"Geo-Engineering" Climate Change | Newsweek Voices - Sharon Begley

Posted By: infracanis @ 01/18/2008 8:13:44 PM

Comment: These comments offer very little in constructive thought. I thought the title is a little misleading as far as the viability of geo-engineering. The even propostion of these ideas postpones action possible until too late. As well, it detracts from concentrating on an economic transition to ecologically sound consumption. CO2's greenhouse effects are scientically documented. To deny the possibility of human-caused climate change is to deny our own scientific and technological basis of culture. This crisis will absolve the ignorance and prejudice within modern society to reveal inherent opportunities of Man's station. "The Earth is but one country and mankind its citizens' as a great man once said and I believe that.

Posted By: William.Demuth @ 12/07/2007 9:20:45 AM

Comment: Hello! Get a grip people. First of all significant C02 emissions are caused by humans. More humans, more C02 and the planet heats up. Want the planet to cool down, stop breeding like roaches! Stop the political correctness for a second and take a REAL look at the issue, and you will see it is not our technologies that cause the imbalances, it is our population. Whatever draconian steps we can imagine will have zero cumulative impact if we keep growing the human infection on this planet. Our relationship with the ball of dust we call home has been symbiotic for centuries, but we are increasingly parasitic. But don't worry to much, you couldn't wipe out the human race if you tried. We make rats seem like a non invasive species. All that will happen is we will adapt. Sure millions or even billions will die, but nowhere near enough to wipe us out. You see we are the problem, and any attempt to resolve it would be like roaches discussing how best to divide a loaf of bread. If we reduce our footprint by half, and double our population, we are actually worse off than when we started. If we will not willingly reduce our population, good old mother nature will do it for us! As for me, I own a nice piece of land in New Jersey that's 28 feet above sea level, and I figure it will be ocean front by the time I die! As for those who want to take from me financially to feed this con game I have some bad news for you. Anytime anyone tries to impact my standard of living to avert global warming I will simply add another log to my fireplace and laugh.

Posted By: euggordon @ 12/06/2007 4:55:22 PM

Comment: The science of global warming is not science but opinion, often not well informed, and probably motivated by self interest. It is highly likely that the only science is related to how sunspots influence the global average surface temperature, through varying the amount of warming solar radiation incident on the Earth and the varying the average cloud cover acting as as an umbrella.. However, if there is concern about how global warming should be controlled it relates not only to manmade CO2 but as well togeoengineering. Control of the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth by injecting sulphates is well known and Sharon Bigley does a good job of outlining the pros and cons. Unfortunately there are serious cons and experiments should be done with great care. However, there are better thermostatic mechanisms that would do the job without risk. Last year Roger Angel described one such to the National Academy of Science. It involves putting into stable orbit at the Lagrange point between the Earth-moon system and the sun 900,000 miles out an array of umbrellsas that would partially shield the Earth from sunlight. The system would pose no risk to the Earth, would cost far less to implement than Kyoto, would take far less time and would allow good control of the Earth's average surface temperature for 50 years. If anyone is really seiious about doing someting about global warming the ideal solution is available. The fact that you hear nothing about it gives the lie to the so called global warming scientists who are pushing manmade CO2 reduction as the solution. Space umbrellas are by far the cheaper, safer, quicker and more certain solution, without negative consequences. Why are we not doing it? Ask the global warming community. Be warned. They won't comment because it undermines their position.

Posted By: wfriesland @ 12/01/2007 1:34:20 PM

Comment: These days CO2 emissions are the the main cause of global warming in the public eye. There is a growing danger that methane emissions will skyrocket in the coming years. The vast permafrost regions in Siberia, Alaska and Canada contain gigatons of methane locked up in frozen deposits called methane hydrates or clathrates. As the permafrost melts, this methane is being released into the atmosphere in increasing quantities. Methane is approximately ten times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2, and the quantities in the frozen north are staggering. Don't take anyone's word for it. Google methane hydrate and clathrate and find out for yourself. Ms. Begley's proposal is not only realistic, it may show us the only possibility of survival.

Posted By: William.Demuth @ 11/26/2007 3:37:36 PM

Comment: These concepts where originally referred to as Terraforming, and where dreamt up as mechanisms to make uninhabitable planets capable of supporting human life. The idea that a mainstream news outlet might suggest that they even be considered for our home world is so ridiculous as to be absurd. If global warming is the primary threat to our world the most logical and effective countermeasure to it would be to cluster bomb the third world with condoms, because if we do not stop producing more of ourselves than are dying from starvation, AIDS and warfare, all our other efforts shall be moot. Luckily abortion is common and human greed exacerbates malnutrition, or we would already be drowning in human excrement. When will we ever learn?

Posted By: duckalou @ 11/24/2007 2:40:10 AM

Comment: This is nnothing but alarmist nonsense. The temperature increase of only .6C in a hundred years is not very significant and most of that was due to natural causes. Do you really believe that only 100 extra parts in a million of extra C03 in the atmosphere is causing dangerous global warming.? Hardly this tiny amount of C02 is much to insignificant to cause any more than a smll portion of this small amount of global warming. The temperature has been much warmer and colder in the past since climate change is natural and beyond mankinds control.

Posted By: selenite @ 11/23/2007 9:23:29 PM

Comment: In the last century industries were forced to stop using surface water for disposal of waste water ??? now we would be horrified to find a pipe running from a factory into a stream. We need to similarly decrease disposing of gas waste into the atmosphere. More and more smokestacks are a poor vision for the future.

Capturing greenhouse gasses from point sources before they are emitted to the atmosphere is preferable on an energy as well as esthetics basis to capturing them from the atmosphere

Posted By: asdf1958 @ 11/23/2007 8:19:57 PM

Comment: What is the name of the company (mentioned in the article) that is developing the plastic mesh sheets that capture CO2 from the air?

Posted By: Silverloch @ 11/23/2007 2:42:14 PM

Comment: Climate engineering is probably inevitable. Proactive initiatives are always better than accepting what fate might do. Fatalistic whining and handwringing only fills the coffers of the purveyors of the popular myth, and does little to actually do anything about it. Thank you for capturing the gist of it.