FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
NASA looks at plan to blot out Sun

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8432

PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:22 am    Post subject: NASA looks at plan to blot out Sun Reply with quote

WTF!

Quote:
Talk of manipulating Earth's climate

Old debate is renewed amid warming fears

By John Donnelly, Boston Globe Staff | November 18, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The idea seems like something out of a Superman comic: A machine or missile shoots tons of particles into the atmosphere that would block the sun's rays, cool down the overheated Earth, and reverse global warming.

But today some of the country's leading minds in science, history, and economics will gather in a closed session organized by NASA and Stanford University to discuss researching such a strategy -- a subject long taboo in environmental circles because so much could go wrong. Some fear it would be seen as a quick fix, replacing the need to reduce fossil fuel emissions, but others contend that the world needs an emergency plan in case global warming triggers a catastrophe, such as a break up of the Greenland ice sheet and massive flooding in coastal regions.

"Is it better to let polar bears go extinct and let the ice sheets melt? Is it worse to inject some aerosols into the stratosphere that could deflect some sunlight?" said Ken Caldeira , a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, which is hosting the two-day meeting.

The idea is called geoengineering: using technology to tinker with the Earth's delicate climate balance. Many scientists doubt it is possible. Even those who have studied the idea worry about the possible misuse of their research.

Those scientists who believe it could work point to the eruption of volcanoes in which masses of particles have deflected sunlight and reduced global temperatures by an average of 0.9 degrees.

Caldeira, who conducted various models of geoengineering while at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the past decade, said he is "philosophically opposed" to the use of geoengineering without first reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But he said his modeling shows the idea works.

"We found that if you blocked 20 percent of the sunlight over the Arctic Ocean, it would be enough to restore sea ice," he said. "That would be blocking 1/300th of the entire sunlight hitting the Earth, but focusing it on the Arctic would prevent the ice from melting."

The notion of tinkering with the Earth's climate is not new, dating at least to 1839, when James Espy , who would become the United States' first meteorologist, tried to produce rain using updrafts from large fires, said James R. Fleming , a professor of science, technology, and society at Colby College in Waterville, Maine. Fleming is researching climate change this year at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington

Fleming said militaries have long wanted the power to manipulate climate, and that worries him in relation to geoengineering

"This seems to be a relatively heroic response to climate warming, but it does have the possibility of getting out of hand," without controls over who could use the technology, Fleming said.

Still, very few people know anything about geoengineering. Congress hasn't held hearings on it, and the recent 700-page report by the British government on climate change's impact on the global economy didn't mention it once.

So far, talk has circulated among a small group of intellectuals. An editorial essay earlier this year in the journal Climatic Change by Nobel laureate Paul J. Crutzen prompted this weekend's gathering.

In his paper, Crutzen said the best way to fight global warming "is to lower the emissions of the greenhouse gases. However, so far, attempts in that direction have been grossly unsuccessful."

While he called geoengineering proposals "by far not the best solution," they should be "explored and debated."

The Earth's temperature has risen about 1.4 degrees in the past century, largely because emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants and cars become trapped in the atmosphere. Scientists predict that at the current rate of growth of carbon dioxide emissions, the global temperature could increase between 3.5 and 7 degrees in the next 50 years.

"To me, we're on a mass extinction path that would take several centuries to unravel," Caldeira said.

Scott Barrett , an economist who researches environmental policy at Johns Hopkins University , said he had always avoided the subject of geoengineering, but he became "so depressed about the prospects for reducing emissions on a substantial scale. I believe we need to consider the alternatives -- including this one."

"Imagine," he said, "you are standing on a precipice and you see something bad happening, and the only thing you could really do is geoengineering. Well, you'd really like to have this in your back pocket in case you need it."

The costs vary , from $100 million to tens of billions , and scientists say the interventions may have to be done annually.

Henry D. Jacoby , codirector of the Global Change Joint Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology , said more scientific examination was needed.

"We really have only a limited understanding in the world system, and how we impact it now, and how the Earth responds to the greenhouse ga ses now," he said. "The notion we would then intentionally do something to correct that, to change the balance of the Earth by some specific action, well, I'd be very cautious about that."

Fleming, the Colby researcher, said the best way to proceed on geoengineering was to involve people from all over the world. "We should talk about this, and talk about it in the open with a full range of perspectives ."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/11/18/talk_of_manipulating_earths_climate/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
foo



Joined: 18 Nov 2006
Posts: 140

PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That article raises so many "What if...?" questions, that it's difficult to know where to start. I'll initiate it with two:

1) What if the global warming forecasts are wrong? What if the scientists who predict that the planet will enter a mini ice age around the middle of this century are right? The last thing that we would want to do ahead of that would be to cool down the planet.

