Junk Science at its best.!!!
This is a discussion on Mad Science: Obama May Block Sun's Rays to End Global Warming within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Talk about mad science... I pulled this up today and it's truely frighting what's coming out of these hacks these days... truly frightning Link: FOXNews.com ...
Talk about mad science... I pulled this up today and it's truely frighting what's coming out of these hacks these days... truly frightning
Link: FOXNews.com - Obama May Block Sun's Rays to End Global Warming - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News
WASHINGTON — The president's new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air.
John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed.
One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.
"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table."
Holdren outlined several "tipping points" involving global warming that could be fast approaching.
Once such milestones are reached, such as complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, it increases chances of "really intolerable consequences," he said.
Twice in a half-hour interview, Holdren compared global warming to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."
At first, Holdren characterized the potential need to technologically tinker with the climate as just his personal view. However, he went on to say he has raised it in administration discussions.
Holdren, a 65-year-old physicist, is far from alone in taking geoengineering more seriously.
The National Academy of Science is making climate tinkering the subject of its first workshop in its new multidiscipline climate challenges program.
The British parliament has also discussed the idea.
The American Meteorological Society is crafting a policy statement on geoengineering that says "it is prudent to consider geoengineering's potential, to understand its limits and to avoid rash deployment."
Last week, Princeton scientist Robert Socolow told the National Academy that geoengineering should be an available option in case climate worsens dramatically.
But Holdren noted that shooting particles into the air — making an artificial volcano as one Nobel laureate has suggested — could have grave side effects and would not completely solve all the problems from soaring greenhouse gas emissions.
So such actions could not be taken lightly, he said.
Still, "we might get desperate enough to want to use it," he added.
Another geoengineering option he mentioned was the use of so-called artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide — the chief human-caused greenhouse gas — out of the air and store it.
At first that seemed prohibitively expensive, but a re-examination of the approach shows it might be less costly, he said.
Sig P220R/Sig P239 (9mm)/ S&W 640/ Ruger Single Six Hunter (.22LR/Mag)/ CZ 452 Varmint .22LR/ Lee Enfield No4 MK2 sporterized dated 1959/ Mosin Nagant M90-30 dated 1942/
Junk Science at its best.!!!
We will be much better off when we learn to deal with things as they really are, instead of how we wish them to be!
I was reading this also, but I had to stop as it was making my espresso taste funny.
So we are going to solve the "global warming" issue by injecting pollution in to the air? I'm still trying to figure out how in the that is a good idea.
My Music: www.reverbnation.com/dickiefredericks
After the O-Team reduces our military enough, a couple of well-placed mushroom clouds (from items that will be able to come across the border) should block the sunlight pretty well...
From global warming to a nuke-winter.
Proverbs 27:12 says: “The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it.”
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
This is not new, it has roots long before Obama took office.
Back in the 1970s there was a study done at Cornell that said metallic flakes put into a vapor could be released as contrails be airplanes. White vapor clouds with metallic flakes would supposedly reflect the sunlight back and cool the oceans.
Its all junk science and none of it will work. Global warming is so obviously a cyclical event that many main stream scientists are now jumping off the "man made" bandwagon.
When 2012 comes the Earth starts its next move in precession. It will take about 10 years or so and by 2023 we will start to see the cooling trend begin. It will have NOTHING to do with efforts made by man, but no doubt some people will take credit.
It is pure human arrogance to think we've somehow ruined the World in 50 years of American industrialization. Please. We are specks on the butt of a cow, the Earth would flick us off like a booger if we were really bothering it.
I think it is conclusive evidence of the collective handbasket we all find ourselves in that the movie our future may come closest to resembling is Highlander 2: The Sickening...
“What is a moderate interpretation of [the Constitution]? Halfway between what it says and [...] what you want it to say?” —Justice Antonin Scalia
SIG: P220R SS Elite SAO, P220R SAO, P220R Carry, P226R Navy, P226, P239/.40S&W, P2022/.40S&W; GSR 5", P6.
If they seriously tried this, it would trigger WWIII, as well it should...
It's long been theorized that one of the most powerful weapons ever would be the ability to control the weather. It would change plant life, animal life, fish life...everything.
By cooling one area, you could freeze others. Some areas would be flooded, and some would be in drought. And there isn't really any way to know which ones it would be.
