63 replies to this topic

[Reincarnated]

Quote

exactly, which is why I'm against the Global Warming Hysteria Industry and its pursuit of policy that will be damaging to my kids and grandkids future.

I try not to call people names but you are definetly delusional. Please tell me how lowering C02 emissions is damaging to your kids and grandkids future? You are the only one doing the damage by hiding the truth from them.

[Celumnaz]

Quote

I try not to call people names but you are definetly delusional.

lol thanks
Depending who's calling me names it either makes me think about what I'm saying, or I wear it as a badge of honor.  Sparkly new badge.

[IamsSon]

We're all going to die!?    What?    Who said?

Oh, wait, yes we all are going to die, the debate on global warming may still be going on a thousand years from now, but I don't think there is a debate on whether or not we're going to die.

[Bearly]

Quote

lol thanks
Depending who's calling me names it either makes me think about what I'm saying, or I wear it as a badge of honor.  Sparkly new badge.

You can debate all you want as to the causes of the recent rise in temperature (natural vrs. manmade), but you can't deny that green house gases trap heat and the amount of green house gases in the atmosphere is increasing.  So why then is pouring tons of green house gases every day into the atmosphere okay to some people when there can be alternatives?

[Reincarnated]

Quote

lol thanks
Depending who's calling me names it either makes me think about what I'm saying, or I wear it as a badge of honor.  Sparkly new badge.

I still would like to know how you think lowering C02 emissions would damage your kids and possible grandchildrens futures.

[KGS3333]

Quote

I still would like to know how you think lowering C02 emissions would damage your kids and possible grandchildrens futures.

It doesn't hurt anyone except the greedy shareholders of polluting multi-national corporations.

KGS

[OlDrippy34]

I'm not planning on dying.  Sorry.

[Celumnaz]

Quote

I still would like to know how you think lowering C02 emissions would damage your kids and possible grandchildrens futures.

Other than I think doing something unnecessary is usually unnecessary and sometimes wasteful (the sun is the main contributor to global climate fluctuation), or the possible harmful unintended concequences from the best of intentions (banning DDT has claimed too many lives), it all depends How this lowering is accomplished.

Quote

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...bwarming16.html

Could smog protect against global warming?

By Charles J. Hanley
The Associated Press

NAIROBI, Kenya — If the sun warms the Earth too dangerously, the time may come to draw the shade.

The ''shade'' would be a layer of pollution deliberately spewed into the atmosphere to help cool the planet. This over-the-top idea comes from prominent scientists, among them a Nobel laureate. The reaction here at the U.N. conference on climate change is a mix of caution, curiosity and some resignation to such ''massive and drastic'' operations, as the chief U.N. climatologist describes them.

The Nobel Prize-winning scientist who first made the proposal is himself ''not enthusiastic about it.''

''It was meant to startle the policy makers,'' said Paul J. Crutzen, of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Chemistry. ''If they don't take action much more strongly than they have in the past, then in the end we have to do experiments like this.''

Serious people are taking Crutzen's idea seriously. This weekend, NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif., hosts a closed-door, high-level workshop on the global haze proposal and other ''geoengineering'' ideas for fending off climate change.

In Nairobi, meanwhile, hundreds of delegates were wrapping up a two-week conference expected to only slowly advance efforts to rein in greenhouse gases blamed for much of the 1-degree rise in global temperatures in the past century.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol requires modest emission cutbacks by industrial countries — but not the United States, the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, because it rejected the deal. Talks on what to do after Kyoto expires in 2012 are all but bogged down.

When he published his proposal in the journal Climatic Change in August, Crutzen cited a ''grossly disappointing international political response'' to warming.

The Dutch climatologist, awarded a 1995 Nobel in chemistry for his work uncovering the threat to Earth's atmospheric ozone layer, suggested that balloons bearing heavy guns be used to carry sulfates high aloft and fire them into the stratosphere.

While carbon dioxide keeps heat from escaping Earth, substances such as sulfur dioxide, a common air pollutant, reflect solar radiation, helping cool the planet.

Tom Wigley, a senior U.S. government climatologist, followed Crutzen's article with a paper of his own on Oct. 20 in the leading U.S. journal Science. Like Crutzen, Wigley cited the precedent of the huge volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991.

Pinatubo shot so much sulfurous debris into the stratosphere that it is believed it cooled the Earth by .9 degrees for about a year.

Wigley ran scenarios of stratospheric sulfate injection — on the scale of Pinatubo's estimated 10 million tons of sulfur — through supercomputer models of the climate, and reported that Crutzen's idea would, indeed, seem to work. Even half that amount per year would help, he wrote.

