Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Mirrors In Space To Combat Global Warming  
User currently offlineN229NW From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 1950 posts, RR: 31
Posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2100 times:

Well, it seems that the US government is at least admitting that something must be done about global warming. Now, I tend to distrust their plans because they are so influenced by the energy lobby and their ideologies, and thus tend to override any scientific consensus. However, this idea about putting reflective dust or mirrors in space sounds like it may prove useful, perhaps even save us...

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/cl...atechange/story/0,,1999968,00.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0731-05.htm

While I believe strongly that we should have signed up to Kyoto, it is also obvious that Kyoto or any future treaty involving emissions reductions will be so scaled down in order to be acceptable to all signing parties, that it will barely scratch the surface in terms of reducing emissions enough to really counter what is going on. (The reason these treaties are still good is that they will force research and development, however.)

Still, it has long been clear to me that something more radical will have to be researched, and soon. So I'm prepared to be open-minded about this US proposal.

But I would like to know more about possible side-effects. It seems to me the biggest danger of a plan such as this is that an unexpected side effect could cause an ecological disaster larger than the one we are trying to avert...

[Edited 2007-01-27 05:33:00]


It's people like you what cause unrest!
46 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2092 times:

Smoke and mirrors... yeap, sounds like W to me.

User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2080 times:

Never thought something like this would be proposed for real. From reading on terraforming on Wikipedia, I remember a part which mentioned that giant space mirrors could be used to reflect the sunlight away in order to cool down Venus (which has a much worse problem with the greenhouse effect than Earth) for terraforming. However it might be something impractical and most expensive to do. I doubt it will happen in this lifetime, at least for Earth.

User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 42
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2076 times:

Quoting N229NW (Thread starter):
But I would like to know more about possible side-effects. It seems to me the biggest danger of a plan such as this is that an unexpected side effect could cause an ecological disaster larger than the one we are trying to avert...

Just imagine a fault in any sort of mirror combined with yet unknown atmospheric levels of CO2 that we've produced "because the mirrors take care of it". We'd get, say, 20 years of greenhouse effect condensed into a few months.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineSpeedbird747BA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2053 times:

Quoting N229NW (Thread starter):
perhaps even save us...

Save us from what? Ive said it before, in fact its getting boring saying this so often, man-made global warming is a dream.

Quoting N229NW (Thread starter):
reducing emissions enough to really counter what is going on.

Again, what is going on? In the 70s it was global cooling because all these emissions arent letting in enough heat, now its global warming because all these emissions are keeping all the heat in. So which is it?

Quoting Article by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4°F (0.2 to 0.3°C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data). The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have, in fact, cooled over the last century."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

All this data, which only shows a razor-thin rise in global temperatures, can bring up the question: How accurate is our data for temperatures?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html

From Article:

"Absolute estimates of global mean surface temperature are difficult to compile for a number of reasons."

Where has your argument for global temperatures are rising gone?? Nowhere, vanished. Now, how about this folly about CO2 emissions raise the greenhouse gases enough to raise the temperature of the entire world enough to kill us, as is a obvious problen thus

Quoting N229NW (Thread starter):
even save us...

A bit dramatic, yes?

OK rant over, on to more scientific evidence.....

Did you know, for instance, that CO2 is classified as a 'trace gas', making up less than 1% of the atmosphere, that in fact more than 1/2 of ALL anthropogenic CO2 emissions are absorbed naturally (althoug not much is known about where it goes - most theories suggest it is absorbed into the oceans and terrestrial biospheres), and that less than 1/2% that is not absorbed naturally is trumped, and I do mean trumped, by natural emmisions of CO2.

Most of the CO2 I mentioned, that is absorbed by natural processes, isnt taken into account in future predictions.

