GLOBAL WARMING

How to Fix a Climate Emergency

As forecasts for global temperatures grow increasingly dire, scientists are taking a serious look at an idea once considered crazy: reengineering the atmosphere.

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 07/09/2009 4:10:14 PM

    Rustfree: And Basic Math 101 needs you as a student.

    There never was any ''2000''scientists on the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]

    There were precisely 212 who authored the original report that launched the phony career of the huckstering [and quite environmentally hypocritical, algore].

    On the heels of the recently released ''Climate Change Reconsidered'' penned by a consortium of 37 scientists,comes a letter signed by over 700 world climateologists and scientists including Nobel winners and Lauretes [three times the number of the IPCC] that are reexamining the faulty conclusions raised by the IPCC and detailed in the 880 page study. Disgusted with the way they were treated by the media and algore being branded ''deniers'' in the new Red Scare, several of the worlds top climate scientists are angrily turning their guns on the fundementalist greenies and the Goreians to attack their own shoddy and slipshod findings. Europe,Asia, the Americas,Australia, and Japan are all offering up their scientists to combat what these see as ''junk science''. Thus there is debate, and it is being performed within a peer-reviewed, scientific, environment.

    The Wall St. Journal June 26,2009:''Climate Change Climate Change''.

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 07/09/2009 3:45:23 PM


    Heres one.

    Slap some duct tape on Bidens big mouth. That should equate to at least the amount of hot air India expends in a year.

  • Posted By: Greg the Third @ 04/24/2009 12:14:14 PM

    The governments of the world are such fools. Many times I have written about the hidden costs of burning fossil fuels. Their byproducts don't just pollute and degrade the local infrastructure and health, but impact global health and infrastructure over long time frames. The cost of removing all of the carbon emissions for one year: 150 billion. If only nations had the wisdom to factor that cost in when considering what kind of power plants they want to build. The cost of sequestering the emissions before their release is even higher. One problem that is not addressed by sun shields is the acidification of the oceans driven by rising atmospheric C02. Waiting until the only fish left in the sea are jellyfish and the last coarl reef has died and disintegrated is a mistake. Perhaps someone should get working on a plan to buffer the ocean ph while they are planning to release sulfates into the upper atmosphere. It is sad it has come to this, but I agree that the time for this has come. One other related point of interest is that the huge spike in global temperatures began in the 70s around the same time the clean air acts began removing sulfur and lead emissions into the atmosphere. So in effect we were already doing this since the beginning of the industrial revolution and got a wake up call when we took down the sun shield we had put up at the same time we were putting up our CO2 heat trap.

    • Posted By: Bryan078 @ 04/25/2009 2:26:58 AM

      Why don't you stop emitting carbon, you are hurting our atmosphere? Maybe if all mammals ceased breathing, the world would be fixed and we could die happily knowing that the temperatures on earth would be the same. Wait... no one knows what the temperatures would be like, because no one without a leftist political agenda has any evidence that mankind actually has any affect on temperatures.

      • Posted By: Apolitical @ 04/26/2009 5:26:00 PM

        Bryan - How it is being married to Michelle Bachmann, the mad congresswoman on her new groundbreaking theory that C02 is harmless. You, of course, already know idiocy is contagious as your and hers symptoms are all over here in the other media in grand display.

      • Posted By: Rustfree @ 04/26/2009 4:31:41 PM

        And the Flat Earth Society would love to have you as a member.
        Where are all of these dissenting scientists, I'd like to know? Are they all locked up in a dungeon somewhere? Or is the "liberal media" preventing them from getting their message out? It seems to me there are plenty of right-wing news outlets for them if they want to publicize their views. Let's hear from all these so-called experts who deny global warming is caused by human activities. Better yet, why don't you post their names and titles right here. Let's see how well they stack up against the 2,000-plus scientists on the U.N. Climate Panel.

  • Posted By: rho1953 @ 04/25/2009 12:43:50 PM

    It's always the same cabal beating the drum about the "climate emergency". It's the ones with something to gain. The politicians who want taxation and control and the ones who have invested in cap and trade. Barack Obama and Al Gore are positioned to make lots of money. Why aren't the Canadians, Japanese, Russians, Chinese and Indians in on this? They aren't going to go down this path and without their participation it's all a big waste. We are being manipulated. You will be giving the government the power to raise taxes and control our activities. If you think the people who deny this sham are all being bought or that a big lobby is behind it you are an idiot. It is your side that is being driven by those things.

