Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Keepitsimple

Climate Science 101

Recommended Posts

Here is some more Waldo, we have now moved to Climate Science 101 A (A is for advanced)

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/01/bill-gates-fund.html

http://www.intellectualventures.com/Home.aspx

http://gigaom.com/cleantech/bill-gates-backs-geoengineering-cloud-project/

You want to really talk about climate science???

Gates has even funded David Keith from U of Calgary, he is one geo-engineer that I put up a link in one of my last posts. They want to cool the earth by making fake clouds. To me this seems like a very dangerous venture.

One main method that is proposed by these websites is that they want to cool the earth by creating clouds. Using some method to disperse sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere. Some of the websites also say they want to spray aluminum dioxide and barium nitrate into the atmosphere to create clouds to cool the earth.

This seems really dangerous.

Thoughts waldo?

playing with fire IMO...if they're going to do geo-engineering they better stick to natural methods...and still reduce CO2 emissions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

playing with fire IMO...if they're going to do geo-engineering they better stick to natural methods...and still reduce CO2 emissions...

I agree. We have already ge-engineered the planet to the state it is in now through all sorts of pollution. To the point where it might be irreversable (I still have faith we can fix it properly and without side effects), that this new proposed geo-engineering may be a necessary evil to correct the issue.

I went to a Chapters near by and found plenty of books on AGW denialism, support for the claim of AGW and books on geo-enginnering. I was amazed how much information is actually out there on this stuff. So I am gonna have to do some reading.

We see in many sci-fi movies where the mad scientist does something drastic to fix a certain issue, and it ends up in a horrible tragedy for all. Geo-engineering has that inherent danger that things can go really wrong. Cooling the planet enough that it might send us into another ice age, and that would be even worse than the planet warming by a couple degrees. Stuff does not grow very well or in abundance in cold/cooler environments.

I am concerned about the proposed aerosols these people want to spray into the atmosphere. These aerosols may be able to cool the planet by putting up a solar shield if you will, but what do those aerosols do to the environment on the whole? Once released into the atmosphere, I believe it will eventually fall to the ground. Do we know what will result from that? It would be in the ground, and in the water. You'd be breathing this stuff in as well, if they want to do in on the global scale (hence the term geo-engineering).

Maybe I should just start another thread on this specific topic..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
further to my earlier post; re: upcoming climate negotiations in Cancun:

Investors Representing More Than $15 Trillion Call for U.S., International Action on Climate Change - Investors Say Weak U.S. Policies Causing Private Capital To Go Overseas; Strong Policies Needed to Close Widening Climate Investment Gap... official statement:

Interesting. Hopefully this will help the US gov't (specifically Republicans) to come around to serious discussion about CC policies. Depends on what the more... 'extreme' members of the GOP decide to do on the matter. If we could get some actual bipartisan talks going about this issue perhaps that would legitimize it, and curb some of the knee-jerk rhetoric.

Should I hold my breath, though? I think not :)

well... whether the 'come around' occurs or not... it appears one government is prepared to 'act on it's own' - regardless. Uhhh... that government of that coalition thingee:

David Cameron: UK is prepared to act on its own over climate change

Britain's efforts to tackle climate change by pursuing a green economy must not be downgraded because of spending cuts and austerity, the prime minister says today.

Writing in the Observer on the eve of the Cancún climate talks, David Cameron says Britain is prepared to act unilaterally against climate change, "setting a shining example domestically for other countries to follow". He says ministers do not expect a global deal to be struck in Mexico, but he believes progress towards multilateral action will be made.

Cameron says the coalition's ambition is to be the greenest government ever formed. He argues for politicians to make the economic case for action and points out that the low-carbon market is worth up to £3.2 trillion and forecast to grow by 4% annually.

"I passionately believe that by recasting the argument for action on climate change away from the language of threats and punishments and into positive, profit-making terms, we can have a much wider impact," he says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
every solution is going to cost the world trillions, to do nothing is not an option...

Whose living standard are you proposing to reduce to get those trillions? And who's going to vote for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whose living standard are you proposing to reduce to get those trillions? And who's going to vote for that?

If it really comes down to a money thing to fix the problem, then you are never ever going to fix the problem. Some of us suffer or we are all going to be in trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it really comes down to a money thing to fix the problem, then you are never ever going to fix the problem. Some of us suffer or we are all going to be in trouble.

How in a democracy do you allocate the pain? Especially for distant and speculative harms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How in a democracy do you allocate the pain? Especially for distant and speculative harms.

You know I am kind of torn now. But we are in a very dire situation on the whole on a planetary scale. I can see Waldo's point of the CO2 being a huge problem, and I am starting to agree with him. However, I think we have already been attempting to solve this issue for the last 40 years....

In the past few months since I have been looking into all of this, I am getting more scared almost by the day. We HAVE screwed this planet up in so many ways, I am just starting to comprehend it all. It's just the tip of the iceberg.

I am starting to see Waldo's side of things, but to fix the problem will take such a drastic change in the way we live in EVERY aspect, people are more concerned with their next fix than concerned about if there is going to be food to eat next year.

