Couldn't we combat Global Warming more realistically since countries like China won't be cutting down on carbon emissions? Could we build satellites around the earth that have the capability of expanding into huge platforms on an intermitent basis to block out the sun's rays temporarily to lower the Earth's temperature back down to an acceptable rate and just use those whenever the temperatures start getting to high? Maybe even build a permanent sun blocking structure over the ice poles to ensure they don't melt?
Could this be feasibly done if all countries worked together on a scientific method to slow and reverse global warming?
old one, but shows the old data is the same
a netherland report
>China said it would see its emissions peak by 2030, and increase its use of clean energy to around 20 percent of its total energy production by 2030 as well.
But the climate hysterics on tv have been saying we need to reduce emissions NOW or it'll be too late.
When is "too late" now? has there been an exaggeration to how long we have to 'fix' our greenhouse gas emission problem?
The funny thing is that light tends to reach beneath the shadow of large objects like satelites.
Really, eliminating beef from everyones diets and seriously reducing all dairy intake (goats milk products instead of cattle) would make a much more significant impact. Hell, switching from beef to goat alone would do the trick.
>cows cause global warming meme
Agriculture is responsible for 9% of green house gasses
75% of this is due to soil management activities such as fertilizer application and about 25% caused directly by livestock.
60% of whats produced by that 75% is fed to livestock, so we can count that towards the beef as well, giving (25% + (60% of 75%)) of 9%
Livestock are thus responsible for at most 6% of greenhouse gasses.
6% is not nearly enough to 'do the trick' since greenhouse gases need to be reduced by about 60% to stabilize it.
But hay, whats a factor of 10 when talking out of your ass about the meat industry.
A much more realistic agriculture solution is to genetically modify commercial crops to have a high albedo to reflect more of the suns rays back.
Everytime I see shit like this I'm reminded of those fat fucks, complaining that there has to be an easier way to lose weight.
We already know the problem. We need to stop dragging our feet and actually get around to fixing it.
The economic benefits in the foreseeable future do not override the short term costs(which also requires killing at least 3 billion people and impoverishing 2.9 billion) , so significant work on reducing carbon emissions won't happen.
>mirrors in space will slow global warming at all
>eatimg less meat wont slow global warming at all
Are you just rage posting again?
Blocking out the sun will disrupt the earth's ecosystems more so than the CO2 emissions are.
Strong arm china into either cutting down emissions immediately or halting 'progress'. That is the most realistic option. They have nothing to threaten us with. This pathological altruism the west keeps touting will have dire consequences if it keeps up. They can find other ways to grow their economy.
>everybody put your conspiracy hats on
I'm starting to think they are pumping out all this eco damage just to sink power USA coastal cities like NYC under the ocean. China is at war with the West, at least USA, but there are no guns or bombs. The West doesnt want to admit it.
>china and russia spread their vulture wings and inflict depotism on the world
>tech and medicine advances grind to a halt
>human rights are revoked
>japan and china immediately start fighting
>europe crumbles under the weight of refugees and pressures from russia
Forgot to add, we might be able to mitigate the food problem by cultivating crops in large hangars with artificial light, or something like that (despite this solution offsetting the basic idea that we should be polluting less), but I have no idea how to avoid the oxygen problem
>human rights being considered a good thing
There is no law of nature saying you have a right to anything. Part of this whole problem is everyone believing they're entitled for no reason.
global warming scare is a hoax
Everyone intelligent knows it is not a problem. Anyone seriously worried about global warming is subhuman. It's entirely a globalist plot for international legislation.
Carbon Sequestration could cancel out all global warming easily.
Also historic earth levels of carbon in atmosphere are generally much higher than now.
What is happening is Humans are minutely turning back the clock on the natural sequestration of carbon. We are currently still in an Ice Age and one of the coldest periods of Earth's history.
What humans are doing is simply creating more energy on Earth and nothing else. Releasing stored up potential energy and RETURNING earth's atmosphere to previous levels.
NONE of the carbon released will take earth to some new, never before seen level for thousands of years. Just think of carbon being released as going back in time to before that carbon was sequestered naturally.