A massive dissemination of pollutants would be needed every year or two, as the sulfates precipitate from the atmosphere in acid rain.

Wigley said a temporary shield would give political leaders more time to reduce human dependence on fossil fuels — the main source of greenhouse gases. He said experts must more closely study the feasibility of the idea and its possible effects on stratospheric chemistry.

Nairobi conference participants agreed.

''Yes, by all means, do all the research,'' Indian climatologist Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of the 2,000-scientist U.N. network on climate change, told The Associated Press.

But ''if human beings take it upon themselves to carry out something as massive and drastic as this, we need to be absolutely sure there are no side effects,'' Pachauri said.

Philip Clapp, a veteran campaigner for emissions controls to curb warming, also sounded a nervous note, saying, ''We are already engaged in an uncontrolled experiment by injecting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.''

But Clapp, president of the U.S. group National Environmental Trust, said, ''I certainly don't disagree with the urgency.''

In past years scientists have scoffed at the idea of air pollution as a solution for global warming, saying that the kind of sulfate haze that would be needed is deadly to people. Last month, the World Heath Organization said air pollution kills about 2 million people worldwide each year and that reducing large soot-like particles from sulfates in cities could save 300,000 lives annually.

American geophysicist Jonathan Pershing, of Washington's World Resources Institute, is among those wary of unforeseen consequences, but said the idea might be worth considering ''if down the road 25 years, it becomes more and more severe because we didn't deal with the problem.''

By telephone from Germany, Crutzen said that's what he envisioned: global haze as a component for long-range planning. ''The reception on the whole is more positive than I thought,'' he said.

Pershing added, however, that reaction may hinge on who pushes the idea. ''If it's the U.S., it might be perceived as an effort to avoid the problem,'' he said.

NASA said this weekend's conference will examine ''methods to ameliorate the likelihood of progressively rising temperatures over the next decades.'' Other such U.S. government-sponsored events are scheduled to follow.

I fear MOST of the "solutions" way more than the imagined "problem".

[Reincarnated]

Quote

I fear MOST of the "solutions" way more than the imagined "problem".

We have enough smog as it is and our planet is continuing to warm rapidy. The number of lung and breathing related problems has risen due to the decline in quality of our atmosphere, more smog is not a realistic option and will never be used. As your article said, the study was "'meant to startle the policy makers". Sure, it might contain some elements that reflect solar radiation but is this how you want to fight global warming?

You are worried about your childrens futures being harmed by lowering C02 emissions because:

Quote

I think doing something unnecessary is usually unnecessary and sometimes wasteful

But you are trying to show us more smog might be better instead.

I feel bad for your kids.

[Celumnaz]

don't worry about My kids, they'll be fine... but going by your response I think you should be more worried about your reading comprehension skills.  Thanks for the good laugh tho!

[Mattshark]

Quote

don't worry about My kids, they'll be fine... but going by your response I think you should be more worried about your reading comprehension skills.  Thanks for the good laugh tho!

Will they be fine with Houston, Dallas, Miami, New Orleans, Austin, Tallahasse most of Georgia and the Carolinas underwater? Increased desertification in the midwest and in western Texas and the spread of the Arizona desert? Considerably lower crop yeilds, alterations of water currents altering temperatures to land masses massive depletion of fish stocks and increases in food cost as livestock will also become much more difficult to cultivate. The obvious abnd simple soltution is to cut back on greenhouse gas emmisions, but it seems that making rich scabs richer is more important than the future of the planet, something which is intrinsically linked to our own future.

[Bearly]

How silly of me for not seeing this sooner.  Of course, smog is the answer to our problems.  Thats why people enjoy Mexico City so much, they are doing their part to prevent global warming.  And all this time I thought ozone was bad for plants and the lungs not to mention acid rain and other harmful results of air pollution.  People with asthma will just have to suck it up.

[Celumnaz]

Quote

Will they be fine with Houston, Dallas, Miami, New Orleans, Austin, Tallahasse most of Georgia and the Carolinas underwater? Increased desertification in the midwest and in western Texas and the spread of the Arizona desert? Considerably lower crop yeilds, alterations of water currents altering temperatures to land masses massive depletion of fish stocks and increases in food cost as livestock will also become much more difficult to cultivate.

Yes, they will be fine when the aliens come.

[Mattshark]

Quote

Yes, they will be fine when the aliens come.

I'm sure

[Reincarnated]

Quote

don't worry about My kids, they'll be fine... but going by your response I think you should be more worried about your reading comprehension skills.  Thanks for the good laugh tho!

You are the laughing matter here.