Considering we can't even predict the weather next week, how the hell do they think we could even contemplate the changes something like this would bring.
I still find it funny to think, as I have heard it stated, that the same people that can't tell us if it will rain on Friday are telling us about global warming's damage 20 years down the road.
Hate to tell you guys, likely none of us is qualified to even remotely guess at whether or not such a proposal makes any sense. When you show me your advanced degrees in climatology, and reveal the nature of your experience in this field, maybe I'll be convinced you have something worthwhile to say on the subject.
For too long there has been a "global warming is a lie" line coming from certain groups who are heavily invested in the use of fossil fuels into the future.
Well, just the other day a huge chunk of ice broke off from Antarctica. It is now well documented that Arctic ice is disappearing as well. These phenomena need to be understood, and if human activity is at fault and if warming is a real threat, then we need to be thinking about ways to slow it, reverse it, control it. You can poke fun and call it junk science, but if you want your posterity to have a livable planet, you should be applauding the investigation of these issues.
It is as wise to look into "science fiction" approaches to prevent or slow these processes as it would be wise (and is wise) to plan for destroying large objects which may collide with the earth. There is no harm in thinking and planning, and the act of thinking and planning ahead should be applauded and not condemned or ridiculed.
1. You are right, you don't know our qualifications.
2. Ice and sediment samples, as well as fossils of plant life and animal life clearly show that there have been warm periods and cold periods for millions upon millions of years. If earths lifetime were the period of one day, humans wouldn't show up until a few seconds before midnight. We are such an arrogant species to think we can control the weather or the natural cycles of climate change.
3. While some of the people who scoff at global warming may be getting money from fossil fuels, the people who promote global warming are the ones who are getting rich off of 'green' products and plans.
4. Global warming and solutions to the non-existent problem are here for one reason. Control. Government control over everything. If you make enough people believe there is a big enough problem, then the government can make people swallow a big enough 'solution'. Just look at how well the 'carbon credits' worked out for Europe.
But the postulation in question is that the phenomenon is somehow "man made" and the reality is that is a far stretch. And it is the height of human arrogance to think we can stop it.
We are likely dealing with cycles that are far too large for humans to register. We are not as smart we think when it comes to "science", I mean think about it.
Not to long ago the Earth was KNOWN to be flat, the Earth was KNOWN to be the center of the Universe. We just discovered Pluto for sure in the 1970s and then we went and re-discovered it again. Every year some food it great for you, then the next its bad. We dole out dangerous drugs like candy to our children. We cannot make a car that gets better than 40mph? Really? How come Neil Young made one the size of a boat that gets 110mpg? Yeah THAT Neil Young, the stoner hippy rocker.
You want to trust these same "scientists" on something so complex?
Science is very fluid, and usually what we think we know, we have no idea. Human history is one bad scientific fact after another, after another.
Look I'm all for electric cars, solar power, wind power, zero-point energy, and clean air and clean water, and I'd love to see the Rain Forests stop being killed for paper. All that stuff is great and will make our lives better. But why do people feel we, the stupid moronic public, need to be duped into it?
Who would you trust on complex issues such as what we are talking about? The preacher or politician with the smoothest line?
An alternative to not trusting scientists (or at least the process by which science gets done and evidence evaluated) is none existent.
I have no idea why the earth is warming. I have no idea if the proposal mentioned in the op makes any sense whatsoever. I do know that labeling the proposal "junk science" by folks who have no way of knowing if it is junk science or not, and attributing scorn to the proposal itself and on to the president because he entertained learning about it, was yet another political shot across the D.C. forums.
Personally, my hunch is that whatever warming is going on is not primarily man made, but that doesn't alter the fact that man may need to deal with it one way or another if we wish to stay alive.
While I normally don't agree with Hopyard , I think he has a valid point on this issue. It may be necessary, one day, to attempt something this drastic.
Having a science degree, I can also see that to give credence to the idea that it would actually work, today, is absolutely mis-guided. There are far too many variables involved (known and unknown) for any model to accurately predict the result of such a drastic action. Until the result can be fully understood, to implement such action would be completely irresponsible. The problem is that they don't have a control for the experiment.
Until they are actually successful at say terra-forming Mars, I will have to say that they don't have a clue. It may be worthy to investigate the possibilities, though.
I thought that the planet has not warmed any since 2000.