2) What kind of aerosols do they have in mind? The aerosols won't stay put; Arctic-driven storms will force the aerosols into the north temperate zone. (Perhaps that's why they mention the possible need to repeat the procedure each year.)

What effect will beathing those aerosols have on terrestrial animals, including, of course, humans? If the aerosols are particulates, what effect will they have upon our breathing apparatus? If the particles are really tiny, then they will lodge permanently in our lungs, and the effect would be cumulative, over the years and the decades. If the aerosols are chemicals, then what are they? What effect will breathing them have upon our health?

On a larger plane, what gives scientists the right to treat us like lab rats?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow - The Simpsons really *was* precient with their episode where Monty Burns blocks out Springfield's sun. (he used a big , mechanical disk that tracked the sun) IIRC, that was also the episode where he got shot.

With the particulate aerosol idea, they are talking about the much-heralded 'Chemtrails', which is an idea that some people have been hollering about for years, now. It would be really ironic that if all their shouting and carrying-on and the photos of normal contrails that they've been bleating about all this time turned out to be as totally tin-foil as I thought, but it was just that TPB hadn't done it *yet*.

I guarantee that 'Paolo Friere' will be along to wet his pants and call us all arseholes before long. He'll probably cream himself. :roll:

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
devabarry



Joined: 03 Jul 2006
Posts: 132
Location: Zionosphere

PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This scheme was originally proposed by physicist Freeman Dyson in 1979 and later by Edward Teller: http://www.hooverdigest.org/981/teller.html
_________________
"There are two kinds of secrets: those we keep from others, and those we keep from ourselves." -Frank Warren
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
elbowdeep



Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 395

PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No more than three months ago, another Greenie do-gooder 'scientist' was on CBC radio with a similar plan... cept his included using the ground-up shells of shrimp, and other crustaceans, fired up into the atmosphere. I shit you not.

Of course the interviewer offered zero resistance, and supported the fear-monger by underlining the need that "Something (i.e. anything) must be done!" to combat global warming.

_________________
One day the cows will sprout wings and fly away...
http://twitter.com/elbowdeep
http://elbowdeep.posterous.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Hocus Locus



Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 850
Location: Lost in anamnesis, cannot forget my way out

PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

___
To know infrared, ultraviolet and X-rays
beauty to find in so many ways.
Two notes of the Chord, that's our full scope
But to reach the Chord is our life's hope
And to name the Chord is important to some
So they give it a word, and the word is: OM

~Moody Blues "Search for the Lost Chord"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nat



Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 840
Location: minime-rica

PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"since the beginning of time,
man has yearned to destroy the sun.
i will do the next best thing...block it out"



Last edited by Nat on Sat Apr 17, 2010 6:16 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ormond



Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas

PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
"Is it better to let polar bears go extinct and let the ice sheets melt? Is it worse to inject some aerosols into the stratosphere that could deflect some sunlight?" said Ken Caldeira , a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, which is hosting the two-day meeting.


Never mind that more polar bears have died laughing at screenings of Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" than glaciers melting out from under their feet----the keyword is Carnegie. Carnegie funding is synomymous with 'hidden agenda' and conveniently politically correct scientific research conclusions.

This news story runs on multiple levels indeed. My questions are:

1. Is the Carnegie/NASA scientists meeting a psyop to simply hype 'global warming' fear? A cheap 'credibility' stunt? (with no intention of following through with such an absurd and expensive aerosol missle program...)

2. Or, as Continuity connected: Is this a segue toward revealing that there really is a global aerosols program already in progress (chemtrails)?

Note: Years ago, Edward Teller (head of the Los Alamos hydrogen bomb project), proposed that aluminum oxide dumped as aerosol from stratosphere altitude aircraft could deflect solar radiation to reduce the 'Greenhouse Effect'.

It is just very difficult for me, personally to read that remark by Caldeira and believe a scientist could talk like that with a straight face.
What I see is here we have scientists who owe their positions and livelihood to Carnegie and government funding, offering a 'solution' to a 'problem'. The solution they offer is, of course, ridiculous and dangerous, and scary sounding to the public.
Result of the psyop: public says 'no! don't do that! just charge us atmosphere use taxes and raise the price of fuel so we'll use less!!'

Or maybe there's more to it

_________________
The anticipated never happens. The unexpected constantly occurs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hennisa



Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 3
Location: South Africa

PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zachria Sitchen's books about the Sumarians, tells the story about the 10 th planet Nibiru.

This planet comes around every 5 thousand years and causes havoc on earth.

This planet, because it moves FAR out in the solar system protects is inhabitants with a layer of Gold dust in its upper admosphere.

Questions!

Are there any bulk gold left in Fort Knox or the world ?.
If not who is buying it all up?
Just asking!
H.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FaxMam



Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 139

PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Arrow
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.