[Strider]

This was basically a 4 page article about different ways that the green house effect could be battled, as well as a pretty wierd and crazy plan which i believe those guys came up with while getting high off marijuana... at any rate i found it a pretty interesting read.

so... in numerical order, pages 1-4
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,20967,1075786-1,00.html
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,20967,1075786-2,00.html
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,20967,1075786-3,00.html
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,20967,1075786-4,00.html

i personally like plans one and three, theyre pretty possible to do
...now that i think about it i think ill make this a poll

 

[Player-X]

I would have to say first find an alternative clean power source like nuclear fusion or solar power before you do any of them so you make less CO2 than you take care of, they can filter the CO2 and store it underground and turn it to stone for the construction of things like sidewalks and walls, They shoudn't build a large mirror in space to reflect sunlight, if they want to lessen the heat absorbed from sunlight they shoud build a large solar array in space and the clouds shoudn't be altered as it could lead to wierd weather and dumping fertilisers into the ocean is a bad idea as it will really screw up the ecosystem

 

[Strider]

wow, people really dont care about global warming these days huh

 

[n_w95482]

Plan 5 looks like the best idea to me, followed by 1.

 

[RZetlin]

1) Educate people on the consequences of green house effects. It's not a good sign when the President of USA says he doesn't believe that global warming is not caused by humans.

2) Switch to an alternative source of energy like hydrogen based power.

 

[Strider]

yes, but people around the world, especially in america, wouldnt want to switch fuels because theyre lazy or theyre idiots, its other people who have to fix this for them because they'll continue contributing to the problem

 

[F-3582]

I voted for 2, because:

1) would be no solution for our problems. Just like nuclear waste being stored underground. They could of course compress it and shoot it to the moon, but...

3) Yeah, plancton (the phytoplancton, to be exact) would do a great job filtering CO2, but think about the consequences for the marine ecological balance. If you don't know what I mean, look at bays with lots of tourism (like the Italian Riviera) where lots of sewage containing phosphate are of course making that sort of plancton grow like nuts. But as the amount of plancton rises, the amount of dying plancton rises as well making the decomposition bacteria population grow like nuts, too. Soon the O2 amount in the water will drop significantly (the amount of toxic substances will rise) making everything die.

4) Interesting thought... If there is a cheap method to do this efficiantly, I'll gladly support this. At least nowadays it seems not to be very practical. Think about the consequences when such a rock suddenly decides to collapse and release the enclosed CO2... This might be just another fly-to-the-moon candidate :lol:

5) Won't help. You know, the point is that the infrared parts of the sunlight will come back anyway, no matter where they are deflected. This idea is actually pretty stupid, because it will only reduce the amount of sunlight coming down to us directly. It won't do anything against the overall rising atmospheric temperature. Besides, how are they planning to do that anyway??? Any thoughts about the consequences when such a cloud starts to rain?

6) Well... with that many particles flying through space this mirror is likely to last only a few days, I guess. Intereting idea, nevertheless. Still, I fear the consequences.


In my opinion the filtering or better the CO2 reduction are the only ways to reduce the greenhouse effect. In order to achieve this, it must be supported by the great majority of the people who of course need to be educated. Pretty hard in a society like the USA where the economy pretty much dictates the politicians. Short-sighted as most of the big managersare they won't see any profit for themselves in such an action (Kyoto, anyone?). We will see about it...

P.S.: In fifty years the greenhose effect problem will be solved anyway, trust me