Political Crossfire Forums

[BOggThe1rst]

We have to put an end to these lunatics,
Thoughts?

THE idea seems like something out of a Superman comic: a machine or missile shoots tonnes of particles into the atmosphere that would block the Sun's rays, cool down the overheated Earth, and reverse global warming.

But at the weekend scientists gathered in a closed session organised by NASA and Stanford University to discuss researching such a strategy. The idea is called geo-engineering: using technology to tinker with the Earth's delicate climate balance.

Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, said his modelling showed the idea worked. "We found that if you blocked 20 per cent of the sunlight over the Arctic Ocean it would be enough to restore sea ice," he said.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/nasa-looks-at-plan-to-blot-out-sun/2006/11/19/1163871272174.html

[agentkgb]

:shock: They had better know what they're doing before they start doing whatever it is they think they plan on doing. We only get one Earth.

[Dookiestix]

We've already seen the effects of our experiment with Carbon Monoxide and greenhouse gasses. Why start another ill-informed one?

[Ameriman]

Dookiestix wrote: We've already seen the effects of our experiment with Carbon Monoxide and greenhouse gasses. Why start another ill-informed one?

Well I don't think they are shooting the missile up anytime soon...hence the research...

[MplsBison]

Jesus christ.


As if they didn't already waste billions of dollars...


they think they can just spend their way into relevance?


Not only cancel the entire NASA program, but also put whoever thought of this idea in jail.

[Timmytour]

It´s a question of priorities.

Before spending money embarking on such a project, I´d prefer it was spent on making sure that no comet could hit either the earth or the moon and destroy it.

That said, I´m presuming it would be disasterous for the earth to have no moon...but is that actually the case?

[mibs]

People will do anything to continue living their unsustainable lives.

One day we will actually tackle the source of the problem instead of adding yet another band-aid. Hopefully that day wont be too late.

[Timmytour]

I think it is a harsh move of a thread by the way.

Surely the way American taxpayers spend their money, or rather, the way it is spent is a political issue?

In addition, if such things are important to the world as a whole, how fair is it that American taxpayers should bear the cost?

Not fair at all I would say.

[Angelicus]

Timmytour wrote: It´s a question of priorities.

Before spending money embarking on such a project, I´d prefer it was spent on making sure that no comet could hit either the earth or the moon and destroy it.

That said, I´m presuming it would be disasterous for the earth to have no moon...but is that actually the case?

I have to agree with timmy on that one. What good will it do us too be able too cool or for that matter heat the earth too, when some asteroid or comet can just come along, and smash into us? Thus wiping US out, like the dinosaurs. And there's not a damn thing we could do about it as it stands today.

And whats really messed up, is that this is not a what if scenario, but rather a WHEN scenario. We know that eventually another one is going to come barreling our way.

[sgtshortness]

There actually is an asteriod predicted to pass near us in 2039... whether or not it hits us or not is up to question, but NASA is working on several plans to change its path or blow it up if it is a problem.

[eynon]

BOggThe1rst wrote: We have to put an end to these lunatics,
Thoughts?

THE idea seems like something out of a Superman comic: a machine or missile shoots tonnes of particles into the atmosphere that would block the Sun's rays, cool down the overheated Earth, and reverse global warming.

But at the weekend scientists gathered in a closed session organised by NASA and Stanford University to discuss researching such a strategy. The idea is called geo-engineering: using technology to tinker with the Earth's delicate climate balance.

Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, said his modelling showed the idea worked. "We found that if you blocked 20 per cent of the sunlight over the Arctic Ocean it would be enough to restore sea ice," he said.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/nasa-looks-at-plan-to-blot-out-sun/2006/11/19/1163871272174.html

didn't Mr. Burns already try this?

[Wizard From Oz]

We actually have the sky pretty well covered in the asteroid and comet department. The only weak is the south pole. We could get nicely blindsided down there,

Having said that - a few international groups have smallish scopes on station. The killer of course is 6 months daylights.

For the record....No moon is bad.... Even worse, moon busted up in orbit.

Also busting up asteroids on their way to Earth is also exceedingly bad

[ieatfood]

actually, we've already done this
its called SO2, which we've been pumping into the air for decades
we've only recently stopped doing it

people act like this is such a crazy idea
actually, it's quite common and factories do it all the time--its called pollution
this would just be polluting in a controlled manner, buts its hardly a radical or crazy idea

[The Comrade]

why is everyone's reaction so negative?


A) it's an experiment and probably won't be plausible
B) NASA is vital the continuation of the human race
C) global warming is going to f**k up the earth just as bad as any asteroid or comet will if we continue to let it go unchecked.

[MplsBison]

The Comrade wrote:
B) NASA is vital the continuation of the human race


They wish that was true.

Then they could have some hope that their pathetic programs wouldn't be cancelled in the future.

[The Comrade]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: The Comrade wrote:
B) NASA is vital the continuation of the human race


They wish that was true.

Then they could have some hope that their pathetic programs wouldn't be cancelled in the future.

if you think the future of man rests on earth you're horribly mistaken.

[Babylon_Horuv]

BOggThe1rst wrote: We have to put an end to these lunatics,
Thoughts?

THE idea seems like something out of a Superman comic: a machine or missile shoots tonnes of particles into the atmosphere that would block the Sun's rays, cool down the overheated Earth, and reverse global warming.

But at the weekend scientists gathered in a closed session organised by NASA and Stanford University to discuss researching such a strategy. The idea is called geo-engineering: using technology to tinker with the Earth's delicate climate balance.

Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, said his modelling showed the idea worked. "We found that if you blocked 20 per cent of the sunlight over the Arctic Ocean it would be enough to restore sea ice," he said.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/nasa-looks-at-plan-to-blot-out-sun/2006/11/19/1163871272174.html

Sounds like a good way to get an iceage.

[The Comrade]

Babylon_Horuv wrote:
Sounds like a good way to get an iceage.

Actually a large cloud of green house gases reversed a perminant ice age on earth. the "snow ball earth" if you will.

[MplsBison]

The Comrade wrote:

if you think the future of man rests on earth you're horribly mistaken.

Assuming the future of man rests in space,

NASA is not necessary to reach that end.


If anything, it's a slower, more expensive way.

[The Comrade]

tman_ndsu08 wrote:
Assuming the future of man rests in space,

NASA is not necessary to reach that end.


If anything, it's a slower, more expensive way.


without nasa almost all space exploration would hault.


without nasa a way to other planets will take years longer

without nasa you might not be able to build something in time to push an asteroid off course.


nasa is essential to earths security, especially now with all the dangers facing earth from space.