From Article:

"Current models used to project future atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations assume that the carbon cycle will continue to operate in the same way it has operated in the recent past. These models do not take into account the limitations of the carbon sink on land, or how biological, chemical and physical processes in the ocean and land might change either due to natural variability or external forcing. "

http://www.climate.noaa.gov/index.js...o_pa/cpo_pa_index.jsp&pa=gcc&sub=1


Another Article:

" They point to actual measurements taken from satellite and weather balloons and reliable surface observations that show little or no warming has taken place in the last 22 years; they show that the character of the observed warming is more indicative of urbanization than the effect of man's production of greenhouse gases; they present evidence that most of the observed warming in the last century can be linked to changes in solar luminosity and sunspot activity; and they show how the effects of even small changes on the sun can be magnified in our atmosphere through the effect these changes have on cloud cover."

http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1156/

mmmmhmmmmm............

So the 'drastic' rise in global temperatures is because of sun-spot and solar-flare activity, not because of greenhouse gases?

mmmmhmmmmm.............


From Article:

"If there is indeed a solar cycle to global temperature connection, it would help explain the observed changes in recent decades as well as the changes observed over the centuries. The quiet sun period of the Maunder Minimum in the 1600s coincided with the global phenomenon known as the Little Ice Age, during which the Thames River froze in England and glaciers advanced.

There is evidence that solar activity (based on reports of very high aurora activity) was very high in the 11th and 12th century. Global warming then enabled the Vikings to inhabit Greenland. They eventually abandoned Greenland when the solar activity diminished and temperatures returned to frigid levels. "

From the Same Article:

"Research at the Danish Meteorological Institute found that when the sun is quiet, more cloudiness is observed in middle latitudes than when the sun is active. They believe this may be due to cosmic rays, which reach the atmosphere in much greater numbers during the quiet sun years because the earth’s protective shield is weaker. This cloudiness increase can serve to reflect more solar energy back to space and help to lower temperatures. Their research models suggest that the combined effects can explain net heating and cooling differences more like a few percent"

http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1045/

That explains it, explains it all. If you have any questions, dont hesitate to ask. Dont just hop on the GW bandwagon because its popular now, know the facts.

Cheers,
Kyle


User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4304 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2049 times:

Oh yeah, I'm sure there's plenty of spare $$ in the United States budget for that!

Let alone the fact no country in the world today has the industrial and technological capability of assembling such a device, of that you can be sure.

Without getting into some of the specific science-bound challenges to be overcome, there are no payload spacecraft in existance that could even get such a project off the ground. You would need space shuttles FAR bigger in payload, and certainly far more reliable and cheaper to operate to pull that off.

There is nothing any nation is developing or even conceptually developing, to achieve that.

It's a non-starter and rather pathetic idea timewise.



My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2041 times:

I'm not sure this idea would be as difficult to pull off as you think, Derico. The mirror would probably be a very thin sheet of Mylar or something, not a heavy glass and metal construction. The challenge would be keeping the mirror from acting as a solar sail.


Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21462 posts, RR: 53
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2026 times:

Quoting Speedbird747BA (Reply 4):
Save us from what? Ive said it before, in fact its getting boring saying this so often, man-made global warming is a dream.

You and your buddies in the oil industry are increasingly getting lonely with that brand of FUD.

Lobby-financed "research" beholden to oil interests isn't actually very credible, even if the Bush administration had somehow decided it was the only kind of science they could be bothered with - until it became entirely untenable.

Sorry - time's up!


User currently offlineBirdwatching From Germany, joined Sep 2003, 3822 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2011 times:

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Even if it does work, we're just slowing down the effects of global warming, but the real problem (American cars) is still there! All the other associated problems remain: Increasing amounts of toxic substances we breathe in, more cars blocking more roads that need to be built, noise pollution of urban areas. An that's only the beginning.

There are only 2 things that can be done against global warming:

1) humans stop reproducing themselves like rats (how about a 3 children limit)

2) Americans stop to live like they're alone on the planet (especially high school wannabe scientists like Speedbird747BA)

Soren  santahat 



All the things you probably hate about travelling are warm reminders that I'm home
User currently offlineSpeedbird747BA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1976 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 7):
You and your buddies in the oil industry are increasingly getting lonely with that brand of FUD.

