Blog due:
Wednesday 16 September
Readings due:
Tuesday 15 September
Hot on the heels of the discussion today about potential ways to cool the Earth's runaway heating problem are these articles.
As you can clearly see, this is not a new idea, nor new proposal. What are your opinions about geoengineering? Is it a viable option? Obama would like to see it in action ASAP. Does anything about the concept scare you? Will it work? Should nature just take its course?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090127190338.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080527155519.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090901104846.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090721135559.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217094602.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am not even going to read the articles to answer your question. I think the geoengineering is wrong because it messes up the course of nature. If we are to be hit by a major hurrican, than so be it. The only thing you can do is prepare for the worst. We should not be able to take control of the weather, let nature take its course! If you take control of one thing, you are going to mess up another, eventually going into a domino effect.
ReplyDeleteread them to understand the concepts though, ok?
ReplyDeleteI definately agree with Matt A. We are the ones who started this whole mess in the first place and now Karma is coming back to kick us in the butt. Sorry Mrs. B, you know I had to throw Karma in there. That always seemed to help me before. But seriously. Nature has a way of correcting itself, but if we interfere anymore than what we have been doing then it might not be able to be fixed. If we start helping the environment, it will improve much faster than if we try to interfere. Leave mother nature alone I say.
ReplyDeleteOh, and by the way Mrs. B, I get to write a creative essay on a wine bottle that drifted through ocean currents from the coast of Maryland to England. And its not for a science class either. It's for my writing class, but I'm definately going to use those current mapping things we did in your class to help me out.
ReplyDeleteMegan,
ReplyDeleteYou are a trip. thanks for blogging and keeping me posted on what you are up to......
Can anyone explain to me how using stratospheric aerosol injections could possibly affect the climate in a GOOD WAY? See, because if you stopped the injections because lack of supply, there is a possibility of the climate rapidly increasing...
ReplyDeleteI read further on it, and yes, the aerosol is reflective, which would reduce sunlight being soaked up in the atmosphere, but the injection would only be in the stratosphere, yet the ozone layer is way beyond that. Therefore, wouldn't the sunlight bounce off of the reflective chemicals, and bounce right back into the ozone? So the ozone gets hit with twice the amount of sunlight.Isn't the "hole" in the ozone the problem in the first place?
ReplyDeleteI think that geoengineering is a horrible idea. You shouldn't be able to change the weather yourself. It happens the way it does for a reason. If you were to try to manipulate the weather yourself, it would cause diturbances in the atmosphere and could throw off the whole Earth. Then the weather could get out of hand and possibly destroy the Earth.
ReplyDeleteYes it is the hole that is A problem, but ultimately it was through our actions that it formed in the first place. Like I keep saying Karma. We wanted to become more technologically advanced and more and more, and as we did we learned to pollute more, and now we can't live without our big SUV's and such, and so we are just damaging it more. Some people would probably say why do we even bother to try and save the planet, when there's not going to be a lot of people who follow that idea? Why don't we just give up? Why do we even try and teach the world that what we are doing is wrong when they aren't even listening?
ReplyDeleteOkay so even after reading the articles, I still stand by what I said in my previous post. They are saying stratospheric aerosol injestions will help, but not until 2050!!! so what is the point in doing that especially because if it not done, there will be massive heating! So I say again that Bioengineering is bad. If nature was not meant to be controlled, which it isnt, than dont mess with it! What is the point of trying to control one thing when its effects could be desastorous! (dont think I spelled that right)
ReplyDeleteyou said we should stay out of it: hindsight 20/20 sure thats a great idea- to late though.
ReplyDeleteyou say nature has a way of correcting itself- sure, but for correcting ITSELF.
i think its going to take more than just letting nature do its work- it would take to long.
It would be great if trees werent getting cut down and such- but they are and the US cant do anything about whats goin on in Brazil- because Brazil isnt mad at us for being in Isreal so we cant attack them and have a reason. Anyways so deforestation isnt gonna be solved anytime soon- nature cant help fix it that way.
It would be great we could do something about pollution, but we cant do whats necessary- China loves smog too much to do anything about it. We try and cut down on emissions and such- but there is only so much we can do while maintaining our lifestyle, and people WILL NOT give up their lifestyle unless we go to a Dictatorship or other such government where we could force them to. Back to China's problem though- too many people, too many cars, not enough laws against disposal of wastes. (this is not even goin into other country's problems.)
