Climate Control?

[Drunken Idaho]

An article I found on Gizmodo, entitled "Cloud-Generating 1900-Ship Armada to Sink Climate Change":

The Copenhagen Consensus Centre—a respected European think tank which used to be skeptic on climate change—is now advising that we should spend $9 billion in building 1900 cloud-generating ships like the one above. Why? To cool down Earth:

When you spray saltwater into the air, you create nuclei that cloud condenses around, creating bigger and whiter clouds, thus bouncing more sunlight back into space.

That's what David Young, a member of the panel that created the report, says. The fully automated vessels will cross the oceans absorbing water and spraying it into the skies. They say this will help the formation of big, whiter clouds, which will make the sun light bounce, lowering temperatures.

The idea seems neat, but the concept of anyone in planet Earth claiming to understand how climate works to this extend blows my mind. We are still trying to grasp how a complex system like the weather works, but someone wants to put an idea like this in motion, without knowing about the ultimate consequences? Like we say in my home country: Do you experiments with pop soda.

So if this is scientifically sound, then I'm all for it. I'm sure they realize they'll have to be careful not to reduce the global temperature below the 1-degree it has already risen above the supposed average. There remains the possibility, of course, that this could end up one huge fuck-up and drive the planet into an ice-age, or send a million hurricanes in Japan's direction. Like I said, if the science is valid then to hell with the cost, considering the cost of inaction.

So what do you think? Planet-wide Frankenstein experiment fuck-up, or the beginning of Weather Management like we see in Dune?

[Apjak]

Isn't the number one greenhouse gas water vapor?

[Omphalos]

In the concentrations that greenhouse gasses are in now they stop reflected radiation from escaping earth. The theory here is that if more are put into the sky they wont penetrate in the first place. Sound theory, I suppose, but it sounds to me like something that can easily be overdone, then were will we be?

[Drunken Idaho]

In the concentrations that greenhouse gasses are in now they stop reflected radiation from escaping earth. The theory here is that if more are put into the sky they wont penetrate in the first place. Sound theory, I suppose, but it sounds to me like something that can easily be overdone, then were will we be?

Then it'll be good news for oil and coal! Warm it up, baby!

[A Thing of Eternity]

In the concentrations that greenhouse gasses are in now they stop reflected radiation from escaping earth. The theory here is that if more are put into the sky they wont penetrate in the first place. Sound theory, I suppose, but it sounds to me like something that can easily be overdone, then were will we be?

Then we just turn it off! It'll be just like your car in winter, a correct balance is never struck, first you crank the heat, then turn it off, then get cold, turn it on again, and so forth forever!

I'm up for whatever, but people need to think this shit through prett carefully. Where are these boats going to get their power? Because if it originates with fossil fuels then they'd need to be DAMNED effect to counteract that.

[Freakzilla]

Isn't the number one greenhouse gas water vapor?

There IS a sane person here!

[trang]

cow patties and water vapor I thought were the main causes, not CO from smog stacks and autos?

1900 ships for cloud generating huh?? they cant stop 4 guys with p-shooters in motorized dingy's from pirating huge ocean liners... you want to give them a fleet of ships? no thanks.

Maritime cohension is about well.....not.

The climate changes... period. deal with it.

Its been doing it for 5 billion years.. dont think couple hundred years of industrialization is gonna make that big an impact.

You want to base the fate and mechanics of this beautifal blue ball we call home on a little over 100 years of scientific data? news flash folks, its just been over 100 years since humanity took flight? we still havent got that perfected have we? crashs regular, yet its the safest form of transportation? high school or GED to fix em, College degree to design, build and fly......scary.

Have you seen the size of the dinosaurs in the museums? most of them could shit a volkswagon size pile multiple times a day, causing some serious CO. It took a meteor smashing into the planet to wipe them out, and guess what, old mother earth is still here.

We are only as good as our last peice of information, and that information is coming so fast and furious that no one stops to think it thru and just screams the hype. WE HAVE A LARGE PORTION OF PEOPLE THAT STILL THINK THAT DINOSOURS AND MAN LIVED ON EARTH AT THE SAME TIME... um... scary.

We have every major weather agency in the world that still says that the sun "rises" and "Sets"...um the earth rotates.... around the sun. The sun rotates on an axis providing the lovely gravity well that keeps us in orbit. The light emitted shines consistantly on our globe. The rotation of our earth is what profivdes the darkeness time and lignt times, read about it.

