posted 01-11-2004 06:51 AM            

Giant Space Shield Plan
To Save Planet
By Mark Townsend
The Observer - UK
1-10-4

So, let's not address the CAUSE of global warming, let's rather continue to trash the planet and just put a big shield up in the sky to make it all better. More idiocy. -ed
-ed

Humanity could not exist without it - yet in an extraordinary plan that underlines the catastrophic implications of climate change, scientists now want to curb the Sun's life-giving influence to save mankind from its biggest threat: global warming.

Key talks involving the Government's most senior climate experts have produced proposals to site a massive shield on the edge of space that would deflect the Sun's rays and stabilise the climate.

Hundreds of thousands of tonnes of metallic 'scatterers' would be ejected into the upper atmosphere under the plans. In addition, billions of tiny barrage balloons could serve as a secondary barrier to block rays from the Earth's nearest star.

On land, giant reservoirs holding saline water could be built to offset the rise in sea levels caused by the melting of the polar ice-caps. The oceans, too, would be modified to cope with the planet's increasingly warmer weather. Massive floating cloud-making machines would be dotted across their surface while, below, large plantations of algae would be grown to absorb greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

The theories were discussed by Britain's most eminent climatologists at a meeting in Cambridge last week to analyse the latest theories to tackle the problem of the planet heating up. They included the Government's chief scientist, Sir David King, who warned last week that climate change was the most severe problem facing civilisation.

Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre, said: 'These are exotic ideas and we probably will have to come up with the right mixture. But the problem has not gone away, so we think this analysis is just in time.

'The present climate policy does not seem to be working. We are not saying we have the magic bullet, but this is a desperate situation and people should start thinking about the unconventional. Preventative plans on a larger scale are needed.'

Environmentalists maintain that the solutions are so radical they serve only to underscore how unprepared governments are to deal with the threat. Last week researchers predicted that a quarter of land animals and plants will die out because of global warming over the next 50 years.

Scientists, however, argue that until the United States and Russia ratify international agreements to limit the emission of greenhouse gases they will have little choice but to explore new methods to save the planet.

Extreme technological fixes include deploying tens of billions of wafer-thin metal plates less than a centimetre wide into the Earth's low orbit via space rockets. These would be specially built to allow space-bound rays to pass while at the same time absorbing a significant amount of solar energy before bouncing it back into space. They would be designed to stay in place for a century.

Similar solutions include the release of massive nets of ultra-fine metal mesh into the upper atmosphere by aircraft to prevent the Sun's rays from reaching Earth. Alternatively, millions of metallic-coated super-pressure balloons - similar in design to a children's party version, although a fraction of the size - would be filled with helium and released until they reach the stratosphere 35,000ft above the Earth. Trapped in parcels of air, they would stay up for about five years before falling to earth and being replaced.

All the methods are designed to block about 1 per cent of the Sun's rays, enough to protect at least one million square kilometres of the Earth and significantly cool the planet.

Inspiration came from studying the effects of volcanic eruptions in Indonesia in 1814. During these explosions, enough material was spewed into the upper atmosphere to cause temperatures to fall by up to 30 per cent for almost three years, roughly the amount some predict that they will rise to by the end of this century.

Academics from California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, who told government scientists about the billion-pound scheme, claim it will increase crop yields, because plants would be less damaged by the Sun's harmful rays. The scheme would create more spectacular sunrises and sunsets, deeper blue skies and would reduce the cancer risk for sunbathers and children.

Pumping nutrients into the world's oceans remains another weapon under consideration. This would encourage the growth of vast underwater algae blooms to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Scientists believe 'large-scale ocean fertilisation' could act as a substitute for the world's disappearing forests, which act as a huge natural sponge for soaking up carbon dioxide from the air.

Massive floating cloud-making machines could also become a feature of the oceans. These solar-powered contraptions would spray seawater droplets of a precise size into the sky to help encourage the formation of low-level clouds.