I honestly think this is a problem that CANT fix itself...its to far gone. I believe geoengineering is our only course- it has A LOT of negative sides to it, but oh well- thats what we get.
Megan- we dont give up because it is not human nature...we want to survive. Everybody knows in some way shape or form that SOMETHING has to be done or we will be messed up in the future. All it takes is convincing the right people, not everybody- convince the right people and others will just have to get over what happens.
ReplyDeleteMatt- yes the effects COULD be disasterous- but the future WILL be fatal if nothing is done. We have a POSSIBILITY of screwing up with geoengineering...So why not take a CHANCE other than sit around and leave it to the Earth which we screwed up? Why not try SOMETHING rather than do NOTHING?
I understand what you are saying Emory and I do agree, some stuff needs to be done. But not controlling Hurricanes or Stratospheric Injections into the ozone. I do believe that some things need to be done and we are doing them already, like using fuel efficient cars, saving electricity by keeping lights off as much as possible, and even using less water. Geoengineering is bad because you taking control of something that has its own course set out. Messing with that will mess up everything.
ReplyDeleteFor example: Hurrican Fred. Say it was a Category 5 (which it won't get that high)and heading right toward the Florida Peninsula and would destroy everything in its path. Obama decided that he wanted to use geoengineering to direct it away from the US completely into the cold waters so it would die out. Sure that helps us because it saves millions of people, but it takes effect worldwide. Controlling something as little as weather effects everyone worldwide. So being able to control hurricanes could potentially cause even greater dangers in other countries. Do you get what I am saying?
yes i do...but im not saying control weather to save some lives from a hurricane or something like that.
ReplyDeleteNature did not have this course set out...its wingin it right now- we have already been geoengineering...just not the way we need to. Fuel efficient cars, turning some lights off, and using a little less water isnt going to solve the problem. Fuel efficient cars still have emissions (excluding the VERY few cars that expel water vapor) and they are expensive and people are not buying them- i see a few hybrids on the road, but i see A LOT of old cars because people arent going out to buy something that gets a few more miles per gallon. Using less water isnt enough either, becuase its only America in on that really, and the only reason most of the people use less water is because the cost of it.
I guess the only way without geoengineering is jacking up the price of water and gas so much that people stop using it. So i guess we should stay in Isreal and keep pissing the Middle East off.
HAHAHA i don't have to read this article to answer this one either. I totally agree with the ones who disagree with the geoengineering because i don't think men were put on Earth to try and control the wheather, and like Mrs. B said today in class if some way they were able to accomplish geoengineering then all other storms and everything else will be intensified greatly. We really shouldn't try and mess with nature. I don't believe the future will be fatal because personally i don't think the earth is going to last that long anyway. But i think we should stop messing around with things like that, let nature take its course
ReplyDeletei think it will last long enough for me to care about what happens...and i REALLY dont want to get like China where people have to wear masks and stuff.
ReplyDeletestorms and such wont be intensified greatly as a result of ALL geoengineering, surely there are some things that can be done that dont effect the weather immensley...
Weather is the only thing people are giving as a consequence! Weather is already bad, and there are worse things that could arise! What about pollution?? the ozone??? i dont want to have to put on spf 45 every time i walk out the door. with what you guys are saying the only negative effect is the weather- in which case i say go for it! evacuate costal cities if a hurricane pops in for a visit, but let me stay cancer free and un-sunburnt.
and jonte- nature tried its course...WE DENIED IT. and we do it continuosly because nature KEEPS TRYIN- its not like nature just gave up, and yet things are still gettin bad. if nature could take its course we wouldnt be in this discussion in the first place, so its obviously not working
Geoengineering is not an effective way to stop climate change. As others previously said, these efforts are not enough. There will still be large towns emitting ridiculous amounts of pollutants into the air. Not to mention the fact that deliberately manipulating the climate could have a devastating impact on the environment. Trying to inject something into the atmosphere could keep radiation on the surface of the Earth, and keep bouncing it back and forth. It's like trying to manipulate the weather, a drought could be caused, the water cycle could slow down( if my understanding of the sun shade article is correct), not to mention all of these "solutions" require A LOT of money to maintain. And if I'm not mistaken, everyone's economy is not in good shape. These ideas are not realistic. Sure, some say that they will help in the short term, but what will their long term affects be?