    • Posted By: Rustfree @ 04/26/2009 4:39:57 PM

      And the Flat Earth Society would love to have you as a member.
      Where are all of these dissenting scientists, I'd like to know? Are they all locked up in a dungeon somewhere? Or is the "liberal media" preventing them from getting their message out? It seems to me there are plenty of right-wing news outlets for them if they want to publicize their views. Let's hear from all these so-called experts who deny global warming is caused by human activities. Better yet, why don't you post their names and titles right here. We'll see how well they stack up against the 2,000-plus scientists on the U.N. Climate Panel.

    • Posted By: Rustfree @ 04/26/2009 4:35:45 PM

      And the Flat Earth Society would love to have you as a member.
      Where are all of these dissenting scientists, I'd like to know? Are they all locked up in a dungeon somewhere? Or is the "liberal media" preventing them from getting their message out? It seems to me there are plenty of right-wing news outlets for them if they want to publicize their views. Let's hear from all these so-called experts who deny global warming is caused by human activities. Better yet, why don't you post their names and titles right here. We'll see how well they stack up against the 2,000-plus scientists on the U.N. Climate Panel.

  • Posted By: russg @ 04/18/2009 11:22:00 PM

    Just 26 years ago the oceans were growing far more plant life than today, we should first replenish and restore the ocean pastures. In those 26 years which is when satellites began giving us constant observation of ocean ecosystems we've seen 12% of the plants disappear from the Southern Ocean, 17% from the North Atlantic, 26% from the North Pacific, and 50% from some tropical seas. Before these plants disappeared they fixed and converted 4-5 billion tonnes of CO2 into ocean plants each year. Today the crisis of climate change is said to be 8-10 billion tonnes too much CO2 accumulating in the air and worse acidifying the oceans. Ocean scientists in both private and public roles have studied how to replenish the vital but increasingly missing mineral micro-nutrients that can restore the ocean pastures to their former levels of health so they may once again convert half the human crisis of CO2 into ocean life instead of acid ocean death and climate change. This isn't geoengineering or creation of something new, it's simple and desperately needed restoration and recreation of natures balance. To achieve the goal of tackling half the crisis of CO2 companies like Planktos-Science are working to deliver this technology not in some distant future time but immediately and at a cost of less than 1% of the cost of working to solve the other half of the problem. Replenish and restore the oceans ought to be a cry from every one who cares for this small blue planet. Read more at www.planktos-science.com

    • Posted By: Rustfree @ 04/26/2009 4:35:12 PM

      And the Flat Earth Society would love to have you as a member.
      Where are all of these dissenting scientists, I'd like to know? Are they all locked up in a dungeon somewhere? Or is the "liberal media" preventing them from getting their message out? It seems to me there are plenty of right-wing news outlets for them if they want to publicize their views. Let's hear from all these so-called experts who deny global warming is caused by human activities. Better yet, why don't you post their names and titles right here. We'll see how well they stack up against the 2,000-plus scientists on the U.N. Climate Panel.

  • Posted By: Zhangk @ 04/25/2009 2:45:29 AM

    ???Using geo-engineering to keep temperatures artificially low while carbon levels continued to rise would be doubling down the risk of rapid warming should the air-cooling project suddenly stop, or need to be halted, for any reason.???
    As a English learner, I cann't get the exact meaning. Would anyone explain this sentance in one much simpler format.

  • Posted By: solidfood @ 04/23/2009 8:05:46 PM

    Gee, it seems like only 14 years ago that these ignorant scientists were telling us that by 2000 we would all die from a new ice age. Oh wait, it was 14 years ago, on the first official 'Earth Day'. These Bozo's can figure out what the earth is doing let alone we should believe they know how to stop anything. If global warming is real it has been going on since, let me see, that would be the end of the last ICE AGE. Didn't seem to bother any body then or since but money can be made and wealth redistributed. Sounds like a good idea. Too bad Darwin was dead wrong about evolution and the survival of the fittest. Scientists know the truth of the matter too. All this garbage they lay on us is worse than anything AIG, the banks, or the housing industry could ever come up with yet the scientists still tell us how smart they are without so much as a blush of embarrassment. If evolution is true, answer me one simple question. Where are all the homosexuals coming from? If ever a gene was not going to reproduce it would be that one.

    • Posted By: Melvie_Sue @ 04/24/2009 12:47:11 PM

      Wow...linking a rejection of global warming to the existence of homosexuality! Ubelievable...