We are in an ice age and the coldest earth ever.
"Warming" is not something new and it's hilarious people think this. Warming is actually good for humanity as it creates more potential energy on earth's surface.
Its a perversion of rights. Rights are things that facilitate a functioning society, like free speech or a right to a speedy trial. Things like free healthcare are questionable, and are more band-aid legislation to ignore a bigger problem. You would agree that things like freedom of religion are human rights?
You also have to worry about the pollution of the oceans and the growing problem of waste land fills. You can pull all of the carbon out of the atmosphere that you want, but if the oceans and material wealth of the Earth are stripped and polluted there are bigger problems. The microscopic life in the oceans are the biggest contributors to carbon sequestration, I think.
Human Rights is just pretend things. Religion is just a thoughtvirus on humanity and has no special protections.
The only true goal is optimization and improvement. Not these things like "human rights". If someone wants to start a religion that impedes optimization or objectively creates more suffering it should be stopped and exterminated.
It's simply a flaw in humanity that we are so romantic still to think some viral book from 2000 years ago should be protected. Now if we modify and change the virus like modern Christianity to a benign thing that keeps low IQ humans in check, it's fine.
Yeah, lets go back to the comfortable higher temperatures. Humans were fine and dandy back then right? The ecosystem is different too. Its like saying lets go back to the tax rate that existed 200 years ago, it wont work. Times have changed.
If you think Christianity or Judaism are viruses on humanity then you know nothing of the history of religion. People focus on the bad of religion, yet religion has gifted us so much and perhaps religion looks bad now because its mostly a spiritual strengthening social club. And things like Islamic extremism arent helping.
>If someone wants to start a religion that impedes optimization or objectively creates more suffering it should be stopped and exterminated
Yeah bad religions are stopped by the free market of ideas, if they dont work they are ignored or shunned.
pm 2.5 pollution, water pollution, heavy metals, etc are what people should be worried about and not global warming.
In any case the meme of global warming seems to be working as the plebs are starting to get more scared about it in some places.
You act like global warming exists in a vacuum. As though human advancement just stops.
Our ability to sequester carbon will only increase as time passes. Alternative energy sources only get better as time passes.
The equation in 50 years will be completely different. They will be debating what carbon levels to set Earth's atmosphere at (each country will want something different for optimal economy), not worrying about it going out of control.
Global warming is a funny thing to anyone intelligent. It is absolutely nothing compared to real threats to human species.
I said freedom of religion in general. Positive religions which help dumb/poor/afraid people are good. Negative religions which do not advance well being or optimize environment should be destroyed,
I'm saying it is a minimal problem. It won't eradicate humanity. It won't extinct the species and earth based intelligence.
It's also not an immediate threat.
It's just not understandable how a rational and intelligent person gets suckered in to being scared of global warming.
ESPECIALLY when you compare it to the advances in technology that will exist in 2100.
This is not true.
There are naturally meat eaters and there are parasites, herbivores, and all manners of life on Earth.
The productive species can be preyed on by the parasitic species. "Freedom of societies" to be as optimal as possible means they should exclude negative patterns of thoughts if possible.
That being said, there is benefit to varieties of thoughts but there are certain religions that any rational and intelligent person would ban or eliminate.
Do you think microbial organisms, which play a VERY IMPORTANT role in the global ecosystem, can survive a rapid change in global conditions? Do you think we can replace these organisms with technology? We cant even keep people from committing deforestation.
Yeah humanity will be fine, some of us. There will still be mass depopulation, not to mention massive refugee crisis that stresses what systems we have in place to weather the storm of a global shift in climate.
So you are saying you would rather have your life run by some 'smart person'? Tell me, who on this earth has greater knowledge than the collective wisdom of the masses? Who has lived long enough and collected the wisdom and knowledge to know what is just? Nobody. They all die before reaching enlightenment, if they even can. We can make small adjustments and suggestions here and there by experts, but nobody has the wisdom to steer all of humanity.