ReplyDeletePS, Jonte, are you expecting the world to explode soon or something like that?
ReplyDeleteI believe geoengineering is the way to go because as we talked about in class since the 70's we have become a society in which we want to control every single aspect that we can in our lives. The only way to make the world a happier place is to shoot a buch of stuff in the atmosphere to give scientist a sense of all mighty power of the future.
ReplyDeleteThink about this twist folks.....Emory mention fuel efficient cars That create water as a by product.....two questions:
ReplyDelete1. where does the water go?
2. what is the greatest green house gas? by that i mean the one that has the most control if you will over retaining heat.....
ponder that as you debate....good blogging...nice rebuttals
IM NOT TALKING ABOUT CONTROLLING THE FREAKIN WEATHER!!!!!!! of course thats a bad idea!!! --"Modification of hurricanes may be considered weather modification rather than geoengineering, depending on the definition used."
ReplyDeleteand thank you haley for not throwing in the "let nature take its course"
--"Some geoengineering techniques are based on carbon sequestration. These seek to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere directly. These include direct methods (e.g. carbon dioxide air capture) and indirect methods (e.g. ocean iron fertilization)."--
did it say anything about shooting anything into the air?? there are multiple types of solutions!
--"Alternatively, solar radiation management techniques (e.g. stratospheric sulfur aerosols) do not reduce greenhouse gas concentrations, and can only address the warming effects of carbon dioxide and other gases; they cannot address problems such as ocean acidification, which are expected as a result for rising carbon dioxide levels"-- (that was an alternately! not an "it is this and only this")
TREE PLANTING is geoengineering yes? yall are saying no to that!! evaluate ALL methods proposed then critize it as a whole! it seemed like you guys are ONLY using aerosols and weather modification as your arguements.
In response to Mrs. B.:
ReplyDeletewater vapor, which contributes 36–72% of the greenhouse gas effect.
thanks--that means that even with these fancy new cars we are STILL screwing up our atmosphere...if we are throwing more of the main greenhouse gas into the air then we are accelerating the process even more, and those cars were supposed to help- which they did with pollution.
you guys are blowing my mind..
ReplyDeleteEmory is talking to himself over here and could probably collect all his blogs and write a novel. haha :)
bite me
ReplyDeletedude you could've said that out loud were sitting at the same table.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletenow now children.... : )
ReplyDeleteI think the point that Emory is making is that we need to try something.....even the water vapor cars are at least an attempt......
There was a major environmental push in the early 70's. What happened to all our ideas from then? why did we stop recycling? why did we go back to the " old tried and true ( ha! ) ways?"
bout time you posted...iv been itching to reply to something. the old people one is boring me now.
ReplyDeletewell wasnt there a car company that actually had plans for a hybrid REALY early? but some oil company bought the plans and burnt them because they wanted to make money of the fossil fuels...
people back then didnt know what the future had in store- all the cared about was making the money that came along the easy way.
Emilee- it was more amusing to post it thats why
there was actually plans for a solar car back in the 1890's I believe...will check the date....strange how it " disappeared"
ReplyDeleteMrs.B, do you understand my question in my first post? im still bumfuzzled...
ReplyDeleteChrissy -
ReplyDeleteok. let's start simple. There are two types of ozone. One is in the troposphere ( our atmosphere layer) and one is in the stratosphere. the good ozone is stratospheric. Bad ozone is tropospheric.
The point behind the sulphate aerosols being added to the stratosphere is that they hope that it will act as volcanic eruptions act where the aerosols will reflect the incoming sunlight before it gets to the lower stratosphere or troposphere. We would then only be dealing with the heat ( radiation ) that is coming from the Earth itself.Mt. Pinatubo eruption actually cooled the Earth for 2 years. I do agree that it will become an issue if we have to keep putting aerosols into the atmosphere. It is sort of like the woman that uses wrinkle cream to reduce the look " of fine lines" and when she stops she looks like a raisin....the other issues is how the introduction of the aerosols will change stratospheric ozone and how or whether it will change tropospheric circulation and dynamics...