Am I saying do nothing?? no, Im saying avoid the hype, stick to basics, logic, and moderation and we as well as mother earth will make it.

Do your own research and learn the truth. If the truth was actually presented in an unbiased kiosk for everyone to see without talking head interjected opinion, governmental secret keeping, and political bullshit, you wouldnt believe what you see.

for example...

Hybrid cars are bullshit... they are two systems crammed together making the car twice as complicated/expensive to operate/maintain. Achieving gas milage rates that small imports were doing with simplar concepts a decade or more ago.

Compact Flourecent bulbs are better... Bullshit, they take twice the energy to make, last about as long, use a slightly smaller portion of power, and three times the energy to dispose of due to toxic chemicals. read about it.


Nuclear energy is not clean, safe, or usable. RADIOACTIVE MAN enough said, look it up.

Clean Coal energy.... oxymoron

Arab Oil nations control our country....bullshit.. less than 25 percent of our imported oil comes from third world. We garner the majority of our OIL from Canada's oil sands. A small few affluent families and corrupt corporations in this country have STAKES in third world oil companies. They manipulate the political scene for their interests, not the greater good. read about it.

Our countries oil reserves are running out? bullshit.. one compound word for ya....OILSHALE

Solar/wind energy isnt viable or cost effective.. bullshit.. they work and work well, read about it.

Exploration of alternative energy generation has been a handjob since jimmy carter administration, no significant amount of money or effort to date by the US Government has gone to igniting or backing a project for this. Geothermal, Tidal, Wind, Solar, Hyrdro electric etc.

We cant make batteries that store enough power or that are light enough to be ecomomical.. bullshit.. check the military some time.. have batteries the size of credit cards that last 24 hours in laptops amoung other things... read about it.

recycling is necessary... Bullshit...we have resources a plenty, and the trash problem is nothing but hype... look it up for yourself.. find the truth.

[Futar]

i pretty much agree with trang here but is it just me or does this thing look like it will capsize in the slightest bit of weather?

[SandChigger]

That's why most of them will be deployed in the southern hemisphere.

[SandRider]

they don't have weather in the southern hemisphere ?

[SandChigger]

Nah ... think about it some more ... without really thinking about it.

[Laphtiya]

Isn't the number one greenhouse gas water vapor?

Yep spot on, I don't see how these "scientists" miss that one. Perhaps they can't see behind the funding that these pro global warming companies shove under their noses.

[SadisticCynic]

Isn't the number one greenhouse gas water vapor?

Yep spot on, I don't see how these "scientists" miss that one. Perhaps they can't see behind the funding that these pro global warming companies shove under their noses.

Probably has something to do with this as well:

Above all else, the mentat must be a generalist, not a specialist. It is wise to
have decisions of great moment monitored by generalists. Experts and specialists
lead you quickly into chaos. They are a source of useless nit picking, the
ferocious quibble over a comma. The mentat-generalist, on the other hand, should
bring to decision-making a healthy common sense. He must not cut himself off
from the broad sweep of what is happening in his universe. He must remain
capable of saying: "There's no real mystery about this at the moment. This is
what we want now. It may prove wrong later, but we'll correct that when we come
to it." The mentat-generalist must understand that anything which we can
identify as our universe is merely part of larger phenomena. But the expert
looks backward; he looks into the narrow standards of his own specialty. The
generalist looks outward; he looks for living principles, knowing full well that
such principles change, that they develop. It is to the characteristics of
change itself that the mentat-generalist must look. There can be no permanent
catalogue of such change, no handbook or manual. You must look at it with as few
preconceptions as possible, asking yourself: "Now what is this thing doing?"

(Hat tip to Freak for having handy epigraphs. )

[Drunken Idaho]

Isn't the number one greenhouse gas water vapor?

Yep spot on, I don't see how these "scientists" miss that one. Perhaps they can't see behind the funding that these pro global warming companies shove under their noses.

