1672Views17Replies

Author Options:

Five "solutions" for global warming Answered

Picture of

Who needs to worry about cutting back carbon emissions or sequestration when you can just launch a rocket into the atmosphere loaded with sulfur to simulate a volcanic eruption? Or what about making trees shinier? Then again you can always try to cover the glaciers.

These are all ideas that have been put out there to save us from ourselves, but almost sound like we're trying to kill ourselves off even faster. Especially that sulfur rocket bit.

Check out these five techniques on the green fringes. Where do you think any of this effort should be going?

5 Strange Stop-Gap "Solutions" to Climate Problems

17 Replies

user
Kiteman (author)2008-01-24

Of the ideas, the paint and the mirrors are least risky - We could just move the mirrors or re-paint the roofs if the effect was too powerful.

As Eric pointed out, actually changing the way the atmosphere works has too many unpredictable knock-on effects.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)Kiteman2008-10-20

When we consider the butterfly effect, we have to be responsible enough not to make something better locally, but end up killing of the rest of the planet...., so I agree on your last point especially.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
chaoscampbell (author)2008-01-21

Global Warming would be halted by one thing..... Economics. It needs to be financially rewarding to change the way we do things...... our universe runs on money..... anyway you look at it.....people don't make decisions....money does. or entire world is consumer consumption..... if people keep buying it, others will keep making it. If its easier, and accepted by all..... people will want it. The desire to have the big house and the fast car and the twice annual vacations and to "Keep up with the Jones' " is what will destroy this planet. The American Dream is the planetary Nightmare (we as a planet are all responsible, I say American Dream because its the most recognizable way of putting it)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
blugyblug (author)chaoscampbell2008-10-17

So true. And these are the people who are complaining about global warming. And when they dont have a big house/car anymore, they basically wont be able to survive (ITS CALLED EXAGERRATION)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Lextone (author)chaoscampbell2008-01-24

Actually, Global warming research is a multi trillion dollar a year business. The ideas presented in Fungus Amungus' post were funded by free government and international grants. We cant solve this problem because many people would lose millions of dollars for coming up with ideas that do not need to even be proven to work. So if there are millions to be made from a business based on perception, keeping that perception up is the main goal. Hence if its warm in the northern states in January its global warming. If its really down in the Southern states in January its global warming. The historical annual average temperatures show that we "cooled" down after WWII thru the 70's when we were polluting like crazy. After we put emission controls in place we heated up....whats up with that?????

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Lextone (author)Lextone2008-01-24

OOOps....I meant to add this to my post. You can find it on NOAA's site

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
OmegaARC (author)chaoscampbell2008-01-22

Well said I dont believe in GW but It still good to make things better

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
best global strategy (author)2008-10-15

To deal with global warming, the government needs to immediately plant more trees, and stop cutting them down. It is a major problem they need to deal with. The importance of trees has been understated by "scientists" that truly don't understand the relevance of trees. Don't criticize the importance of the concept until you know all the facts. On top of deforestation, we are polluting the environment. Another contributing factor is modern day energy systems rely on explosion rather than implosion, and this generates heat. Every systems need to be more efficient and work on implosion, so they stay cool. The non-profit energy research organization at http://www.universalsymbiosis.org (also http://www.genuinewinner.com) is active in these areas which will help reverse effects of global warming. I suggest everyone also read "Living Energies" by Callum Coats which explains the work of Victor Schauberger and the importance of trees to our planet. Don't rely on information from the authorities as their advisors don't fully understand the life cycle of the planet. We need to push the authorities to develop forest management and sustainability plans, and this will solve at least part of the problem.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

Yeah but with deforestation, people are doing it for A REASON. Its for wood!. Im not supporting deforestation but its basically impossible to entirely stop. If every logging company listened to all the complaints, the price of wood would go up 1000x. Then people will start complaining about that, so logging companies are back in the business. Then people complain about that....

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

I really try to keep my big trees healthy. I've got 20 acres. Do evergreens produce as much O2 as hardwoods?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
westfw (author)2008-10-16

Let's just move the earth a bit further away from the sun, like the puppeteers did.

Niven must be kicking himself. In Ringworld he identifies "waste heat of civilization" as a problem, and in the Svetz stories (Flight of the Horse, etc) he predicts an Earth with substantially higher levels of atmospheric CO2, but he missed predicting "global warming."

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
OmegaARC (author)2008-01-22

Less Concrete More Grass Less Heat

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Goodhart (author)2008-01-21

Sulfur + Ozone just doesn't compute for me: 2S + 203 = 2SO2 + O2 Sulfur dioxide is not pleasant :-)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
zachninme (author)2008-01-21

I still say we should blow up the sun, then we can't get any hotter.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
ewilhelm (author)2008-01-21

The sulfur idea is from Paul Crutzen, who won a Nobel Prize in 1995 for his work on the hole in the ozone layer. His emergency stop-gap measure of injecting sulphur particles into the stratosphere apparently comes at a cost of $25-$50 per developed-world capita.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0731-05.htm

Here's why it's a bad idea:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL030524.shtml

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
teaaddict314 (author)2008-01-21

lmao lets put tinfoil on the glaciers! and tinfoil paint our roofs with white out! and lets get the best quarter back in the nfl to throw sulfur into the atmosphere! w00t

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer