Would You Switch On A Global Cooling Machine?

Many people in these forums believe that global warming is occurring as a result of the activities of humankind. In light of this view, let us suppose that scientists created a global cooling machine. Possibly a large flat sheet of material that would be in permanent orbit blocking out 0.1% of the sun's rays from ever hitting the earth, or maybe it's a way to create artificial clouds that will reflect some sunlight back out into space; the actual science is not important for this question. Anyhow, it's finally built and you were just elected President of the World.

Would you turn it on?

I would hesitate to do so, myself, being uncertain that global warming is occurring because of our impact, and I would worry about possible unintended consequences due to the unpredictability and complexity of the system. I think we'd probably be better off leaving things as they were.

What would you do?

Peace.

Although I would certainly not hesitate to turn on the
"Reduce Human Impact On The Environment" machine.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Depends upon how the global cooling machine works and the tests that back it up. I see two ways of doing global cooling:

1. reduce causes of global warming and allow nature to work.
2. ignore global warming and cool the planet manually.
   [/list=1]
   
   The first case would appear to work more naturally and, thus, be less likely to have detrimental side-effects. The second case, on the other hand, could cause the earth to go into shock if done incorrectly and, thus, have potentially severe side-effects.
   
   Basically, I don't think there is a quick-fix to global warming and, the longer we wait, the more difficult the solution will be. Eventually, the earth will solve the problem itself. The issue is whether we (the human race) will like the solution.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would be hesitant to turn it on. I don't think we have enough data to start some process that later we really have a problem with.

For instance, if we start this global cooling device and then find that it is over compensating, what do we do? Turn it off? Then we are faced with weather changes unlike anything we have seen. As the global temperature races upward to reach its natural equilibrium, suddenly you have much more intense storms. It is likely to have affected growing patterns, hugely dependant on weather and on and on.

Does human kind contribute to the materials that make global warming possible? Surely. Are we at a crux where everything is starting to snowball? Folks the jury is still out on that one. We, as a species make very little in compared to what a volcano is capable of during an eruption. Methane production? Once again very little compared to the world population of termites and the herd of cows existing already. Not to mention the amount of biomass that is decaying worldwide.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Point One: nature is doing just that. Earth has its own <b>thermostat: <font color=red>clouds.</font></b> As warming increases, evaporation from oceans and forests also increases, with a huge input of water vapor into the atmosphere. Clouds are formed, blocking the sun rays. Net effect: cooling.

Point Two: man-made cooling --if possible at all-- <b>would prove worse than the problem</B>. As I have repeatedly posted in Sciforums, temperatures during the Climatic Optimum (850-1250 AD) were <b>TWO</B> degree centigrades higher than today. And climatologists called those temperatures the OPTIMUM possible for life on Earth.

On the other hand, when temperatures were <b>2°C lower</b> than today, (the Little Ice Age, 1300-1716 AD) conditions on Earth were terrible, and human suffering was unbearable. So why. in the name of God, should we cool the planet and go back to terrible ages?

Politicians wouldn't do it in the name of God, of course, but in the name of "globalization", corporations, and geopolitics. Money talks...

 

Kmguru

As your graph is expressed in deviations from the mean temperatures between 1961-90, your data during the years 850-1250 should be on the <b>+2°C above the mean 1961-90 years</B>. Remember that during those years the Vikings were colonizing Greenland, that was mostly deprived from an ice cover, due to the 2°C higher than today temperatures.

And the deviations from the 1961-90 mean during the <b>Little Ice Age</b> should be about <b>1,5°C - 2°C lower</b>. Then your graph would look less dramatic regarding "warming", because it would yield a more "flat" curve for the next 100 years. My impression is that, if we lived enough, we would see an increasing cooling trend.

By the way, we have experiencing here in the Southern Hemisphere the coldest weather we have seen in many years. This morning temperature in Ushuaia was <b>minus 20°C</B> and snowfall in the Andes are providng for one of the best ski seasons ever... My wife couldn't stand the cold, so she went to Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia (latitude 15° South, full Tropical area) where there is now about 23°C. Good for her!

 

Huh?

Didn't you say that water in the atmosphere is a "greenhouse gas"? So, while clouds might block sun rays, wouldn't they also block reflected heat from the earth? Also, wouldn't the water itself absorb and hold the heat to some degree?

Net effect: questionable? :bugeye:

 

You got it all wrong.

Global Warming causes the earth to freeze. Haven't you heard?What it does is block the deep currents which cool & heat the oceans. Leaving the planet in a ice age.

 

Compared to prehistoric times, the Earth is pretty damn cold. Over the last couple of million of years, the Earth has cooled dramatically. Why cool it down, when its already freezing???

 

Global Warming bad for us...

I think the big question is not whether there is a true global warming (or global cooling) going on, but rather how radically things will change in the next century due to weather related issues and whether we will be able to handle those changes.

 

from a greenland ice cover probe scientists have found out that the last ice age came into being in a period of just a 10 years time! It's very rapid
(source- discovery channel)

besides we have constant cycles of shorter warmyh periods and longer ice ages for the last 20m years or so.

my theory is that it is because of the continental drift which changed the global water current (world ocean main stream).

 

You must be kidding, of course... don't you? The almost infinite thermal inertia of the oceans would make the effects on deep currents show in more than 500.000 years. Global Warming freezing Earth? Wow! Then Ice Ages must have warmed the Earth...

That would explain then the abnormally cold tmperatures we have now in Sout America. In Bolivia (a tropical country) the cold weather has provoked a "national tragedy", with tens of people frozen to death and tens disappeared buried under tons of snow.