Lobby-financed "research" beholden to oil interests isn't actually very credible, even if the Bush administration had somehow decided it was the only kind of science they could be bothered with - until it became entirely untenable.

Can you offer any evidence to connect NOAA to oil interests? And just what are our interests? The Pres. said he wants to reduce our dependancy on foreign oil, and reduce our dependancy on oil as a whole. Do you know more than him? Can/Are you going to offer any evidence to the contrary of what I said?

Quoting Birdwatching (Reply 8):
real problem (American cars)



Quoting Birdwatching (Reply 8):
Americans stop to live like they're alone on the planet

Why is it only Americans? Why dont the Chinese factories belching out smoke contribute to pollution at all? Why dont South American factories and cars contribute?

Quoting Birdwatching (Reply 8):
especially high school wannabe scientists like Speedbird747BA)

Awwwwww, thank you. Although, actually, its more like highschool wannabe pilot/economist like Speedbird747BA.  Big grin  Smile


Cheers,
Kyle


User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2086 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1973 times:

Quoting Speedbird747BA (Reply 9):
Why is it only Americans? Why dont the Chinese factories belching out smoke contribute to pollution at all? Why dont South American factories and cars contribute?

Because right now that's still marginal, compared to the U.S. output, believe it or not...

But I'll agree to you, in the future, the real danger to the global environment won't lie in America (where public and political awareness is on the rise), but in the developing countries like China and India.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlineN229NW From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 1950 posts, RR: 31
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1973 times:

Read the second article link in the original post. It seems rather than deploying actual mirrors in spacecraft we might be able to blow sulphur dust into the right part of the atmosphere to do the same thing...this seems more realistic to me.

I'm not even going to respond to Speedbird747BA's argument here, because I believe that 99.9% of scientists not paid by the US government are right (just like if you started a thread on reducing tobacco sales to minors, you wouldn't bother responding to a post claiming that tobacco didn't harm anyone...)

But as for some of the others, anyway, I agree that we must keep working on emissions reduction goals. HOWEVER, look for example at these:

Quoting Birdwatching (Reply 8):
1) humans stop reproducing themselves like rats (how about a 3 children limit)

2) Americans stop to live like they're alone on the planet (especially high school wannabe scientists like Speedbird747BA)

Much as I'd like to see this (and they are goals to work toward), we don't have much time, we don't run the world, and we simply won't realistically be able to impose these on people. That's why I think a solution "outside the box" may be necessary too.



It's people like you what cause unrest!
User currently offlineSpeedbird747BA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1966 times:

Quoting N229NW (Reply 11):
I'm not even going to respond to Speedbird747BA's argument here, because I believe that 99.9% of scientists not paid by the US government are right (just like if you started a thread on reducing tobacco sales to minors, you wouldn't bother responding to a post claiming that tobacco didn't harm anyone...)

Well, again, youre wrong.

Cheers,
Kyle


User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2086 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1953 times:

Quoting Speedbird747BA (Reply 4):
man-made global warming is a dream.

The last one switch the light off, please.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlineBirdwatching From Germany, joined Sep 2003, 3822 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1939 times:

Quoting Speedbird747BA (Reply 12):
Well, again, youre wrong.

So you're saying that tobacco doesn't harm minors?

As much as I'd hate to derail this thread off-topic, I'd love to hear you prove it!

(Not that it matters, your credibility on this board after the global warming comment is already in the lower zeros)

Soren  santahat 



All the things you probably hate about travelling are warm reminders that I'm home
User currently offlineSpeedbird747BA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1937 times:

^^ Wrong about the '99.9% of scientists'.

Quoting Birdwatching (Reply 14):
(Not that it matters, your credibility on this board after the global warming comment is already in the lower zeros)

Id love to see a rebuttal to it. Did you even read the entire post?