Not to mention that is one step removed from despotism. We all know how that is.
Im telling you, the free market of ideas inherently and ruthlessly eliminates bad patterns of thought.
If only there was some way organisms that thrive could grow in number.
Such irreplaceable life.
Too bad Earth's oceans have experienced 100 degrees and higher temperatures due to natural shifts in temperatures.
The earth and it's inhabitants are not that fragile. The SLIGHT change in temp by 2100 will not extinct humanity. It's stupid to think so.
It's not like we should continue just using coal for everything because the immediate negative effects of pollution are bad.
I hate the global warming argument because simply more optimal health is much more crucial to humanity's well being. Whereas global warming is basically benign to our health.
But we are not talking about the past. We are talking about the planet right now in its current state (not in the past REPEAT: ***NOT IN THE PAST***) and how global human activity will affect it. This activity cannot continue. And I have said already that humanity will not be extinct due to climate shift. Even still, why shift the climate and drastically knock back human race utility when we can move forward with more environmentally conscious methods?
>Carbon Sequestration could cancel out all global warming easily.
Carbon sequestration as a practical scale-able technology does not yet exist, and even if it did it would require energy. So would you create non-polluting energy infrastructure to sequester carbon from your polluting energy infrastructure or would you just replace that polluting infrastructure with the non-polluting infrastructure?
>Also historic earth levels of carbon in atmosphere are generally much higher than now.
Were humans living then?
>We are currently still in an Ice Age and one of the coldest periods of Earth's history.
Rapidly changing the temperature from what humans are used to and rapidly changing the environment humans are used to is probably pretty bad, regardless of how warm it was millions of years ago.
Isn't it obvious?
In either case it's the same globalists who love bunker oil cargo shipping who are crying for international cooperation for climate change.
It's just a feel good exercise to promote their ideology of what humanity should become.
No, actually monopolies occur due to a combination of exploitation of the law and laws preventing dissent to change the law, with a little bit of free market thrown in once the to-be-monopoly reaches critical mass. You can already see it happening on campuses, people want safe-spaces where their ideas are not challenged.
That was the implied point. Monopolies of ideologies happen pretty regularly across societies.
It's also hardly ever the most optimal ones but usually instead the most aggressive forms.
No, its conscientious policy to ensure responsible use of this Earth we have inherited. We are going to have to live in it for another few centuries at least. Might as well keep it clean.
What exactly are you advocating for?
More intelligence and optimal use of resources or instead everyone destroying their cars and taking LSD until they die of starvation due to no transport of food?
Yeah the past is unfortunate, but we are still here. And Christianity wasnt all so bad. Free market, freedom of speech, and many things are all still pretty new. And look what they brought about.
Now we see people wanting to move backwards after all that has happened in just the 20th century alone? What is this insanity?
If you are saying that people will starve due to rampant environmental scares, its entirely possible to live a comfortable and possibly better life without the irresponsible exploitation of the planet, this one chance we have.
How is moving backwards to want to eliminate cancerous ideologies?
Free Speech is important but it's like having a computer with no firewall on it at the same time. Free speech needs protective measures against things which wish to eliminate it.
While Critical thinking is the key to human advancement. It needs to also ELIMINATE anything that seeks to eliminate critical thinking itself.
You can see the obvious flaw when free speech or critical thought allow ideas to flourish and grow which seek to eliminate the environment that gave them birth. Thereby 'trapping' thought in the same place.
This is why "true" Freedom of Religion and "true" freedom of speech should never exist. Because there are religions/patterns of speech which when spread destroy the environment that gave them life.
So yes, have a free religious society and then watch as Ximoni spreads with one of it's tenant being Ximoni is the only truth in existence. Then they get a majority and make such tenants ingrained in their society. Stifling all change.
With the way the world works now it is not impossible to imagine that being the entire world. Then you have to wait for an extermination event or extreme calamity for it to be unlocked.
Well, I worded that horribly.
Free Speech can give rise to Speech that seeks to destroy Free Speech.
Once this new ideology destroys the ideology of free speech it wins. Because the new ideology does not allow free speech and therefore any new competition.