      I don't know if you've heard, but a little thing happened since the last big Ice Age...the Industrial Revolution. That kinda shot the CO2 levels up just a WEE bit.

      Also, as far as homosexuality and where its "coming from", its been around for thousands of years, and to answer your question, perhaps it is indeed a form of evolution - an answer to the overpopulation of the human race. Less natural procreation and homosexuality could be very GOOD thing - a significant part of the human population not procreating in the "natural" sense and adopting existing children would ease the strain we have put on the world's resources today. You never know....

      Anywho, thank goodness for a "plan b". One should always have a backup plan...single-mindedness has never kept civilizations around for too long.

      • Posted By: Bryan078 @ 04/25/2009 2:23:31 AM

        Are you kidding me? Did you really just jump from the last ice age to human industrialization in an effort to legitimize global warming? It is beyond realistic to think that the natural environmental cycles are affected by humans who use natural elements in everything they do. Carbon dioxide is, and always has been, part of our atmosphere. It is necessary, and it is doing nothing to the world we live in that it hasn't already done for the many many years earth has existed.

        Furthermore, you are a complete idiot for somehow suggesting that gay people are doing the world a favor by not procreating. Do us all a favor and you yourself should abstain from procreation, as we do not need anymore idiots around in the future.

  • Posted By: dstarman @ 04/24/2009 5:01:38 PM

    If the volcano did so much good by reflecting the sun's rays why not artificially explode a volcano with a bomb? That would be cost effective and somewhat natural which will give us time to transfer to more efficient cars and systems that do not pollute as much.

  • Posted By: D_S_P_2009 @ 04/23/2009 6:23:12 AM

    Isn`t it simpler just planting fast growing trees? I saw a study (unfortunately I don't remember where) in which the person said an area as big as USA should be planted every year around the world to compensate the new emissions.
    This is a huge area, but only if taken as the one solution that will "save us". The problem is and always will be the interests of those involved in the decisions. Geo-engineering, volcano gases, carbon storage, cutting emissions are not good solutions as long as they walk alone down the road.
    We must evolve from "money" based societies into something else. Western cultures have evolved from religion based societies into science based societies by allowing "the new ideas" to explain the inexplicable. This probably have caused the change in climate we are facing, but we can do better than this. Emerging markets are not willing to sacrifice their grouth and development just because the climate demands it, and mainly because the "developed" countries didn't care (I prefer the didn't know option) about the climate during the developing phase.
    Another point, in emerging countries, the climate issue doesn't sound so bad. I know it because I'm writing from one emerging country. Maybe there should be a bigger effort to socialize the information about this matter without panicking everyone.

    • Posted By: kruedawg @ 04/24/2009 4:23:20 PM

      You make some great points, esp. about no one solution being the answer. However, the problem with just planting fast growing trees (and other vegitation) to remove the CO2 from the air is that many fast growing trees also have short lifespans, and when they die they release that CO2 back into the air as they decay, and if they were to burn (lightening storms, as fuel) they would also release the CO2 back. But you are on the right track, the answer is a combonation of several options used together.

    • Posted By: Gratuito @ 04/23/2009 9:36:16 PM

      That of course would be a logical conclusion, which has been presented and rejected, because there's no money in it.No the solution to global warming has to have some insane price tag, a means of enslaving generations(and rewarding the filthy rich) through taxes, to pay for those silk threads that only the Emperor can see...

  • Posted By: CouldCareLessAnymore @ 04/19/2009 10:11:02 AM

    You`d think scientists would know that the earth has always gone thru climate changes. Does the ice age ring a bell? Does the desert southwest, Florida, etc being under water ring a bell? Was that caused by manmade carbon polution? There is no such thing as global warming as they explain it. We have maybe a few thousand years of climate records out of the billions of years. The earth is and has always changed on its own. "IF" what they are saying is even remotely true then these so-called scientists are the ones to blame for creating all this crap that is destroying the earth. They are selling but I`m not buying! Well I`m off to burn some vegitation to help accelerate the carbon problem, lol....

    • Posted By: kruedawg @ 04/24/2009 4:18:56 PM

      Are you serious? Really?? Global warming isn't a myth, it's happening right before our eyes.

    • Posted By: rye75 @ 04/24/2009 3:19:58 PM

      Actually we can analyze air content in cie capsules dating back 100s of thousands of years... giving us accurate temparature and CO2 readings for nearly 800,000 years. Our natural cycle has been greatly disrupted and its do to human intervention. Do you drive a car? It creates CO2... guess what, I drive one too, and so does everyone reading this - and we all burn coal jsut by using this computer. Do you really think the cummulative fossil fuel consumption of nearly 7 billion people isn't impacting this planet? It's elementary really.

