According to some scientists, pollution can help curb global warming, if there is global warming.
NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — Air pollution may be just the thing to fight global warming, some scientists say.
Prominent scientists, among them a Nobel laureate, said a layer of pollution deliberately spewed into the atmosphere could act as a “shade” from the sun’s rays and help cool the planet.
Reaction to the proposal here at the annual U.N. conference on climate change is a mix of caution, curiosity and some resignation to such “massive and drastic” operations, as the chief U.N. climatologist describes them.
The Nobel Prize-winning scientist who first made the proposal is himself “not enthusiastic about it.”
“It was meant to startle the policymakers,” said Paul J. Crutzen, of Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Chemistry. “If they don’t take action much more strongly than they have in the past, then in the end we have to do experiments like this.”
Serious people are taking Crutzen’s idea seriously. This weekend at Moffett Field, California, NASA’s Ames Research Center hosts a closed-door, high-level workshop on the global haze proposal and other “geoengineering” ideas for fending off climate change.
So what are the environmentalists to do now? Do they save the earth from global warming by encouraging pollution or do they save the earth from pollution and cause more global warming? My, how the worries of an environmentalist never end.
I guess what we need to do is start seeding volcanoes. Maybe someone could find Xenu to help us.
We have to destroy the environment to save it.
Kim, please see Lorie post below yours, and than make a few more jokes.
“So Now What Do the Environmentalists Do?”
For starters, hold congressional hearings this next year and let the Republicans make asses of themselves in front of the American public. This will help insure the election of a Democrat to the White House in ’08 so we can address this issue in a serious manner.
What are the conservatives planning to do? Head off to Hawaii with their lobbyist pals?
Kim, please see Lorie post below yours, and than make a few more jokes.
So we had no tornadoes or thunderstorms 100 years ago….
We’re all waiting patiently for your scientific proof that directly links this particular storm with Global Warming.
Ah, I remember the good old days, before severe weather.
Damnit Vagabond,
You beat me to it.
Oh, and more on topic…Kim, I think all this proves is there is not 100% consensus of just what is happening with our environment. There certainly are trends being looked at and research being conducted, but not all of it matches up yet.
I personally believe we are contributing to the warming of the Earth, but I refuse to jump on the “Global Warming is a greater threat than terrorism” bandwagon.
That said, this idea is ridiculous. Sure, we’ll have stopped the warming trend, and we’ll all jump up and down with glee…and then die of asphyxiation from all the toxins in the air.
If any of you every get the chance, I’d strongly recommend reading Micheal Chriton’s State of Fear.
Not only is it right on the mark, but it shows the utter ignorance and stupidity of what Lee and BarneyG posted above.
This will drive the moonbats more nutty then they already are.
Theyre already coming apart at the seams, and they havent even taken control yet.
There is NO long term empirical data that PROVES that whats going on today is anything other than normal climatic changes.
PLUS if libs really believe in all of this BS, why dont they prove they care, and all start walking more, and lay off the trolling in places like this by turning off the lights and computer.
Oops, tried to underline that but it didn’t work. Also misspelled his name
I’ll try again:
Micheal Crichton’s State of Fear
After reading this book you’ll also comprehend the complete 100% hypocracy of Algore saying: “He lied to us. He played on our fears…”
This sort of thing is not a dilemma to us liberals and the environmentalist progressive thinkers. Good policy can reduce the risk of both climate change and air pollution while causing the next technologically driven economic boom.
The differences is that conservatives are sniveling little whiney ass couch sitters who have no gumption for change, no ability to plan for the future and have for got what the CAN DO attitude of the real American is all about.
You guys just sit back on the couch and watch the games….we’ll settle the problem for ya. That’s why they call us liberals and progressives.
Michael Crichton’s State of Fear “The best peer-reviewed science since Jurassic Park”
–William Schlesinger, Dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University
Thanx, muirgeo. Someone pass me the popcorn, will ya?
Wow. I didn’t realize all that managing-the-global-climate stuff was such hard work. Makes me wonder how the Earth ever got by prior to 1970.
I’m not really sure if this single report citing the research of “some scientists” quite debunks the decades of research conducted by “lots of scientists” suggesting the opposite.
I don’t understand how they think this will work. The pollution will only rise so high until it is blown randomly by whatever winds predominate in any particular locality. The global warming is caused by a thinning of the ozone layer which is not effected by winds due to its altitude. I’m just guessing, however.
But “if human beings take it upon themselves to carry out something as massive and drastic as this, we need to be absolutely sure there are no side effects,” Pachauri said.
All conservatives are asking is that before you ruin the world’s economy trying to fix global warming is that you consider the side effects and the accuracy of the science. Now when it comes to using pollution as a potential tool to ure global warming, caution is urged. If it is the Kyoto treaty, well lets not worry if it would really help or what the economic impact is, implement it now and if you don’t agree you are a mean, evil, bad person.
“There is NO long term empirical data that PROVES that whats going on today..” by G
Yea, the earth is only 6,500 years old, and global warming will only harm Arabs and Jews. Jesus told me.
So what are the environmentalists to do now?
Same thing they’ve always done. Encourage scientists to propose theories, then peer-review the hell out of them, further research the ones that have scientific merit, and then follow the resulting near-unanimous recommendations of the broad scientific community.
Fine-tuning the current theories is something to be encouraged, not feared.
My, how the worries of an environmentalist never end.
The only worries an environmentalist has are that there are still ignorant people out there who say things like, “if there is global warming”.
I read something on the web a few months back (sorry can’t remember where) that theorized that “Global Warming” due to “greenhouse gasses” from mankind’s activities was somewhat offset by the release of particulates and sulfur compounds along with CO2. The article claimed that the warming affect would have been about 1.5 to 2 times greater if particulates and sulfur compounds were not present.
As you probably know, there have been tremendous advances in reducing sulfur content (to fix the “acid rain” problem) of fossil fuels and in scrubbing particulates from fired fossil fuel plants (to fix the “smog” problem).
I do not discount the possibility of greenhouse gasses contributing to global warming, but we have to be careful of the unintended consequences of any radical fixes we may pursue.
Reminds me of the new WHO “insight” regarding DDT — while improper use of DDT likely has detrimental affects on some wildlife (e.g. thinner bird egg shells), appropriate use greatly reduces the mosquito population, thus reducing malaria in the human population.
Two words and a decade for anyone who thinks the climate is suddenly changing for the worse:
Dust Bowl, 1930’s.
2klbofun,
Your learned assessment of the causes of GW and consequences of certain fixes are valued.
Unfortunately, not for most of the stubborn morons on this site who, in the face of a mountain of evidence, will still champion ignorance since all their stupid neocon brethren are doing the same.
These idiots don’t want to hear about solutions. They don’t even want to admit there’s a problem. They’d rather argue – wrongly – that the sky is not blue and their rose colored glasses are not really glasses at all.
Oh, and they’ll simply just curse you for mentioning anything they don’t want to hear. That’s what throwbacks do.
I guess if you have time to sit around and worry what the environment will be like several hundred years from now, then you have way to much time on your hands.
Either that or you are a “scientist” justifying the next round of government grant money to live off of.
There are plenty of things in this world that could kill off a significant portion of mankind much faster than global warming.
Matt,
How does someone achieve your level of ignorance and cynicism?
And I guess you also don’t have kids since you don’t give two shites about their future.
Go back and stick your head in the sand.
Hey- What happened to hurricane season this year? Weren’t we supposed be overwhelmed with Cat 5’s?
You see hansel2- it’s not that about whether or not the sky is blue, but whether or not it’s falling.
If you think it’s falling, then by all means- panic. But you’ll long be dead (for hundreds of years possibly) by the time any man made changes we would even consider making in the next 100 years would make a significant change in global temperature trends if at all.
I drive a diesel, so I’m doing my part.
C’mon, y’all, let’s spew exhaust for the environment!
I believe that the scientist are about evenly split on Global warming, half say yes, half say no. Some non scientists like the idiot Algore have went crazy, like a fox, he’s used the unknown to suck millions right out of your pockets. Since it’s a thousand years away why not let the scientist settle it with more studies and more billions of your dollars in grants.
I believe anyone one on here about as much as I believe that I’ll hit a gusher of an oil well the next time I dig a post hole. So far no oil wells in the area. Natural gas, lots of coal, no oil.
Hey, Lee, Mungo, Crickmore, the scientist on our side is a Nobel Laureate, so he’s better than your cheap, ersatz, bought with left-wing funds, Ph.D.’s.
It’s kinda like Cindy Sheehan; you can’t question his authority. Nope. Can’t.