Not sure if this helped or just made you more confused?
I am going to clear myself so it does not look like I am doing this one-sidedly.... I said in my last post the somethings could be done, and those examples were just a few. Sure planting some trees help big time.... but for the new trees you plant, others are being torn down so PEOPLE can build new homes and communities. SO there are two sides to that Emory.
ReplyDeleteAnd if I am not mistaken, it is not every American trying to conserve, but it is worldwide. Little efforts like that are going to help in the long run, as is the geoengineering they are tlaking about. You have to understand that this is not just the US effort to help, its GLOBAL!! Just because I say certain things, doesnt mean that I dont know that there are others.
Emory- I'm not saying all geoengineering. I still think we should let nature do its on thing we really shouldn't mess with things that is beyound our control (and the wheather) is beyound our control.
ReplyDeleteHaley- lol I'm not expecting the "world to explode" lol idk how to word it exactley, but i don't expect the world to be along for to much longer. I'll explain it to you in class lol.
Just wanted to put my tidbit in about alternatives for cars and energy. First i remember last year when i had that conversation with mrs. b about how hydrogen powered cars are not the solution that they are presented to be. Since alternative fuels and energy are what im going to be doing in my life and are what im in school for at the moment this issue is very important to me. There is actually a car company based out west in Nevada i think called Tesla motors... some of you may have heard of it but for those who have not it is a car company that designs and builds completely electric cars that when tested side by side with traditional gas powered cars, keep up on every level. While at the moment they are fairly pricy, they are coming out with a sedan/family car that is slightly more affordable. if you are interested in learning more go to this link http://www.teslamotors.com/ ... it is the official website and it explains a lot about the technology behind the cars. Im actually trying to get an internship with Tesla Motors and since they are scheduled to build a new facility in Washinton D.C. things are looking promising. So i just wanted to let you know that there are alternatives out there and more are being worked on everyday. Hopefully within the next decade we will see a paradigm shift in how energy and automobiles are constructed and viewed.
ReplyDeleteQuick fix... Tesla D.C. open fall of 2009 and they are originally based out of California not Nevada
ReplyDeleteI think that the small efforts, such as hybrid cars, recycling, and planting trees would be a more effective way of trying to fix our atmosphere without messing everything up. With these solutions presented, no one knows what would be the effects. For example, trying to mimic a volcanic eruption like Mt. Pinatubo would affect the world. Sure it MAY reduce the temperature, but this could potentially affect plant and animal life, or even the troposphere.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Emory, the oil industry is a $30 BILLION+ business. Do you think it would let anything get in the way of that?
Honestly I believe that's greed what has caused global warming. We have taken more resources from the earth than we need to. Most of the business' owners dont care about how their actions affect the environment all they care about is making money. The most important thing right now is to stop contributing to global warming instead of coming up with ways to correct global warming which could have negative results.
ReplyDeletethank you for clearing that up Mrs.b :)
ReplyDeletei personally agree with Matt Amabile. what he is saying makes complete sense to me.
ReplyDeleteI also think that geoengineering is a bad idea because it could harm the earth worse than it already is. as humans, we pollute and harm the earth everyday without trying. i can only imagine how much we could harm the earth by trying to control everything is does. if we harm it sunconsciously, who knows what we could do to it knowing exactly what we are doing.
i meant subconsciously. not sunconsciously. haha.
ReplyDeleteI think there are two points to geoengineering also. I agree with Matt and Emory.
ReplyDeleteEven though i think everyone has pretty much made any point you can off of this article i guess i can try my best to make some kind of point. In one of the articles they clearly state that more research needs to be done to be sure of "the risks and the effectiveness associated with the large scale interventions in the climate system". I think the scientists may have an effective plan but they don't know exactly how it will turn out. Everyone knows that when you perform any type of experiment there may be results that you did not plan on. That doesn't mean you totally stop the experiment until you are 100% sure it will work just the way you planned. I believe no one really knows what will happen until we try something. The article also states that geoengineering strategies have a better "benefit to cost ratio than conventional mitigation methods." It is all about money right?