Probably has something to do with this as well:

Above all else, the mentat must be a generalist, not a specialist. It is wise to
have decisions of great moment monitored by generalists. Experts and specialists
lead you quickly into chaos. They are a source of useless nit picking, the
ferocious quibble over a comma. The mentat-generalist, on the other hand, should
bring to decision-making a healthy common sense. He must not cut himself off
from the broad sweep of what is happening in his universe. He must remain
capable of saying: "There's no real mystery about this at the moment. This is
what we want now. It may prove wrong later, but we'll correct that when we come
to it." The mentat-generalist must understand that anything which we can
identify as our universe is merely part of larger phenomena. But the expert
looks backward; he looks into the narrow standards of his own specialty. The
generalist looks outward; he looks for living principles, knowing full well that
such principles change, that they develop. It is to the characteristics of
change itself that the mentat-generalist must look. There can be no permanent
catalogue of such change, no handbook or manual. You must look at it with as few
preconceptions as possible, asking yourself: "Now what is this thing doing?"

(Hat tip to Freak for having handy epigraphs. )

Definitely among my favourite Frank quotes. So very true, however I don't think it applies here. None of these scientists involved have missed anything like that Laphtiya, and the vast majority of scientists are NOT under the influence of funding from companies . And what exactly do you mean by "pro global warming" companies anyway? I don't understand that at all. Why would companies who support the warming of the planet (the only ones I can think of are Exxon Mobil or maybe someone who sells air conditioners or slurpees) try to persuade scientists to support a planet-cooling armada? Maybe you meant environmentally-minded companies or companies that support action to combat global warming? That makes a little more sense, but the problem is that you don't need to bribe any scientists to get them to agree with you on that issue. The bottom line is, scientists are virtually unanimous on the fact that climate change is happening and is caused by excessive carbon emissions by human beings. I'll trust the educated opinions of a hefty majority of scientists over the misinformation and junk-science promoted by corporations and politicians any day. You won't find any sponsors on the I.P.C.C.

[Drunken Idaho]

Now, before I get accused of scaremongering I'll say that I'm of a similar mind as Trang, meaning I don't think a panic is necessary at all. Life will go on, especially human life. The future of the human race is nothing but adaptation on a very sci-fi level. Almost nothing can stop us, thanks to technology and our cancer-like growth as a species. Sure, I'd like to see action being taken on the climate situation, be it an attempt to reverse it (as we see above) or efforts to adapt (which is probably more likely). But this ain't no apocalypse. Thom Yorke can stop crying.

[Freakzilla]

I hear we've got another 10,000 years before the next ice age.

[smugetsu]

Oh heavens no, they'll make another sequel long before that. The kids love 'em.

....

......

........

?

[trang]

I hear we've got another 10,000 years before the next ice age.

Coming that soon? better get your apocalyptic kit ready, fresh batteries, duct tape, plastic sheets...

we better get it going too, glaciers are on the move(http://www.bigsiteofamazingfacts.com/ho ... ciers-move" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) (source)

" Most glaciers move very slowly, usually less than a foot a day, although some have been known to move more than 50 feet a day.

However, different layers of one glacier also move at different speeds. The bottom moves slowly because it is rubbing against the land, while the middle and top move more quickly because they are ice sliding against ice.

Scientists measure the speed of a glacier by pounding stakes into the ice at different points and seeing how quickly or slowly their position changes.

The fastest-moving glacier ever recorded is the Quarayaq Glacier in Greenland, which has traveled 80 feet in one day!"


Average 50 feet per day, 18, 250 feet per year (3.46 miles), 34,600 miles in 10k years. I guess they will envelope the earth and have to wait another 10k to have sunny beaches and hot chick volley ball!!!

average human life span 75 years, 10k years, thats 133 generations. Average of Technology advancement doubles every 2 decades? hell say every 25 years, thats 3 advancements in a average lifetime, 399 times in 10k years.. something tells me that we might just have the ability by then to handle them there Glaciers and Ice age? I think the there is an axiom some where that states "technology advancement will hit a singularity and advancement will be instantaneous" wow imagine that, you see something, think of something better, and it becomes better, instantly!

Sad thing to me is, I really and truly would like to live that long (actually a hell of a lot longer) to just be around to see it. 75 - 150 years isn't squatt!! Ya dont get to see the really cools shit happen (like yellowstone caldera blowing its lid) for a couple million years!!


Any sorry got off track!! RUN THE GLACIERS ARE COMING!!!!!!!

[Eyes High]

Oh heavens no, they'll make another sequel long before that. The kids love 'em.

....

......

........

?

And some of the adults as well.