The solution to the problem is way more than anyone is willing to admit and there is less will to do anything about it.

There is no economic solution to the problem. We either do it, or die. It really comes down to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no economic solution to the problem. We either do it, or die. It really comes down to that.

money or death and destruction, the choice would seem obvious...what good is money if your dead?...some people don't want to be inconvenienced financially by a problem they won't live long enough to see...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well... whether the 'come around' occurs or not... it appears one government is prepared to 'act on it's own' - regardless. Uhhh... that government of that coalition thingee:

David Cameron: UK is prepared to act on its own over climate change

Here's the proposed solution.

“Strong government policies that reward clean technologies and discourage dirty technologies are essential for closing the climate investment gap and building a low-carbon global economy.”

What do they mean by reward clean technologies and discourage dirty technologies? "Reward" means pay money to or subsidize, and "discourage" means tax and fine.

The problem is whether or not politicians can or should decide what to "reward" and what to "discourage".

We see big problems created by politicians because of their past activities in rewarding and discouraging what they think they should be rewarding and discouraging. One of them is the lack of development in energy alternatives. Because they can tax the fossil fuel industry so easily and 80% of oil is owned by governments they have promoted it's use heavily, "rewarding" themselves with big revenues. They have "discouraged", to the benefit of the oil industry, other technologies from developing.

There is no other real explanation as to why the internal combustion engine hasn't gone by the wayside or changed much in it's basic design in almost a century and a half.

As Gosthacked points out, they may do something that is more radical and in the long run more destructive than if we just continued on our current course, which no one is proposing.

It's scary that these large Investors, like the pension funds, want governments to make policies to lower or eliminate risk in investing. We don't get proper sustainability from such economic manipulation. Instead we get an improper use of money. A system of rewards and punishments that will dictate how everyone must lives their lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am starting to see Waldo's side of things, but to fix the problem will take such a drastic change in the way we live in EVERY aspect, people are more concerned with their next fix than concerned about if there is going to be food to eat next year.

The solution to the problem is way more than anyone is willing to admit and there is less will to do anything about it.

There is no economic solution to the problem. We either do it, or die. It really comes down to that.

I guess I agree that we have screwed up the planet; I just don't think CO2 is the most serious problem. I think deforestation, over-damming, spewing of truly lethal chemicals into the air and water lead the pack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's scary that these large Investors, like the pension funds, want governments to make policies to lower or eliminate risk in investing. We don't get proper sustainability from such economic manipulation. Instead we get an improper use of money. A system of rewards and punishments that will dictate how everyone must lives their lives.

Seems to me like we get hosed either way, but people have decided they get marginally less hosed this way.

It would be interesting to see what would have happened over the last hundred years if we lived in a minarchist society. Im wondering if we would have things like computers, the internet, national transporation systems, and so on. Im trying to see a paralel path where private enterprise might have done all these things on their own in the same timeframe, but I just dont see it. When the first electronic computing device was invented, the guy couldnt find private investors... the project got moth balled. It wasnt until quite some time later that the goverment started investing a lot of money into this and that lead to the first fully electronic computer. Same thing goes for the internet. Same thing goes for the automobile as well. Government didnt invent that but they saw the value in it and spent trillions of dollars building roads, investing in the fuel cycle and its technology, etc.

Energy is an area where it makes sense to have public involvement.

Edited by dre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I look into this stuff, the more this guy David Keith comes up. The one book I am reading now is actually all about him it seems. Crazy stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me like we get hosed either way, but people have decided they get marginally less hosed this way.

It would be interesting to see what would have happened over the last hundred years if we lived in a minarchist society. Im wondering if we would have things like computers, the internet, national transporation systems, and so on. Im trying to see a paralel path where private enterprise might have done all these things on their own in the same timeframe, but I just dont see it. When the first electronic computing device was invented, the guy couldnt find private investors... the project got moth balled. It wasnt until quite some time later that the goverment started investing a lot of money into this and that lead to the first fully electronic computer. Same thing goes for the internet. Same thing goes for the automobile as well. Government didnt invent that but they saw the value in it and spent trillions of dollars building roads, investing in the fuel cycle and its technology, etc.

Energy is an area where it makes sense to have public involvement.

I think the problem is you are trying to see a "parallel" path where there would never be one.

You are correct in thinking that things would be quite different. I used to think that we would not have advanced and would still be burning coal too. Unfortunately, it is wrongheaded to think we would have remained in the nineteenth century. We would have had a more sustainable growth and not be facing the economic global collapse we are today.

What could have been will only exist in our imaginations. If you only imagine where we are today and try to think of our progress without government in terms of a parallel path then I understand why you would feel the necessity for government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Planting trees is not .. what's the word .... feasible?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/innovation/12/13/forest.restoration/index.html?hpt=C2

Carole Saint-Laurent, IUCN's senior forest policy advisor, said: "There's no one-size-fits-all blueprint. The restoration would need to be driven by the community needs in each area.

"We know it can be done. There are people all over the world who are doing it already."

If the initiative is started next year, we can be well on the way to restoring a good portion of the world's forests.

But.. I was laughed at by some when I brought this up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...