• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dimming the sun: The answer to global warming?

LowDown said:
Nope. The stratosphere can radiate heat to the earth. It would be like throwing an extra electric blanket on the bed.
Click to expand...
The stratosphere has less energy than the surface. It cannot heat the surface. Heat does not flow backwards. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
LowDown said:
In any case, we should probably be sure that government climate scientists can make accurate long term predictions about the climate before we make plans like this.
That they can correctly predict what will happen has by no means been proven.
Click to expand...
Climate 'scientists' deny science and mathematics.
 
Deuce said:
It's utterly hilarious to see right-wingers suggest geoengineering is a bad idea because we don't understand the potential ramifications adequately.
Click to expand...

How are you going to geoengineer the Earth?

You can't. You don't have that kind of power or technology.
 
~ No - don't mess around with Mother Nature ! We will just all become night creatures - like Elvis did . :2razz:
 
I have an idea! Let's take a planet that is already choking in aerosolized garbage, and add even more crap to the atmosphere in order to postpone the consequences of our unsustainable behavior!

Isn't the chem trail conspiracy crowd talking about this kind of thing already? According to them, the government has been doing this for years. :lol:
 
Bum said:
I am no engineer, but perhaps orbital solar shades would have the same effect?

I'm sure such an idea brings complications of its own, but I imagine the shades could be made of very light weight material that could unfold to a very large surface area ( mylar type material?)
Click to expand...

Clearly....
 
Bum said:
And admitting to honest ignorance is a call for sarcasm?

Nice.
Click to expand...

It's not that. It's the damn middle of the night and I woke up and browsed for a minute and when I read that, just the thought of how shockingly vastly large that would be. It was just a funny thought. But whatever, be offended, I don't actually care, not really my problem nor concern. Great avatar by the way. Looks just like one of my cats, and she is same way, likes me and the ol' lady, but anywone else, well, yeah, they gonna die they screw with that li black ball of fur.
 
This whole "dimming the sun" thing reminds me so much of China's plan on building an artificial sun. Like, I'm not sure this will ever work. Don't you think we're just wasting government funds here that we can use for other projects that will actually help those in need? Besides, who's to say this won't have negative effects in the atmosphere in the long run?
 
jparkshere said:
This whole "dimming the sun" thing reminds me so much of China's plan on building an artificial sun. Like, I'm not sure this will ever work. Don't you think we're just wasting government funds here that we can use for other projects that will actually help those in need? Besides, who's to say this won't have negative effects in the atmosphere in the long run?
Click to expand...
EXACTLY... We ought to stop wasting government funding on an undefined buzzword/Void Argument...
 
Deuce said:
And what, pray tell, is it that you think we're doing now?
Click to expand...

What we are doing now is creating the most prosperous and advanced civilization the world has ever known using cheap energy without which none of it would be possible.
 
Into the Night said:
Nothing.
Click to expand...

We're substantially increasing the atmospheric concentration of a greenhouse gas. And the guy I was responding too thinks we can't adequately predict the consequences of doing that, but wants to continue doing it anyway.
 
LowDown said:
What we are doing now is creating the most prosperous and advanced civilization the world has ever known using cheap energy without which none of it would be possible.
Click to expand...

We're monkeying around with the atmosphere and yesterday you thought that was a terrible idea.
 
jparkshere said:
This whole "dimming the sun" thing reminds me so much of China's plan on building an artificial sun. Like, I'm not sure this will ever work. Don't you think we're just wasting government funds here that we can use for other projects that will actually help those in need? Besides, who's to say this won't have negative effects in the atmosphere in the long run?
Click to expand...

Worse, it assumes a 'problem' that simply doesn't exist.
 
LowDown said:
What we are doing now is creating the most prosperous and advanced civilization the world has ever known using cheap energy without which none of it would be possible.
Click to expand...

Works for me!

Market forces decide what to use for energy, not ivory tower oligarchies.
 
Deuce said:
We're substantially increasing the atmospheric concentration of a greenhouse gas. And the guy I was responding too thinks we can't adequately predict the consequences of doing that, but wants to continue doing it anyway.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth using infrared light emitted from the surface.

You can't create energy out of nothing. (1st law of thermodynamics)
You can't make heat flow backwards (2nd law of thermodynamics)
You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time (Stefan-Boltzmann law)

You can't trap thermal energy or heat.
 
Deuce said:
We're monkeying around with the atmosphere and yesterday you thought that was a terrible idea.
Click to expand...

It is not possible to determine the source of CO2 in the atmosphere. You have no idea how much is produced by Man's activities, or how much is produced naturally.
 
Into the Night said:
There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth using infrared light emitted from the surface.

You can't create energy out of nothing. (1st law of thermodynamics)
Click to expand...
The energy source is the sun, no issue there.


You can't make heat flow backwards (2nd law of thermodynamics)
Click to expand...
That isn't happening. The sun is... a bit hotter than the hearth. No issue there.

You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time (Stefan-Boltzmann law)
Click to expand...
Also not what is happening.


You can't trap thermal energy or heat.
Click to expand...
You've... used a blanket before, right?
 
Into the Night said:
It is not possible to determine the source of CO2 in the atmosphere. You have no idea how much is produced by Man's activities, or how much is produced naturally.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. For one, there's math. We know how much CO2 we are adding to the atmosphere because we know about how much fossil fuel we're burning. We also know how big the atmosphere is, and therefore know roughly how much CO2 must be added to the atmosphere to increase the concentration by a known percentage.

Furthermore, there are isotope ratio differences that make it possible to distinguish between different sources.
 
Deuce said:
Incorrect. For one, there's math. We know how much CO2 we are adding to the atmosphere because we know about how much fossil fuel we're burning.
Click to expand...
Zero. Fossils don't burn. No one knows how much carbon based fuel is being burned.
Deuce said:
We also know how big the atmosphere is, and therefore know roughly how much CO2 must be added to the atmosphere to increase the concentration by a known percentage.
Click to expand...
Starting with a random number in your equation produces a random result. Argument from randU fallacy.
Deuce said:
Furthermore, there are isotope ratio differences that make it possible to distinguish between different sources.
Click to expand...
None. CO2 is CO2. Nothing about us burning fuel makes it any different than any other source of CO2.
 
Deuce said:
The energy source is the sun, no issue there.
Click to expand...
So far so good. For this argument let's assume energy absorbed from the Sun isn't changing.
Deuce said:
That isn't happening. The sun is... a bit hotter than the hearth. No issue there.
Click to expand...
Not what I am referring to. You are trying to heat the surface using a colder magick gas (carbon dioxide).
Deuce said:
Also not what is happening.
Click to expand...
To make something hotter, you need more energy. Where is that energy coming from? The Sun is not changing. You are violating the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Deuce said:
You've... used a blanket before, right?
Click to expand...
Ah...the Magick Blanket argument.

Put a blanket on a rock and it will not make the rock warmer. Blankets do not create energy. They reduce heat.

Let's say your Magick Blanket actually traps heat instead of reducing it. That would mean less radiant energy is leaving Earth. That would mean you are reducing radiance while at the same time raising the temperature of Earth. You are violating the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You can't reduce radiance and increase temperature at the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom