result #111676 - DO YOU THINK THAT BLOCKING SUNLIGHT WILL REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING?

user ballots

Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes

Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz

TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase

Discussion
Bug Report

would you : DO YOU THINK THAT BLOCKING SUNLIGHT WILL REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING?

[+] serious ballot by Mithrandir
created Sun Jan 28, 07

(Source: the Guardian, Jan 27, 2007)
A major UN report on climate change is being released in phases starting with phase I this upcoming week. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has released draft versions of the reports last year to world governments and asked for comment.

The American contribution has been to state the report was too Kyoto-centric, disagree that rising temperatures have made hurricanes more powerful, and to emphasize research into techniques such as giant mirrors in space or reflective dust pumped into the atmosphere would be "important insurance" against rising emissions.

Scientists have previously estimated that reflecting less than 1% 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 sulphate 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".

What do you think about the blocking sunlight option?

Perhaps reducing emissions NOW might be a better way?	68%
Addressing symptoms vs causes invokes Law of Unintended Consequences	13%
If we had the time and money, we could look into it	10%
Excellent, the oil industry could have its cake and eat it too!	6%

Ballot #111676: has 29 total votes.
invite people to vote on this ballot!

Comment:

content @ BESTANDWORST.COM

smile bank:

similiar ballots:
93726. Global Warming: What do you think of switching to nuclear energy to reduce carbon emissions?
111269. How will global warming deniers react if Bush flip-flops on global warming?
82061. Global Warming..
76709. How big of a problem is global warming?
98998. Has there been too much alarmism over Global Warming?
100120. Is global warming real???
100816. What do you think about people who tell you "We Cause Global Warming!!"?
112013. Global Warming caused by the Sun?
112019. Does anybody else here think that global warming is AWESOME?
112065. What are the REAL causes of global warming?

if you don't see an image, click here.

email this ballot link to friends

COMMENTS:
I'm aware of such proposals. They are not new ones. They have been talked about in the science community for years. I would agree with the 'IPCC draft said such ideas were "SPECULATIVE, uncosted and with potential unknown side-effects"'. Obviously, any artificial solution would need to be tested well in advance and not on the fly.

Anyways, if more countries develop and use "nukular" weapons (like Iran), we will have a nuclear winter condition to do the cooling for us.

by FiddleFaddleOnLSD on Sun Jan 28, 07 10:10am [+]

by Black_Lava on Sun Jan 28, 07 10:13am [+]

Voted : Perhaps reducing emissions NOW might be a better way?
The smartest ideas re ususally the simplest and most obvious...

by Truthseeker013 on Sun Jan 28, 07 1:37pm [+]

I heard of this what'cha call it: geoengineering/scifi stuff? I think it's solar radiation, not sunlight that's the problem.

by aya on Sun Jan 28, 07 2:02pm [+]

The so-called scientists that rave about Global Warming aren't able to say what the effect of clouds are on warming. So why look to them for any solutions.

by Noblese_Oblige on Sun Jan 28, 07 2:26pm [+]

Voted : Perhaps reducing emissions NOW might be a better way?
Speculative ideas *might* work. Anything is possible. But artificial dust and mirrors in space don't sound like a safe bet.

by skylab on Sun Jan 28, 07 5:03pm [+]

Voted : If we had the time and money, we could look into it
Even if the science behind Kyoto were science, even its proponents admit it won't have a noticeable effect.

by thc2883 on Mon Jan 29, 07 3:27am [+]

Humans amaze me for their capacity for self- indulgence and short- sightedness.

Even otherwise intelligent 'scientists' ar enot immune from foolishness, it seems.

Think for a moment ... does sunlight have any other effects besides warming the Earth? What might be the effects of limiting those other attributes?

Decreased photosynthesis comes to mind, immediately. terrestrial plants. Algae and phytoplankton. Effects on the food chain and on atmospheric composition (less O2 put into air; less CO2 taken out).

I swear ... sometimes I think our species is literally 'too stupid to live.'

by Guest User from [135.92.84.150] on Mon Jan 29, 07 6:23am [+]

Wasn't this the subject of a nursery rhyme ...?

"I know an old lady who swallowed a fly ..."

by Guest User from [135.92.84.150] on Mon Jan 29, 07 10:12am [+]

About Us | Join Us | Privacy Policy | Contact