While there can be bastions of free speech as there are still on Earth. It is entirely to imagine such an ideology luckily gaining enough power to never be challenged and slowly pound away and destroy any bastions of free speech.
Therefore Free Speech as an idea, or open mindedness, critical thought, etc must at it's core be protective of it's essence.
That means, a free society that allows adaptation and change must also be hyper vigilant and hostile to anything that is anti-freedom.
So "one true religions" that prescribe everything or ideologies that ban speech or thoughts should be destroyed. Even bigotry which seeks to eliminate entire groups of people is far less of a threat to humanity than something which opposes critical thinking or freedom of ideas.
>How is moving backwards to want to eliminate cancerous ideologies?
Because that is precisely what happened in the past. The aggressive forms you refer to where religions striking out at things they saw as a threat to their ideology. Not only that, their followers were exploited due to intolerance and lack of a blood free arena of ideas. Again, who is to say what is best? Who has this god-like wisdom? Nobody.
>You can see the obvious flaw when free speech or critical thought allow ideas to flourish and grow which seek to eliminate the environment that gave them birth.
Thats what I'm saying. The free market of ideas does this inherently. If you think Ximoni or whatever is going to take root in the USA, it wont. Not a chance in hell. The only way bad ideas like this are going to fester is if they are shielded from criticism by a corrupted form of regulation like the not corrupted form you are talking about. Its a quick slip into this type of scenario, so why have its possibility at all?
I'm not saying dont eliminate cancerous ideologies, it happens in the free market of ideas all the time. Just dont have some slow, corruptible, law do it for us. That has already been tried, its called sharia law.
>That means, a free society that allows adaptation and change must also be hyper vigilant and hostile to anything that is anti-freedom
YES MAN THATS WHAT IM DOING RIGHT NOW
Global Warming is currently happening. There are also lots of other things currently happening. If we are going to worry about things in 2100, we should also factor in the state of humanity as well as what we predict will happen at current velocities.
Saying Climate Change is going to destroy humanity is like saying walking across an empty road means you are going to get hit by a car because you are positioned at a spot that will eventually cross paths with a car.
Futurism and predicting the future is kind of stupid but worse is considering the only single variable to change in the next 200 years is carbon concentrations.
>Global Warming is currently happening. There are also lots of other things currently happening. If we are going to worry about things in 2100, we should also factor in the state of humanity as well as what we predict will happen at current velocities.
>Saying Climate Change is going to destroy humanity is like saying walking across an empty road means you are going to get hit by a car because you are positioned at a spot that will eventually cross paths with a car.
Where did I say climate change is going to destroy humanity? Anyway the analogy is foolish. Climate change is not like a car that will run us over in the distant future at a discrete point of time, it is a continuous process that is happening right now and will gradually cause negative consequences. Avoiding future negative consequences requires us to start doing something about it right now. It is the exact opposite of a speeding car. It's slow and you can't tell it's running you over.
>Futurism and predicting the future is kind of stupid but worse is considering the only single variable to change in the next 200 years is carbon concentrations.
Ignoring scientific theories because you don't like them is even more stupid. Worse is that you don't even understand what you're ignoring if you think it only takes into account carbon dioxide concentrations.
Is global warming alarmism vs. global warming denialism the new religion vs. science on /sci/? When am I going to stop seeing non-stop threads about it with people arguing the same shit we've all heard before?
What is this thing you are advocating we do?
Optimize resources more?
Genocide Africa and India?
I'd love to hear what extreme measures we must do. Instead of a vague "spread awareness" bullshit.
The fact is I believe it's entirely reasonable to make the trade off of higher carbon concentration for accelerated economic growth. Especially if that economic growth leads to advancements in scientific funding.
The current investment in R&D worldwide is still relatively small and having a worse worldwide economy would reduce it further.
A bike analogy might work. Pedaling as fast as possible might be the best thing keeping humanity alive. Economic slowdown or deepening recession might increase extinction risk factors.
Slowing human momentum down which might happen under many global warming solutions might be the worst possible choice for human survival.
You don't get it
Look how high sea levels could rise by 2200
Imagine all those people who will drown because the water is higher than their home. They might have to move.
People would have to move eventually. Maybe not 200 years from now, but perhaps 10000 years. Nothing on this earth is permanent. The sertlement of jamestown Virginia is in the middle of the ocean now due to current shifts.
The honest truth is that people will be able to move without drowning. People won't die due to global warming. Wars, ideologies, and overpopulation will cause more destruction to the earth and humanity. Those should be the focus because even by climatologists oen admission, the time has passed and global warming will happen. I may be ignorant about all the details, but i know the earth and its life were around during higher co2 and higher temperatures and it manage to still survive.
People always talk about how the earth was different back then but the actual heat isn't the problem. Climate used to change at a far slower rate and organisms had time to adapt. With the rate it's going now vegetation isn't able to migrate quickly enough compared to more mobile things like insects and disease. The more mobile things are able to migrate to areas they previously couldn't in large quantities and the vegetation currently there haven't had time to adapt mechanisms to defend themselves. This leads to mass extinctions of plant life which causes the resulting extinction of any species relying on them. Ecosystems are more complex than we currently understand and many changes have already lead to disastrous effects which humans will need to foot the bill for if we still want access to those ecosystem services. A common argument to this is that humans have/will have the technology to restore any lost services but they fail to see how much things will cost to treat damages in comparison to taking preventative measures. The banking company citigroup actually estimated that the costs of climate change will be around 44 trillion dollars. http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/18/cost-of-not-acting-on-climate-change-44-trillion-citi.html
>Couldn't we combat Global Warming more realistically since countries like China won't be cutting down on carbon emissions?
Yes, if you actually meant "Combat"... the USA has all the cruise missiles it needs to take out every coal burning power plant on the face of the Earth.
>Could we build satellites around the earth that have the capability of expanding into huge platforms on an intermitent basis to block out the sun's rays temporarily to lower the Earth's temperature back down to an acceptable rate and just use those whenever the temperatures start getting to high?
Theoretically yes but at the poles the solar wind is fierce. It would have to be impervious to space debris, cosmic rays, high energy particles pushing it around.
>Maybe even build a permanent sun blocking structure over the ice poles to ensure they don't melt?
Getting sunblock in place yes.
>Could this be feasibly done if all countries worked together on a scientific method to slow and reverse global warming?
Would it stop ocean acidification, no.
>They have nothing to threaten us with.
Let's take a step back and realize virtually every world problem could be solved if "all countries worked together on a scientific method to" insert problem here. This thread is useless
Considering that putting an object into low earth orbit is really expensive and that you would have to multiply this cost by the number of satellites needed to block out the sun. I think that it would be cheaper, easier, and less work to just cut greenhouse gases emissions.
Have to disagree with you on "Coldest Earth Ever". Look at the 'Cryogenian' aka 'Snowball Earth' before the Ediacaran. Also look up the Late Paleozoic Ice Age, and while you're at it, should probably look at the Ordovician ice age.
The problem is not that we're going to be the hottest Earth ever, because we're not. The problem is that greenhouse gasses are being pumped into the atmosphere at a faster rate than we know of. Though Ice Ages are the minority in Earth's history. Most of the time global climate reflects a 'greenhouse Earth'.
Comparisons I've seen in numerous articles comparing past climate to today's situation deal with the Eocene Thermal Maximum. It was ~56 million years ago and global temperatures rose around 5 degrees Celsius. It then took another 200,000 years for the Earth to return to a cooling trend. The cause of the Eocene Thermal Maximum (ETM) is thought to have been mainly caused by about 40,000 years worth of increased volcanic activity outputting CO_2 at a rate faster than it could be sequestered naturally.
In the past 200 years, the greenhouse gasses humanity has produced is roughly equivalent to the estimates of greenhouse gasses produced by the 40,000 years of increased volcanism during the ETM. We aren't the root cause of climate change, it's been changing without humanity for a good 3 to 4 billion years. However, we certainly seem to be accelerating whatever processes were already in motion.
I apologize for the lack of sources on this, I am on my laptop, and do not have access to the folder where I have the relevant articles stored.
Does /sci/ think that it would be possible to release some sort of chemical in the atmosphere in the future that makes the sky more hazy and blocks out the rays or absorbs heat or something?
In 50 or so years from now would it be scientifically possible to build gigantic engines on the Earth, blow up Mars, and move the Earth to where Mars used to be so that the Earth is farther away from the sun and the temperature drops enough to make up for global warming. And if it keeps warmer could we blow up Jupiter and take its place?
Yes, it's already a topic of discussion.
The big problems is accounting for logistical errors and potentially undermining the solar energy economy (i.e. naturally grown plants and solar energy panels) farm crops though could always be moved inside "pink light" green houses since they're more efficient.
GOP you mean.
"So China is playing a very different role now than it did in the past. One indicator: some of the usual suspects on the [USA] right have suddenly changed their line. They used to argue that U.S. emission limits would be useless, because China would just keep polluting; now they’re starting to argue that U.S. action isn’t necessary, because China will cut coal consumption whatever we do"
It takes like 40 minutes for a missile like that to hit its target. Before the missile even reaches its orbital path, the US will have detected it. During the 20 minutes its in flight, its a sitting duck to be picked off. ICBMs are obsolete weapons that are useful only against countries that have minimal or no missile defense.
>On 10 November 2005, the USS Lake Erie detected, tracked, and destroyed a mock two-stage ballistic missile within two minutes of the ballistic missile launch.
That's before the missile pierced the atmosphere
We'd have to genetically engineer phytoplankton to survive in warmer climates, but after introducing a few thousand upon thousands of tons of those, the temperatures'd lower and be back to normal after 4 years.
That's probably the stupidest idea I've ever heard of anon. You're missing the actual problems with climate change and you're mistaking weather for climate.
The problem has to do with green house gases there are a variety of solutions, like pumping atmospheric CO2 into the ground or reacting it with basalt. Problem is it's expensive.
You are on /sci/, you should know how it is, it is very difficult to make blanket statements, but there is a significant body of evidence pointing towards the extensive glaciation that one might associate with snowball earth in the cryogenian, and there is only degrees of doubt as to the extent between snow- and slushball.
No. You would need trillions upon trillions of gallons for that to work, and we can neither obtain that amount, nor move it into the sun.
Furthermore, if you dump enough nitrogen mass into a star, you will actually raise the core temperature and initiate fusion of the nitrogen into heavier elements.
>These GBIs can be augmented by mid-course SM-3 interceptors fired from Navy ships. About ten interceptor missiles were operational as of 2006. In 2014, the Missile Defense Agency had 30 operational GBIs, with 14 additional ground-based interceptors requested for 2017 deployment, in the Fiscal Year 2016 budget
So if these things actually worked as advertised (which they don't, which is why there are only 30 of them) concievably 30 American cities could be saved.
Holy fucking shit you americlaps sure are funny.
China has over 4 times the population of the US, and they have ONLY JUST reached the same emission levels as the US.
The US per capita emissions are fucking nuts, and you still try to hide behind >muh china
When in reality, they are 4 fucking times cleaner than the US per capita. FOUR FUCKING TIMES.
Their pollution levels are because of the extreme population densities and if anything should scare the shit out of you and make you want to reduce your own emissions as fast as fucking possible before Manhattan and LA go the same way.
This is propaganda and lies from China, if this were true then why does china shut down schools and work on heavy smog days. No place on the US does that. The China folk often have to wear masks in public and carry around canaries so that they don't die and it's hard to see the sky because smog is all over china.
Nice try though China anon.
Because of extremely high population densities. Can you fucking read?
Which bit exactly is propaganda? The emission numbers that the US themselves use and appear to be proud of?
Or is it the population numbers? Because you know, they're so organised over there, it's not at all likely that their population is actually higher than recorded or anything.