Other ideas being looked at include the burial of carbon dioxide emissions underground. Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Roger Higman said: 'Climate change is the biggest environmental threat the world faces. It is important for scientists to explore imaginative ways to tackle its impacts, but technical fixes must not be used as an excuse for failing to reduce the growing levels of greenhouse gases.'

This week the Government will announce how it proposes to implement the most significant piece of climate change legislation since the Kyoto protocol, Europe's greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme.

posted 01-11-2004 06:58 AM            

7 January, 2004

Climate risk 'to million species'

By Alex Kirby
BBC News Online environment correspondent

Boyd's forest dragon: The lizard that's losing its home (Image copyright Stephen E Williams)
Climate change could drive a million of the world's species to extinction as soon as 2050, a scientific study says.
The authors say in the journal Nature a study of six world regions suggested a quarter of animals and plants living on the land could be forced into oblivion.

They say cutting greenhouse gases and storing the main one, carbon dioxide, could save many species from vanishing.

The United Nations says the prospect is also a threat to the billions of people who rely on Nature for their survival.

Seeking cooler climes

In a report, Extinction Risk From Climate Change, the scientists describe their study of the six biodiversity-rich regions, representing 20% of the Earth's land area.

At risk: South Africa's king protea (Image: Olivier Langrand/Conservation International)
The study used computer models to simulate how the ranges of 1,103 species - plants, mammals, birds, reptiles, frogs, butterflies and other invertebrates - are expected to move in response to changing temperatures and climate.

The scientists considered three different possibilities - minimum, mid-range and maximum expected climate change, on the basis of data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

They also assessed whether or not animals and plants would be able to move to new areas.

Mission improbable

They concluded that from 15 to 37% of all the species in the regions studied could be driven to extinction by the climate changes likely between now and 2050.

Species at risk include:

Boyd's forest dragon, an Australian lizard likely to lost at least 20% of its range
South Africa's national flower, the king protea, and its relatives
Virola sebifera, a Brazilian tree whose entire range is likely to have vanished by 2050
the Scottish crossbill, found only in Scotland: its survival could demand an improbable migration to Iceland.
The study's lead author, Professor Chris Thomas, of the University of Leeds, UK, says: "If the projections can be extrapolated globally, and to other groups of land animals and plants, our analyses suggest that well over a million species could be threatened with extinction."

The Scottish crossbill's chances look slim (Image: Mike Richards/rspb-images.com)
Some species will no longer have any climatically suitable habitat left, and others may be unable to migrate far enough to reach hospitable surroundings.

The authors say: "Many of the most severe impacts of climate change are likely to stem from interactions between threats, factors not taken into account in our calculations, rather than from climate acting in isolation."

They single out as examples habitat fragmentation and loss, and competition from new invasive species.

But they have some encouragement as well. They say the minimum expected climate change scenarios for 2050 - the change they regard as inevitable - would mean about 18% of the affected species would vanish.

Reversing the trend

The medium projections suggest an extinction rate of 24%, and the highest one of 35%.

Little hope for Brazil's Virola sebifera (Image copyright Marinez Ferreira de Siqueira)
They conclude: "Minimising greenhouse gas emissions and sequestering [storing] carbon to realise minimum rather than mid-range or maximum expected climate warming could save a substantial percentage of terrestrial species from extinction."

John Lanchbery, of the UK's Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, has studied the science and diplomacy of climate change for many years.

He told BBC News Online: "It would appear there is really nothing we can do to avoid at least some extinctions. We are bound to be near to the study's minimum scenarios, even if we can avoid the higher ones."

Dr Klaus Toepfer, the head of the United Nations Environment Programme, said: "If one million species become extinct... it is not just the plant and animal kingdoms and the beauty of the planet that will suffer.

"Billions of people, especially in the developing world, will suffer too as they rely on Nature for such essential goods and services as food, shelter and medicines".

posted 01-11-2004 07:42 AM            

And so as not to be hypocritical, I have to add, though I BELIEVE that it is getting warmer here (and drier during the summer) at least regionally, and that much of the data posted here (and elsewhere) seems to indicate areas of the earth are warming, I cannot say with conviction that I KNOW global warming to be a fact, but perhaps in time with more data and/or personal observation I will become 100 percent convinced.

