Us Urges Scientists To Block Out Sun

[Solve et Coagula]

It seems "their" silly, poisonous and useless chemtrails didnt work out neatly, hmm!?!?!

When do human beings realize/accept that we're part of Nature itself, to see the entire Cosmos as a lovely, caring Being where everything is in its perfect place for good reason, and when are we humble enough to start benefiting from these eternal forces...

US Urges Scientists To Block Out Sun

David Adam and Liz Minchin
January 29, 2007

THE US wants the world's scientists to develop technology to block sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming.

It says research into techniques such as giant mirrors in space or reflective dust pumped into the atmosphere would be "important insurance" against rising emissions, and has lobbied for such a strategy to be recommended by a UN report on climate change, the first part of which is due out on Friday).

The US has also attempted to steer the UN report, prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), away from conclusions that would support a new worldwide climate treaty based on binding targets to reduce emissions. It has demanded a draft of the report be changed to emphasise the benefits of voluntary agreements and to include criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol, which the US opposes.

The final report, written by experts from across the world, will underpin international negotiations to devise an emissions treaty to succeed Kyoto, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft of the report last year and invited to comment.

The US response says the idea of interfering with sunlight should be included in the summary for policymakers, the prominent chapter at the front of each panel report. It says: "Modifying solar radiance may be an important strategy if mitigation of emissions fails. Doing the R&D to estimate the consequences of applying such a strategy is important insurance that should be taken out. This is a very important possibility that should be considered."

Scientists have previously estimated that reflecting less than 1 per cent of sunlight back into space could compensate for the warming generated by all greenhouse gases emitted since the industrial revolution. Possible techniques include putting a giant screen into orbit, thousands of tiny, shiny balloons, or microscopic sulfate droplets pumped into the high atmosphere to mimic the cooling effects of a volcanic eruption. The IPCC draft said such ideas were "speculative, uncosted and with potential unknown side-effects".

The US submission complains the draft report is "Kyoto-centric" and it wants to include the work of economists who have reported "the degree to which the Kyoto framework is found wanting".

It also complains that overall "the report tends to overstate or focus on the negative effects of climate change". It also wants more emphasis on responsibilities of the developing world.

But Professor Stephen Schneider, a climate consultant to the US government for more than 30 years and a key figure in the panel process for more than a decade, says the world is "playing Russian roulette" with its future by responding too slowly to climate change.

The panel's draft report shows projections for average global temperature rise from 1990 to 2100 will expand slightly, with a new range of one to 6.3 degrees. The 2001 report's range was 1.4 to 5.8 degrees.

Professor Schneider said he was concerned the increase was more likely to be three degrees or higher, with a 10 per cent chance of a six-degree rise by the end of the century.

"Hell, we buy fire insurance based on a 1 per cent chance," he said. "If we're going to be risk averse … we cannot dismiss the possibility of potentially catastrophic outliers and that includes Greenland and West Antarctica [ice sheets breaking up], massive species extinctions, intensified hurricanes and all those things. "There's at least a 10 per cent chance of that. And that to me for a society is too high a risk … My value judgement when you're talking about planetary life support systems is that 10 per cent, my God, that's Russian roulette with a Luger."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/us-...9919213362.html

[interzone]

any response other than the "concensus" must appear wacky.you know the rules.

[bando]

In a way, it's dangerous to propose such things w/o having a Plan B. With these options on the table, decades from now scientists may come across it and use these plans. It would be good to have some kind of back-up plan in the event they do try to block out the sun. If they send micro particles(or whatever it is) in to the upper atmosphere, how are they going to get rid of them if it turns out to be a bad thing(almost certainly seems like it)?
Also, even having a way out(back-plan) isn't enough. What if Plan B goes wrong(hence, doesn't work, or makes things worse)? We then need a Plan C, and possibly a Plan B for Plan B(or Plan 2 to make things easier). What if that goes wrong, and so on?
I guess what I getting at is that ideas can be great, but they can also be very dangerous.

[FighterFromAfar]

I hear echoes of The Second Renaissance from the Animatrix. Man burned the sky in order to defeat the Machines, and in so doing brought about his own downfall.

So instead of Global Warming, we'll have an Ice Age. And what happens when things get too cold and we can't do anything about all the reflective dust that's in the atmosphere? Oh well, should have been born on a planet that wasn't populated by such ignoramuses?

Or here's a better idea. Instead of wasting all our time and energy on hair-brained plans to goad the all-powerful forces of Mother Nature into compliance with our meek existence, perhaps we should begin thinking about how to survive without all of the modern day accouterments that we take for granted. Back to the Stone Age, or Ice Age, and it's every man for himself.