bound. Rather, plant growth is typically restricted by water, phosphorous, nitrogen and potassium, especially in the wild, where there are no farmers with fertilizers and irrigation.
All in all, it's a complex matter, and saying that higher temps + higher CO2 is a net benefit to plants is way too simplistic.
The sequence of events is more like this: notice gas is being dropped. Panic. Pee pants. Take off pants and put them over your head.
You certainly don't plan to inflict 1000 civilian casualties
Not always, but targeting civilians is still an option in modern warfare.
Let me call Kanye
It's not really fair to use the best artist in the world as a random example, is it ?
Why should something that generates revenue over time not be paid out the same way to the creator?
You mean that construction workers should get a royalty from rental houses ?
No, but the Louvre does.
Only if you want to look at the original.
And several Nobel Prize winners worked on the Manhattan project...
the malthusianist would be happy
You can understand that Malthus was right without being happy about it.
There are some negative feedbacks in the system. So, in a way you could describe that as a balance. For instance, CO2 is a negative feedback. Higher temperatures increase rock weathering, which sequesters CO2. Over the history of the earth, the increasing heat output of the sun has been counteracted by lowering CO2 levels on earth, keeping the temperature in a relatively narrow band.
There is nothing acidic involved with what is happening to the ocean from CO2.
CO2 dissolves in water to form carbonic acid. It's clear enough.
RTFA. I knew you alarmists were dense, but really.
I'm not an alarmist. I'm just stating the facts. It's perfectly reasonable to talk about increasing acidity when you're adding an acid. Even if you're starting with a base.
By not listening to Pandora, you're robbing artists of $0.001 per stream.
The ocean is getting more neutral [wattsupwiththat.com] if anything, but absolutely not "more acidic".
It's the same thing, just a different name.
And whatever changes come from CO2 are far less than natural variance over the course of a month (read article)...
The changes from CO2 add up to the natural variance.
Of course, it's possible. As an artist, don't sign a contract unless you think it's fair.
Are you guys non-ironically really trying to re-create the Matrix?
What's the problem ? You don't like the taste of a juicy steak ?
1. How do you plan to decrease that amount?
Use an aerosol that either reacts with the atmosphere, or settles to the ground like dust.
2. How do you know how long you need to wait to realize you've overdone it?
Make a model. Start with a little bit to test the model. Make adjustments if necessary. Use a big safety factor, and a short-life aerosol.
solar forcing has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH CLIMATE CHANGE
Pretty much true. Solar forcing has some effect, but it's small.
So, what's your point ? Even though the solar output has remained very stable, doesn't mean we can't sit in the shade.
The same people who have the authority to release CO2 ?
Maybe someday we will have the technology to store all that carbon in a solid black substance and bury it underground
We already have the technology to stop taking the solid black substance out of the ground. Maybe we can start there ?
Yeah, and did you notice that nobody -- nobody at all -- is calling for street lights to be turned off for good
I see plenty of street lights being turned off where I live, or street lights being replaced with much smaller LED lamps.
Probably to the nuclear winter-like conditions
Why would that be a probable outcome ? Why couldn't we just add a little bit of the aerosols, measure the effect, and slowly add some more ?
Or, like: "we can go from A to B quicker with a car, let's build roads."
Mars has significantly stronger gravity than the moon, so the little rocket engine that they used on the moon lander wouldn't be able to reduce much of the orbital speed until it slammed in the surface. Also, the moon lander was operating in a vacuum. Designing a rocket engine that works against supersonic atmospheric flow is an entirely different matter.
And while parachutes are an existing technology, a parachute big enough to help with a Mars landing is not. You can't just scale up existing technology that's already at the edge of what we can do.
Believing that humans can control or ultimately break any paradigm in this planet's existence is pure nonsense and the ultimate hubris.
You underestimate our efficiency and perseverance. Humans have increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by about 35% since the industrial revolution, and we're still accelerating.
We have the technology to send people there and let them build up their own homes since decades. The only thing preventing that to happen is either political will or money.
Please show the technology that can land people safely on the surface.
the message we need is that the common man, woman, anybody can and should tinker with the technology that manages our whole world.
Why ? One genius can do more on his own than a thousand mediocre people together.