When China releases numbers it's propaganda and lies in their favour. When the US releases numbers it's still propaganda and lies in China's favour, apparently.
Get your head out of your fucking ass, it'll be at least another 20 years before the air is easier to breathe up there anyway.
Why would population density increase smog, it's not like the people are farting so much that it's polluting the China stratosphere or that people give off exhaust, then again the chinese people do love eating bean sprouts which is known to make people gassy.
Power stations are generally located in proximity to where people live.
Not right in the middle of a town, but within a few miles because the longer the distance you transmit power the higher the losses.
Lowering efficiency to move the power stations further away just means having to burn yet more coal for the same energy output.
More people in one area means more power stations in one area, so more pollution.
Were you born retarded, or did you get dropped on your head shortly afterwards?
Calm down kids.
Diesel and coal are extremely dirty. True, population drives emissions because energy is at the root of a consumer economy. China built too many coal burning power plants, none of which are required to have exhaust scrubbers. Heavy vehicles have no catalytic converters. The population/economy requires constant trucks coming/going, stationary power generating, not to mention all manner of small 2 and 4 stroke engines, none of which are pollution controls. Geographically, these places exist in depressions which can trap atmospheres close to the ground, concentrating their shit.
US emissions per capita are higher for CO2 but coal plants have been phased out b/c natural gas plants cheaper and cleaner. Better centralized grids mean point pollution sources a great distance from population centers. And 50 years of regulations in place requiring things like evaporative emissions controls, catalysis of exhaust gases, etc. means the US hardly ever experienced the shittiness of what is normal in Beijing.
When US power was that dirty (over 100 years ago) we had a 10th of the population- We were burning wood and coal which was laden with similar toxic compounds. But the mix in Beijing is much more intense and widely distributed, and much more toxic.
There is no runaway effect in Global Warming. If there was, it would have already happened millions of years ago.
Furthermore, with Global Warming, contrary to the beliefs of bozos around the world, most of the changes will be in the coldest regions warming up. If we have 2C warming, it's not going to be 2C warmer everywhere. To the contrary, the high latitudes will be much more comfortable and the low latitudes will see see little or no change at all.
>This is propaganda and lies from China, if this were true then why does china shut down schools and work on heavy smog days. No place on the US does that.
We used to, but then the evil government environmental regulators stepped in.
Any thing you do is temporay, unless you can scrub methane and CO2 out of the atmosphere. Otherwise temperatures will spring back quickly, once you stop doing the cooling measures.
There is one option for long term cooling. Build a floating dam in the Bearing Strait and a few other places. So that the cold surface water of the Arctic does't go south and meet warm water currents. Allowing it to refreeze. Creating more ice and more white surface to reflect solar radiation.
What would happen if we had space stations in the outer most part of our atmosphere that produced exhaust so much so as not to black out the sun but to block enough rays as too cool the earth's surface?
What difference does it make that it's because population density ?
The only solution to reduce pollution in China is to find a way to effectively reduce carbon emissions, even if these are relatively smaller than American ones.
Question for people who saw the movie Snowpiercer. If some chemical was released in the atmosphere to reverse global warming as has been proposed in this thread could it backfire and freeze the Earth?
Chief Climate Changer
spelling out the real agenda
>le out of context quote from /pol/
"What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group's conclusion is 'no'. The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
-Maurice Strong talking about a novel he would like to write
If not for the greenhouse effect, we would not be here. The estimate I've seen for an Earth without the greenhouse effect would put surface temperatures somewhere in the vicinity of zero.
We need greenhouse gases to survive.
One thing I wonder about global warming I wonder is the why of the post-apocalyptic predictions. So sure, if it keeps going unfettered, we're going back to CO2 concentrations we haven't seen since 5 million years ago. But Earth wasn't a post-apocalyptic wasteland 5 million years ago. Are we afraid that it will happen so fast we won't be able to adapt?
It's unlikely that our CO2 levels are going to go that high.
Of course, you said "if it keeps going unfettered". That's kind of like predicting that sea levels will rise to cover Mount Everest if they keep rising unfettered.