I like them. This would save the taxpayers a huge amount of money and also save the earth.
I don't think these proposals are technologically feasible.
We shouldn't be messing around with the climate; who knows what might happen?
We should pass legislation to cap and/or tax carbon dioxide emissions.
Europe is illegally occupied by the US
For example, the sulfur dioxide smokestack solution should be very easy to measure, because we know how much volcanic eruptions cool the earth. Sulfur dioxide also has a very short half-life in the stratosphere (about a year), so there wouldn't be any long-term damages. If we decided we wanted to cool the earth by 0.5 degrees, we could put enough sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to cool it by 0.05 degrees and gradually ramp it up over ten years, so that we could very slowly and cautiously observe the changes.
Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD
Last edited by Ethereal; 11-01-09 at 03:20 PM.
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
The biosphere is a subtly intertwined and infinitely complex system, so unless you're willing to risk the entire Earth's biological integrity I don't think either one of these ideas could be seriously entertained.
This is just a contingency plan.. a big what if??
Unfortunately though if things do heat up significantly and get to the point of causing problems, we will not notice or accept it until things start getting drastic. The old frog in a frying pan syndrome.
Under what circumstance? Maybe the Maldives going under water might be a good signal to start entertaining the idea. Perhaps when low lying port cities start to go under, and we start seeing global crop failure happen we might decide to really give it serious consideration.
I don't foresee this actually getting implemented unless things were seriously FUBAR and even then it would probably take another 20 years for us to accept the reality of how FUBAR it is.
I don;t think there is much to worry about here, and I see no harm in contingency plans, especially ones such as the ones proposed here that can be shut off and reversed really if it really ****s things up.
Tampering with nature on this level is not something to do without serious consideration. But if the **** were to hit the fan, I see nothing wrong with having a couple of contingency plans on hand as is being suggested here.
Last edited by marduc; 11-01-09 at 03:53 PM.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
Drugs are bad, prohibition is worse