 

<B>Yes</B> to all your questions. But when go deeper into figures involved in wheather and climate modelling, you find many surprises. The <I>quid</I> of the question lies in the different wavelenght of the infrared radiation involved in the matter.

Incoming infrared radiation is shorter than the reflected one. Clouds have different degrees of heat retention and reflection for different wavelenghts, so the problem here is: how the computerized climate models interpret the fact. Do clouds absorb more heat from the surface than the one they block from the sun? Or viceversa?

As scientists have not yet reached to an agreement on this matter, the variable included in the models related to clouds, could be <b>either negative or positive</b>. If negative (clouds cools the earth) the models will give a net cooling effect in the world. If positive, the models will predict "warming". Warming is chosen because it fits a political agenda. It means good money.

And this one of the absolute nonsenses showed by the models. They have not yet determined the right variables --not to speak about the constants (there are about 5 millions of them in any "decent" climate model-- so how can we trust the results of math programs that are totally unreliable? Worse yet: how can we sign treaties and protocols that will sink the world into a economical crisis that would make the Black Plague look as a baby toy? An do it based on fairy tales? <b>This is insane!!!</b>

 

he is very right...There was a program on Discovery about this. it is true...
and Ice Ages have....it's all in the water currents and the level of world's ocean.

 

Avatar, I thought you should know better. You seem to put too much confidence on Discovery channel. Physics are physics, and there is nothing a TV channel can do about it. I have stopped watching Discovery when I found it was being increasingly filled with misinformation. Too bad because it used to be an excellent channel. I stick now to "The History Channel".

 

Discovery Channel

Yes Avatar you are right. According to disc. ch. The tests on ice samples were begun in 1955 to chart the spread of nuke material.
But so much more was learned. So how can dummies in our gov't claim there is no global warming since it is proven by scientific testing for 45 years! They are even dumber than they think we think they are.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Discovery Channel, Jesus!

And don't forget to tell your friends you saw it in Discovery Channel! The Electronic Gosspel of the Millenium. Geeez!

A week ago I saw a bunch of people running down the street yelling <b>"The sky is falling!, the sky is falling!"</B>. I got really worried and stopped a guy and asked:

<b>Me:</b> "How do you know?"
<b>Scared guy:</b> "Someone just told me"
<B>Me: </B> "How does he know the sky is falling?"
<B>Scared guy: </B> "The grocerer told him".
<B>Me: </B> "And how does the grocerer know the sky is falling?"
<B>Scared guy: </B> "A cousin of his brother in law told him."

It wasn't getting me nowhere nearer the truth, so I went for it:

<B>Me: </B> "And you believe him?"
<B>Scared guy:</B> "Sure. He is one of the cashiers at our bank".

He could as well have told me: <b>"I saw it in Discovery Channel".</B>

<B>Me:</B> "What's is name?"
<B>Scared guy; </B> "Mr. Hammelin."
<B>Me: </B>"Good. Tell him that the cliff is over there. Make sure he keeps blowing the flute for all of you. suckers".

So I went back home and kept working as usual. There is a lot of work to be done trying to appease Chicken Littles. An endless task.

You dismissed very easily the thermal inertia of oceans. Good. Granted. Now tell me, please, how do you explain the paleoclimatic fact that Ice Ages <b>have been much milder in the Southern Hemisphere than in the Northern one</B>? Does Discovery Channel have another Chicken Little explanation for the <b>unversally accepted thermal inertia effect</b>? I hope you know what I am talking about.

Before signing out, I must remind you that the "warming" experienced by earth has been limited to the last 150 years (at most) and has been of a mere 1,5°C since 1850. Do you seriously think that the triffle warming ocurred in the last 45 years -the blink of an eye- can have the slightest effect on <B>deep sea currents</b>, thousands of meters deep, with trillions of cubic meters of COLD water that must be warmed? If there is a change in current patterns at all (why not?) put the blame on other suspects, as tectonic plates movements, under sea volcanic activity, Mickey Mouse, etc.

Perhaps the dummies we have in governments all over the world (I agree on that), in their free time (most of the time) are watching porno channels instead of Discovery. At least, they are not as dumb as they look to you: <b>they are at Office</b>, you are sweating for your meals... If you really want to defeat your enemy, never, <B>NEVER UNDERESTIMATE HIM.</B>

 

Re: Discovery Channel, Jesus!

(Side question: how do you create the "degree" mark above?)

I'm not going to pretend to be a climatologist and attempt to answer your points -- let me just ask some questions:

1. For each degree C rise in temperature, how much of the (ant-)artic ice sheets melt?
2. As temperatures rise, would the speed of the melting of the ice sheets increase linearly or exponentially?
3. How much influx of water would be needed to cause a significant rise in ocean levels? (I'm leaving you to define "significant".)
4. Is there data on whether the oceans have been rising or falling over the past century and, if so, by how much?
5. Would artic ice melt be salty or fresh water?
6. Between fresh water and salt water, which is heavier?
7. What effect would a large influx of fresh water have on ocean currents -- particularly if it was coming from the artic regions?
8. Would there be effects that begin with a (relatively) small influx of fresh water and then become progressively greater as the influx increases?
9. Does fresh water have different heat absorbtion properties than salt water and, if so, how significantly?
10. How significantly and quickly would a change in ocean currents effect weather patterns worldwide?
11. Would the cycle of evaporation and rain be changed significantly (perhaps changing where rain occurs)?
12. Can you point to studies that addressed these questions?
    [/list=1]
    
    This ought to be interesting...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Holy Sardine!!

Is that you BatMan?

I would trust Discovery Channel on this subject since they had the actual person who conducted the Ice core experiments. I would not trust our USARMY Gov't permanent fakewar propaganda handouts.