Cheers,
Kyle


User currently offlineGuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2049 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1925 times:

Quoting Birdwatching (Reply 8):
2) Americans stop to live like they're alone on the planet (especially high school wannabe scientists like Speedbird747BA)

OH, OH, OH how WRONG are you, Mr. Birdwatcher.

AMERICANS are acting like they are living alone on the planet? Care to back that up?

No? Ok.. I'll show you how delusional you really are:

The WORLDS, not the US, but the WORLDS 10 MOST POLLUTED place on earth are (in Alphabetical Order):

The Top 10 most polluted places for 2006, in alphabetical order by country:

Linfen, China, where residents say they literally choke on coal dust in the evenings, exemplifies many Chinese cities;

Haina, Dominican Republic, has severe lead contamination because of lead battery recycling, a problem common throughout poorer countries [image];

Ranipet, India, where leather tanning wastes contaminate groundwater with hexavalent chromium, made famous by Erin Brockovich, resulting in water that apparently stings like an insect bite;

Mailuu-Suu, Kyrgyzstan, home to nearly 2 million cubic meters of radioactive mining waste that threatens the entire Ferghana valley, one of the most fertile and densely populated areas in Central Asia that also experiences high rates of seismic activity;

La Oroya, Peru, where the metal processing plant, owned by the Missouri-based Doe Run Corporation, leads to toxic emissions of lead;

Dzerzinsk, Russia, one of the country's principal chemical weapons manufacturing sites until the end of the Cold War [image];

Norilsk, Russia, which houses the world's largest heavy metals smelting complex;

Rudnaya Pristan, Russia, where lead contamination resulted in child blood lead levels eight to 20 times maximum allowable U.S. levels;

Chernobyl, Ukraine, infamous site of a nuclear meltdown 20 years ago; and

Kabwe, Zambia, where child blood levels of lead are five to 10 times the allowable EPA maximum.


This comes from http://www.livescience.com/environment/061018_polluted_places.html


And besides that, 16 of the top 20 of the most polluted cities comes from where? The USA? Umm, might want to check that also:

from:
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-6-10/42510.html

According to CNN, the World Bank recently examined 20 of the most severely polluted cities in the world. Sixteen of these cities are located in China, and Linfen City, in Shanxi Province, was cited as the world's most polluted city.

Apple Daily reported that factories in Linfen continuously release waste gas and sewage. The whole city smells and is covered in smoke. The trees around the factories are all withered. The polluted water is like thick oil, and the polluted rivers have caused a higher incidence of cancer among citizens living in the area.....cut


Wow.. you might want to go check your sources before making such statements.
if you have anything to back up your claims, feel free to post away...

[Edited 2007-01-27 18:51:49]

[Edited 2007-01-27 18:53:03]


As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21462 posts, RR: 53
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1903 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 13):
The last one switch the light off, please.

You sort of can't help but think that, reading his post...! Big grin

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 16):
The Top 10 most polluted places

Newsflash: CO2 is invisible and doesn't smell.

There are very different kinds of pollution with very different consequences; CO2 pollution is unfortunately something a huge SUV with a wasteful engine will still happily participate in even if - assumed - its exhaust didn't smell at all.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1886 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 7):
Lobby-financed "research" beholden to oil interests isn't actually very credible

It is just as credible as lobby-financed "research" beholden to granola-crunching interests.

Face it, "Enviormentalisim" and "Green Industries" are a growth industry. If you can make a buck off of fears about "global warming" then you will try and promote that.

Just like people where predicting a new ice age in the 1970's.

Quoting Speedbird747BA (Reply 9):
Can you offer any evidence to connect NOAA to oil interests?

I would like to see that considering most of the researchers a career people, meaning that they probably where hired during the tenure of any of the last 4 or 5 presidents and their enviromental policies.