  • Posted By: TheGuyWhoLikesYourMom @ 04/23/2009 5:47:21 AM

    Happy Earth Day, everyone. Remember, don't listen to media propaganda, we don't actually have to do a thing, all we have to do is come up with some interstellar travel technology. The way I see it, if we break this one (planet), go to another one. If the other one is already taken, we have guns, and we can take it from them. What we need to develop is:
    1) Space techology
    2) Weapon technology

    Then we're set for maintaining the survival of the glorious Human Empire for generations to come. If a few species die out as a result of our actions, its more proof of Darwanian theory proven correct. Natural selection.

    • Posted By: Gratuito @ 04/23/2009 9:31:49 PM

      Ahhhh, but we already have!!! Microwaves that can enter the earth, cause those erruptions of volcano's and we have Chemtrails,particles like aluminum and boron being sprayed in the sky to ward off the fake global warming caused by the secret weapons.........awww, shucks, I'm begining to sound like one of those conspiracy theorists!!!
      Well, there you have it , except if you google HAARP, you'll find that weather control has been going on since the 1940's and they'll stop at nothing to destroy everything.......Their global warming THEORY has more holes in it than the moon.....It IS made out of swiss cheese, isn't it???

  • Posted By: Andrew Maynard @ 04/21/2009 8:39:27 AM

    I must confess, I'm conflicted on geoengineering. As a scientist, the idea of being able to control and engineer the earth's climate on a grand scale is seductive. on the other hand, I'm well aware of the dangers of tinkering with a highly non-linear, complex and poorly understood system. I suspect though that the possibility of engineering the environment isn't one that will go away. Which means that the sensible course of action is to strive to improve our science-based understanding, so that if and when "plan B" becomes necessary, the chances of making a bigger mess than we started with are reduced.

    At the same time, working through the social and ethical issues ahead of time is an absolute must. Questions along the lines of who benefits from geoengineering and who pays the price are going to be at least as important as the science and technology, if this is something that is ever going to succeed long-term.

    More on the broader social/policy/ethical issues at http://2020science.org/2009/04/08/geoengineering-goes-mainstream/

  • Posted By: Andrew Maynard @ 04/21/2009 7:46:25 AM

    Should plan B become necessary, it's success will depend as much on tackling the social and ethical issues raised by geoengineering as soon as possible, as developing the science and technology. There's a heck of a lot that could ho wrong here (http://2020science.org/2009/04/08/geoengineering-goes-mainstream/) - but that means we need to get to get the science and policies right, not simply stick our heads in the sand.

  • Posted By: 21st Century Challenges @ 04/21/2009 4:52:08 AM

    Prof David Keith is discussing geo-engineering at an event called 'Engineering our climate' on 14 May 2009 in London at the Royal Geographical Society www.21stCenturyChallenges.org

  • Posted By: nawawimohamad @ 04/21/2009 12:50:24 AM

    A very enlighntening article. They should concentrate to create particles that are more efficient at cooling than sulfates, but without the side effects and can be preordained, maybe using nano-technology. The scientists can also try to work with micro-waves to manage the carbon particles or to somehow influence some kind of control on the micro-particles in the atmosphere to control the climate. Maybe use some other kind of waves. But emission control is still a must because without it the whole effort will just be a pepertual vicious cycle.

  • Posted By: christofjahnsen @ 04/20/2009 3:14:21 AM

    As humans continues to use a lot of unnecessary material on the farm, chemistry, indutry etc. the climate of world will be under efect to lose its characteristics. On the other hand, there is a reality that we need to use some of the energy sources which may be harmful for the environment. But I think there shoulr be e better solution that enable us to reduce the harmful effect of this kind of sources. How can the problem be solved is actually a question at which we have to seriously take a look.

  • Posted By: christofjahnsen @ 04/20/2009 3:14:00 AM

    As humans continues to use a lot of unnecessary material on the farm, chemistry, indutry etc. the climate of world will be under efect to lose its characteristics. On the other hand, there is a reality that we need to use some of the energy sources which may be harmful for the environment. But I think there shoulr be e better solution that enable us to reduce the harmful effect of this kind of sources. How can the problem be solved is actually a question at which we have to seriously take a look.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse