XPost: soc.men, talk.environment, sci.environment
From: rally2xs@att.net
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:19:11 GMT, "amused onlooker" wrote:
>"Dave Head" wrote
>
>> On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:54:15 GMT, "amused onlooker" wrote:
>>
>>>"Dave Head" wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> because we don't have the capability to
>>>> do anything radical enough to prevent it anyway
>>>
>>>Actually we do.
>>
>> Actually, we don't. There's no way in hell to get the CO2 down to a
>> sufficiently low level to keep what's about to happen from happening
>> without screwing up millions of lives, which includes a lot of deaths
>> from lack of the resources that would otherwise be produced by the
>> activities that now produce the CO2 but would have to be eliminated -
>> power generation, transportation, etc.
>
>The "short term" solution I was thinking of was a solar screen to
>control/cool the earths temperature. Not ideal I realise but it would buy us
>some time to develop alternative energy sources and maybe find a way of
>cleansing the atmosphere.
Agree completely. That is the only approach that I think could work for the
next 100 - 200 years, and not totally screw up the economy - just tax it a lot.
>>>But it would require lots of investment and experimentation in large
>>>scale,
>>>zero-gravity manufacturing in outer space.
>>
>> If we had the capability, we wouldn't have to be doing experimentation.
>> Having to experiment implies not knowing how to do what you're wanting
>> to do.
>
>If a large space station was built for the purpose of zero gravity
>manufacturing then I'm sure it wouldn't take long to figure out how to build
>huge structures. And we do have the ability to build something like that.
I think we already have a large space station that would work for this purpose,
complete with raw materials to make things out of, and it's called the moon.
There has to be some sort of metals in the makeup of the moon that can be mined
and turned into sheets that could be transported to the L1 point between the
sun and the earth. It should be able to be balanced there, slightly on the
sun-side of L1 actually, so that it is naturally falling toward the sun, but
supported by the solar wind. "Sailing" the solar wind would be a thing to do
with computerization.
The beauty of this is that we could cool the earth no matter what. We would
even have to be careful not to create another ice age.
>>>But it's not going to happen because those who hold the real power want
>>>the
>>>coming catastrophe to proceed.
>>
>> No they don't - they just don't want the greater catastrophe to happen,
>> which would be world economic collapse,
>
>But the eco-catastrophe as I understand it will include economic collapse.
>It's not just going to be lots of hot weather but floods, droughts,
>earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes etc on a grand scale.
I don't believe these people have a clue about what would happen to the
weather, and are just using the above as more scare-mongering. Iraq's weather
is way hotter than ours, and they just have sand-storms - no hurricanes, etc.
There's no way in hell that climate change is going to cause earthquakes. If
the hurricanes are more numerous, we'll just learn how to build buildings
stronger so that they aren't blown to bits - concrete, etc.
>Transporting oil in tankers will become very hazardous and that itself will
>destroy the economy.
There are already hurricanes and the tankers do OK - I doubt that they will be
very much more than what is already occuring - maybe a higher frequency.
Dave Head
>> while still not achieving
>> anywhere close to what is necessary to solve the GW problem.
>>
>> DPH
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