Quoting Rara (Reply 10):
But I'll agree to you, in the future, the real danger to the global environment won't lie in America (where public and political awareness is on the rise), but in the developing countries like China and India

Exactly, and that why was Kyoto was fundamentally and irrepairably flawed. China and India got free passes, and the US would have gotten raped. The Senate was right for not ratifying that lousy piece of paper.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21462 posts, RR: 53
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1882 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 18):
It is just as credible as lobby-financed "research" beholden to granola-crunching interests.

Unfortunately for your argument, the overwhelming majority of the researchers are in agreement about the reality of global warming and the overwhelming majority of them are paid by universities and primarily have their further scientific careers riding on the validity of their findings.

The Granola industry is actually not a major factor there.


User currently offlineFumanchewd From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1871 times:

It seems to me that this is like fat people who take "magic fat burning pills" instead of just getting off of their asses and excercising. We will have the ability to stop using gasoline engines within a decade. It would reduce global warming and our reliance on the always problamatic middle east.

Now if we could just find a politician with the balls to take that giant step who isn't funded by industries.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1861 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 19):
and primarily have their further scientific careers riding on the validity of their findings.

Yup, the head of the Weather Channel (Heidi Cullen) recently gave an interview that stated that any meteorologist who has a AMS (American Meterogical Society) seal of approval who doesn't support the theory of global warming should have those seals revoked. And those approvals are considered mandatory to get a job as a meteorologist.

So the message is clear, either believe in global warming or you won't be working in weather.

Dr Cullens article,

http://www.weather.com/blog/weather/8_11392.html

and the original interview of WJLA Channel 7 Meteorologist, Brian van de Graaff, . For those who can't find the comments about global warming, it was the second to last comment. Right before he is asked about who his alma-mater's basketball team is doing.

http://www.capitalweather.com/second...eatures/vandegraaff.capitalweather

Edit, found a more complete link to the proposal to decertify meterologists who doubt global warming. I can only hope most of you view the U.S. Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works as a potentially impartial source of information.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528

[Edited 2007-01-27 22:55:00]

[Edited 2007-01-27 22:55:41]


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 39
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1849 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 17):

Newsflash: CO2 is invisible and doesn't smell.

More pollution concentration means less environmental control, which means greater outputs of CO2.

I bet Mexico City OR Sao Paulo emit more CO2 than, say, Miami and New York combined, or probaby even NYC and L.A. combined.

Kyoto allows for this, but I don't see a lot happening - it should be much more beneficial for rich countries to reduce CO2 output in the developing world than spend billions of dollars on their own nations, much of it on non-economically-sustainable "green" activities which in the long run don't work AND end up actually hurting the environment because it wastes resources (money earned at the expense of the environment, thrown away).

[Edited 2007-01-27 23:08:37]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21462 posts, RR: 53
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1848 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 21):
Yup, the head of the Weather Channel (Heidi Cullen) recently gave an interview that stated that any meteorologist who has a AMS (American Meterogical Society) seal of approval who doesn't support the theory of global warming should have those seals revoke. And those approvals are considered mandatory to get a job as a meteorologist.

That would be just as silly a demand as the Bush administration's threat against any NOAA, EPA or other government-employed scientist to get fired should they in any form contradict the dictated White House talking points.

The Bush administration is out in two years. The reality or lack thereof of the current working theory about global warming, however, is a much longer-term issue.

You might want to have actual verifiable research data instead of wishful thinking either way - and so far the actual verifiable data strongly indicates that global warming is not just occurring, but it also is closely linked with CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Bring more and better verifiable data and we can talk.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1840 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 23):
Bring more and better verifiable data and we can talk

It was -20C at my house two weeks ago.

Doesn't get much more definite then that.

And I would also love to see verifiable data, and not just the "Computer models" that most global warming proponets use.

Most people aren't skeptical that the climate changes, they are skeptical over the cause and the rate.