In the mean time though, I am making life choices as best as I can that try and respect the Earth, and if global warming is found to be increasing and in part helped along by man's activities, then my very PURCHASES are a KEY factor in determining if I am adding or detracting from the problem. The people need to understand their PERSONAL role in making change and not always sit around waiting for the government to act. At the heart of the man-made part of the problem is simply a choice between supporting industries and technologies that destroy the environment, or supporting industries and technologies that don't or to a lesser degree. A relevant question to ask might be, is driving one's 12 mile per gallon SUV, worth having one's self, family, children, breathing potentially health destroying chemical coated polymer fibers and suffering lung and other disease.

posted 01-11-2004 12:12 PM            

.....I think a real problem is that the general public is still confused as to if global warming is even real and if so to what extent.....

Yes. This is a major problem and will continue to be a major problem until the public understands that what is actually occuring is a destabilization of climate processes.

Greenhouse gases [CO2, nitrous oxide, the CFC's, sulfur hexafluoride, etc.] have a net warming effect on global atmosphere and can be expected to cause an increase in the ***average temperature*** of the global atmosphere at the current rate of combined emissions. Greenhouse gases have, in general, a global impact.

Aerosols on the other hand [both natural and human-created] have a net cooling effect on global atmosphere but - and this is very important - their impact tends to be regional because it is nearest the source-points of aerosol emissions that the largest impact takes place.

Also, aerosols [defined as "minute particles suspended in the atmosphere"] have, in general, a shorter atmospheric lifetime than do the greenhouse gases. So the effects of aerosols are more complicated to measure.

Bottom line - there are two situations which have to be quantified as best as possible - greenhouse gas warming of the global atmosphere on a global "average temperature" continuum - and aerosol cooling on a more regional basis.

The characterization "global warming" is not useful - or even accurate - for an understanding of the current situation. The characterization "global warming" leaves out the DESTABILIZING impact on climate systems of the combination of greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions. It is the destabilization of climate and weather systems that is causing the extremes in temperature, precipitation, wind behavior, etc. that are being increasingly experienced in many parts of the world.

So yes, "global warming" is a very confusing term. Those in the research community and the media who continue to use it are doing the public a great disservice.

Sorry - am in a rush here. I don't have the time I used to for posting. Anyway,

Show-Me Truth wrote:

.....The people need to understand their PERSONAL role in making change and not always sit around waiting for the government to act.....

Yes.

If you do some digging into the last 25 years' transcripts and summaries of the major Think Tank discussions on the matter of climate change and the excessive pollution that exacerbates it, you will find that, across the board, it is stated that public opinion on the matter and resulting behavioral change are going to be the only truly effective and permanent forces for genuine problem-solving.

To repeat:

posted 01-11-2004 12:21 PM            

After seeing those satellite photos from yesterday, with symmetric cluods hugging the coast from maine to Florida, and the water vapor analysis of said shots indicated no moisture, well, it's weird to say the least.

A lot of environmental scientists are not even convinced of ozone depletion. The very high increase in melanoma in the past 50 years has only one cause, increase of surface UV-B radiation, which the ozone layer protects us from. Aluminum dioxide anyone?

I believe political and religious considerations taint pure science. At one time, Limbaugh dittoheads and the big Limburger himslef said that global warming DOES NOT exist. Now a new tale has been spun, in that it's a natural occurence that global warming and ozone depletion occur. To them, it has nothing to do with pollution, and all to do with another cycle of the planet's life.

posted 01-11-2004 12:33 PM            

.....To them, it has nothing to do with pollution, and all to do with another cycle of the planet's life.

The story is changed to accomadate industry every step of the way.....

YES.

Of course currently-transpiring "natural variables" should be taken into consideration - it is just plain stupid not to include these particular factors in one's thinking regarding The Total Picture.