Hansel2
Hmmm, the ignorance comes from hanging out with environmentalists and global warming freaks most of my adult life.
The cynicism comes from ad-hominem attacks in blog comments from people that can’t prepare a decent rebuttal to commentary they don’t agree with.
Consider some of the alternative discussion about global weather patterns such as can be found at http://www.anxietycenter.com/
Kids? Yup, got plenty of kids, none of which will be around several hundred years from now.
I am also confident that my kids and their kids, and their kids etc will have enough time to deal with global climate change in a rational manner without destroying earth or mankind in the process.
I’m not terribly old, but recall vividly the “Ecologists” of the 70s being terrified of the impending global cooling that would have us all huddled along the equator by the next millenium.
Have a great day.
Scientists are worried about “massive and drastic” operations such as pumping soot into the upper atmosphere but have no problem with destroying the world’s economy just in case there is global warming. But their plan won’t work because when starving mobs begin to burn the world’s cities more carbon will be released into the atmosphere. Not to mention the occaisional nuclear exchange over a can of beans.
Why weren’t any of these alleged scientists who claim to be able to predict the weather 100 years from now in North Carolina yesterday telling people to get the hell out?
Global warming is probably a good thing. Plants will grow better, it will increase crop yeilds. Al Gore is a moron, this is not apocalyptic. back in the 70s they were flipping out about ‘global cooling’. One good volcano puts out more CO2 and other green house gasses than people have ever.
Mitchell. Dr.Crutzen is not a sceptic of anthropogenic global warming. He says that “Climatic engineering,… is the only option available to rapidly reduce temperature rises” if international efforts fail to curb greenhouse gases.. so far there is little reason to be optimistic.” By, the way 110 Nobel Laureats endorsed the 1997 Kyoto Treaty, (even with all its flaws).
Matt said: “I’m not terribly old, but recall vividly the “Ecologists” of the 70s being terrified of the impending global cooling that would have us all huddled along the equator by the next millenium.”
I’m not terribly old, but recall vividly the “Ecologists” of the 70s being terrified of the impending global cooling that would have us all huddled along the equator by the next millenium.
Have a great day.
Posted by: Matt
This is called a planted memory. It happens to suggestable people who listen to “planters” like Rush repeat a mesage over and over and over again until the reciepient actually believes they lived the ordeal. If we dug around deeper in that head of yours I’m sure we’d find many other planted memories thanks to Rush and the likes.
Man, it never fails. Whenever there’s a climate change story in the news, you can always count on someone at Wizbang to make a sarcastic post about environmentalists, while totally missing the point of the article, and failing to grasp even the basic science behind the story.
…and then without fail, commenters make the same ridiculous, repeatedly debunked comments, usually about the “ice age predicted in the 70’s”, or past temperature fluctuations. And there’s always one (today it’s bullwinkle) who can’t seem to grasp the difference between “weather” and “climate”, which most of us learned back in elementary school.
Good times.
CO2 Science is a good resource for those who want a scientific analysis of the science of climate change.
Dr. Sherwood Idso, stated the CO2 vs. climate debate at a time when most other scientists were still worried Earth was headed for another Ice Age.
There’s a new editorial every week and I have been reading this site for several years. What’s apparent is that Earth is warming. However, study after study shows that Earth has gone through many millennium scale periods of global warming and cooling. Recent science has proposed the mechanism by which small changes in the Sun’s output causes large climate changes. In an editorial where Dr Idso examines a paper, by Scafetta and West, there’s evidence that the Sun is responsible for at least 50% of the warming since 1900. That leaves the other 50% for CO2. That convinces me we should go nuclear, wind, solar and biomes as fast as we can. Even if this proves to be unnecessary, it’s worth doing if it gets us out of the middle east.
The only thing I can ask of environmental scientists is to put the evidence of so-called contemporary climate change in the perspective of what the history (and the causes) of climate change have been on earth well before the influence of mankind.
http://www.livescience.com/history/060720_sahara_rains.html
http://www.greendiary.com/entry/north-pole-once-had-a-tropical-climate/
Sorry muirgeo I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh, he’s an idiot.
My “planted” memories come from indoctrination (whoops, lessons) from the 3rd and 4th grade.
Citizens can judge for themselves what constitutes a prudent response-which, indeed, is what occurred 30 years ago. All in all, it’s probably just as well that society elected not to follow one of the possible solutions mentioned in the NEWSWEEK article: to pour soot over the Arctic ice cap, to help it melt
Lee, thanks for the tidbit from newsweek/msnbc, the bottom sentences hits the nail on the head. Individuals need to decide for themselves.
I’ve got to go rake leaves now.
Toodles
More CO2 Science links:
Did Increasing Solar Activity Drive 20th-Century Global Warming?
A 1500-Year Climate History of Northern Eurasia
3500 Years of West-Central European Climate History
Something that has never been explained to me is this: If our activities can so radically change the climate, then why hasn’t someone come up with a way to stop even a localized thunderstorm? After all, we have the technology to send people into space, yet we can’t make it rain or not rain on purpose. Imagine the fame, money and power someone (or company) could acquire? Couldn’t Bill Gates and Warren Buffett put some money behind something like that? They are big libs, after all.
Global warming myths again? Not one, not a single one of the so called climate models can take data from 100 years ago and come even close to predicting what our weather is like today. The most oftern used one generally predicts Denver will be a desert by 1995.
Hell, they can’t even accurately predict what the weather will be in two weeks much less 200 years.
Here is my prediction…a scientist’s opinion on global warming is directly proportional to the amount of funding he receives to express that opinion.
Funny how the study that shows the primary case study using tree ring data that resulted in the famous hockey stick never seems to be discussed in the media. Especially since it exposes the whole “global warming is caused by man” crock science to be the bunk it is.
There isn’t even agreement on exactly what gases and variables affect global warming. There is more scientific proof behind feng shui and leprechauns than there is real science behind the causes and human impact on global warming.
But the lemmings keep following along willing to give up their brains to the government to save them from a problem that doesn’t exist.
Liberal support for all the anti-global warming has more to do with their socialist agenda of wanting to tell people how to live and nothing to do with the tempature of the Earth. Wake up people.
My “planted” memories come from indoctrination (whoops, lessons) from the 3rd and 4th grade.
Doubtful.
Why would we want to go through all the expense and effort to address something where the data is non-conclusive,wrong, questionable, or cherry picked . I guess since we already went to war over the same type of data, we don’t want to make the same mistake twice.
Boy, I don’t even get into this argument anymore. There’s no arguing with a true believer. These are the people whose mottos are always “Be skeptical” / “Question authority”.
If our activities can so radically change the climate, then why hasn’t someone come up with a way to stop even a localized thunderstorm?
…
Hell, they can’t even accurately predict what the weather will be in two weeks much less 200 years.
You people have no sense of the issue.
Why, we should ignore any possible cures for cancer until we can cure the common cold first!
By, the way 110 Nobel Laureats endorsed the 1997 Kyoto Treaty, (even with all its flaws).
Without commenting on the validity of the statement, the Kyoto Treaty wasn’t about reducing green house emissions. It was about having the U.S. and a few other nations send money to third world countries while exempting some of the biggest polluters (China and India). The Kyoto Treaty is to global warming what Jesse Jackson is to race relations.
“Lee, thanks for the tidbit from newsweek/msnbc, the bottom sentences hits the nail on the head. Individuals need to decide for themselves.”
“I’ve got to go rake leaves now.”
Spoken like a true Republican, Matt. Ignore the reasoning, facts and data, and pick out an handy anecdote to hang your hat on… then toddle off, oblivious to the future. Perfect example of why the republcians no longer are in power.
There’s a future in the GOP for you, Matt.
The Faith said: “Global warming myths again? Not one, not a single one of the so called climate models can take data from 100 years ago and come even close to predicting what our weather is like today. The most oftern used one generally predicts Denver will be a desert by 1995.”
Correct. Predicting the weather is difficult. Predicting climate trends is much easier, for reasons stated in the Newsweek/MSNBC quote above. Let me guess – you don’t even know the difference between weather and climate, but are prepared to tell those of us who do how wrong we are?
Faith: “Liberal support for all the anti-global warming has more to do with their socialist agenda of wanting to tell people how to live and nothing to do with the tempature of the Earth. Wake up people.”
Oh, I see your just a political shill for the GOP. That explains it. Thanks for your thoughtful input, Faith. At least, I think there may have been some thought in there somewhere… I’ll check later.
I used to be an environmentalist. But not after I was threatened with a $25,000 per DAY fine. I NO LONGER DO ANYTHING FOR THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS AND NEVER WILL.