[Edited 2007-01-27 23:14:27]


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
25 Post contains images Klaus : Usually, yes. The reverse, however, is not true: You can have "cleaner" air and still rising CO2 production by simply installing filters and still bu
26 Post contains images Bagpiper : Glad to see somebody else who thinks the way I do on these boards. At least on the global warming side of things. Well... I think his credibility jus
27 Post contains images Bagpiper : wow that post got really screwed up... I think I edited it wrong for spelling...
28 Post contains images L-188 : That was a great quote! And I am sure that it hasn't gone unnoticed that the US really led the world in that regard.
29 Post contains images Klaus : Great to see we agree on some things...! Sure - hence "pioneered". Back then it took several years to get the german manufacturers aboard at last - a
30 Speedbird747BA : Heidi Cullen isnt actually a doctor, nor is she a meterorologist. She has a degree from Juniata College in Near Eastern Religions and History, not me
31 WSOY : We could also paint the wastelands of the Earth white with massive amounts of ground limestone.
32 PPVRA : Many people can't afford filters once they break, or just don't want to spend the money on them, and also the many older cars. Lack of enforcing gree
33 Post contains images David L : And yet, according to some, you either believe man is largely responsible or you don't believe global warming is happening at all. That's what worrie
34 Post contains links Baroque : Has someone solved the problems of the Tacoma smelter slag heaps? http://www.cpn.org/topics/environment/tacoma.html The problem of fixing that partic
35 Post contains images N229NW : I was REALLY hoping in this particular thread we could bypass the "debate" over whether global warming is actually happening, and discuss the feasibil
36 Baroque : Fair enough. HOWEVER... I would like to see some calculations about how much incoming radiation would be blocked and where it would be blocked. Would
37 KLM685 : I agree with both of you, polution can be so strong that at times you can see the brown layer in the air from high places in the city or while landin
38 Post contains images Klaus : It is definitely the more difficult the lower the GDP is - that is exactly the reason why new technologies must be pioneered by the most developed co
39 Oly720man : It would be a hell of a lot cheaper to have the mirrors on earth. In the Sahara for example, or Texas... sunny there isn't it? In fact, why not use t
40 Post contains images Baroque : Er well over and above that, the reasons probably are 1. Too simple 2. Too useful 3. Trouble is that the demand for heat and electricity in most dese
41 David L : Where did I suggest that would be a good idea? I'm only saying we shouldn't throw money at any green company or organisation that wants it just becau
42 Oly720man : As many as would be needed in space, surely? Overhead/underground cables to where the energy is needed. I know it's something like £6million per mil
43 Baroque : Transmission losses could be even more of a problem than the prime cost, although maintaining overhead towers in sandstorms could give problems. Howe
44 PPVRA : Yet they still affect only a tiny percentage, of a tiny percentage (CO2 is a small percentage of atmospheric gases). Seems like that will go just abo
45 PPVRA : Heck, you'd be increasing it. At the very least.
46 Exarmywarrant : Damn those Venusians and their SUVs...
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Wanna Jump To Prevent Global Warming? :) posted Mon Feb 28 2005 18:04:15 by Thom@s
Smoking Contributes To Global Warming -- Gore posted Sun Oct 1 2006 15:00:36 by AerospaceFan
Do You Believe In Global Warming? posted Wed May 24 2006 18:24:17 by LawrenceMck
Hurricanes=Not Due To Global Warming, Say Experts posted Sat Sep 24 2005 03:01:34 by Komododx
BBC: Global Warming Link To Big Hurricanes? posted Fri Sep 16 2005 23:30:22 by SATX
Is Man To Blame For Global Warming? posted Thu Jan 27 2005 19:02:15 by Imonti
Global Warming Making Improvements In Wine Quality posted Mon Nov 17 2003 16:21:12 by L-188
Anybody Experience In Travelling To Russia? posted Wed Dec 13 2006 21:39:55 by Luxair
New Study On Potential Effects Of Global Warming posted Mon Oct 30 2006 19:09:39 by Mir
Study: Global Warming Not Man Made! posted Tue Oct 24 2006 14:57:15 by DLPMMM