However, the attributes and impact(s) of major cyclical earth changes are probably best evaluated in retrospect.

posted 01-14-2004 03:49 PM            

Uhhhh...metallic what?

posted 01-14-2004 05:54 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mech:

QUOTE: "--Hundreds of thousands of tonnes of metallic 'scatterers' would be ejected into the upper atmosphere under the plans."...
-------------------------------------------
SmT-...(with hundreds of thousands of tons of metallic "scatterers returning soon to earth to poison the land, water, and all living things)

--------------------------------------------
Uhhhh...metallic what?
Don't they mean barium and aluminum?

---

I have also heard in addition to those two mentioned metals, that SOME of what is being seen may be something as simple as the plan to adjust planes to burn richer and produce carbon black particles for nuclei for cloud formation. Right after sunset after the intense redish/orange glow of the aerosols has ceased but there is just enough light left, one can see the trails and chemshapes turn from reflecting light to their true nature a very nasty sooty blackish color still in many many trails but also very well blended in many spots depending on how well saturated the area is and on temp, etc. So the chems can go from highly reflective white during full sun, to a redish/orange glow at sunset, to sooty blackish after sunset.

I am bit concerned also about the alleged use and reported findings of the so called "polymer fibers" the metals are said to be bound to, to help suspend the metals as long as possible in the atmosphere. While it is way to early for me to make any (scientific) connection yet, I do seem to be hearing alot more people having respiratory problems, and allergies, and also (seriously) coughing alot. The latest story told to me was by an electric contracter who told me he recently lost his father to a specifically undiagnosed "lung disease". The gentleman was a non-smoker, never alledgedly worked with any asbestos, etc, and worked outside driving a dozer and other type equipment. My first thought was that perhaps it was from the diesel or maybe just from natural dust from the outside, but I was told the doc said the persons lungs appeared to be cut up by some unidentifiable material. Maybe it's nothing but then again maybe something to keep an eye on.

SmT

posted 01-14-2004 06:25 PM            

Well...on turbine engines there is one thing called a specific gravity adjustment...which "dails in" what type of feul it can use....Jet A, JP-5, JP-8 etc.

Other than that "Trimming" the engine can be done from the cockpit on newer Jumbo aircraft.

But Ive never worked on aircraft that size exept when i was at school.

I have no clue how the "fibrils" appear.

I don't think they come from the engines.

Personally..I think this whole "global warming" thing is a hoax put out by the elites. If anything..North America is headed towards another ice age.

posted 01-14-2004 08:27 PM            

If one has the tankers spaying their metals, and other commercial jets putting out the carbon and (possibly jet fuel), and other planes as available adding to the aerosol mix, one could see how vast areas could be covered.

While as I indicated earlier it could well be a long time, or never,(or maybe only when it's too late to rescue civilization in it's curent form) before I will probably be able to PROVE 'global' warming is a life threatening problem. As far as it being 'real' though, statistically all one really needs to do is show that for a given area and time frame the trend is present. So in my mind if I can show that right here in Mid-Missouri if in the last 10 years, we have experienced the 9 hottest since say, hypothetically 100 years then locally there is a 'warming' no matter how significant this is or is not. This would seem easy enough to verify simply by accessing local weather records. When one takes into account reasonable variables and numerous samplings the scientific method can I believe 'logically' and statistically answer this question. I would think rather than reames and reames of data, one could perhaps make an unrefutable arguement based upon rock solid, unbiased peer reviewed data, contained in several spreadsheets.

I know someones gonna suggest why don't I try and do that if it's so easy and I would give it a try if climatology were a subject I was more familiar with. Alot of the studies I work with take reames and reames of data and compress it down to a few very significant sheets. In fact I would have to imagine there are probably some very concise data sheets floating around out there that PROVE without a shadow of a doubt in easy to read form that a warming trend measured at hundreds of sites and over a reasonably significant period exist. Maybe I'll see what I can find. Maybe I can even PROVE it to myself.