However, i do think "screwing" with the climate system can cause megative effects.I agree with hannah messing up our environment isn't good. How much more can it take? But we need some type of solution because leaving it up to "people's personal choice" has not been very effective. I am not sure whether i'm for or against geoengineering because everyone has made valid points throughout the blog. I think we should get into a bigger discussion in class on tuesday, maybe then I can wind up with a better BLOG. Since mine hardly compares to Emory's .lol :)
Very nice job with this posting.....I think you are all starting to see that there are many sides to all of these issues. please learn to look at all viewpoints before jumping on any bandwagon.
ReplyDeleteThanks matt ncsu......good info..particularly for the car people in the prairie project.
A new post has been put on the page. Please look at it. It ties in exactly with Adair's comment about leaving recycling as a choice that hasn't worked.
Everything about geoengineering scares me!
ReplyDeleteNature should just take its course, everything happens for a reason don't try to control it!!
Wouldn't injecting the Sulfate aerosols just cover up the problem to make it seem as if things are getting better, but really they are getting worse?
that is a very good question Lydia......I would tend to think so: unless it worked?!
ReplyDeleteAll these articles about geoengineering is scaring me! I don't really pay much attention to everything going on in the world like this, & then when i hear about stuff like how scientists are trying to control it & do all this stuff that is going to make it worse is terrible. They should leave it to nature to do its own work & not try to cause more problems.
ReplyDelete& about the Sulfate aerosols, if it is going to cause such serious environmental consequences, then they should worry about exploring & finding out more about that to try & make that stop. Rather than doing other things that are causing a lot of harm to nature.
lets just go with jante' and say the world wont be around long enough...
ReplyDeleteNostradamus FTW!!!!
ok so ive read the articles and some of the words are big but i understand and i think LET NATURE TAKE ITS COURSE!!! we as humans have already polluted the earth i think thats bad enough and i know i dont watch the news everyday so i dont really know whats going own but i do know that the earth is already bad enough and if there not sure on whats going to happen then why are we even thinking of trying it.
ReplyDeleteand if we've already messed with the earth why are we going to take it and mess with the layers and they dont have a clue whats going to happen.
and about the sulfate aerosols if theres going to cause problems why do it?
would it probably cause a mini explosion or worse???
this just scares me the whole idea...
I think that setting up sun shades in the sky is the best coarse of action. Given the earhts current state of crisis i believe that it is the smartest thing to set up. I realize that the real fix to our problem is for the world to listen but lets face it its not gonna happen anytime soon. Our nation should start setting up the sun shades and take up for the planet like we always do. I know their are major risk but i trust that our government is stable enough to set up these shades and follow through till we can finally wise up and stop burning fossil fuels.
ReplyDeleteBrittney- nature has been trying to takes its course! humans are to much of an influence on it for it to work. its not like nature has been sittin around on the sidelines watching us, and now things get bad and its like "oh dang, i better start taking my course now!"
ReplyDeleteKnox- why do you trust our government to be stable? if we start on the shades plan, it will take a good bit of time i think, and by that time another president could be in office- a president from a different party- and he/she may not be as eco-friendly as Obama. and i dont even think the government will fund such a big risk- and it would definatley be costly and would take constant management.
i completely agree with haley. i think that nature is very well balanced. it has been working for thousands of yrs. and i believe that everything that happens is for a reason. but like what haley said i believe that doing our small parts such as planting trees and using water powered cars is much safer then injecting something into the atmosphere. i believe if we decide to do that then we could mess up something and we will not be able to fix it. the atmosphere has its own way of doing things and i think we should let it heal itself.
ReplyDeletekenzie- your saying we might do something that WE will not be able to fix, but your pretty much saying we have already done that since you think we should not try and fix it. you dont want us to fix something incase the fix might be unfixable...
ReplyDeleteand nature has been working fine for thousands of years-until we started intervening on a massive scale about 100yrs ago, and you see how fast we screwed that up....1000yrs of perfection screwed up in a 10th of the time, nature has A LOT of catching up to do, and i dont think the world has enough time...
dangit sorry-- edit on the last post
ReplyDeletei think the correct way to put that would be-
~2 BILLION YEARS of perfection (thats how long there has been life on earth) screwed up in .000000005% of that time...
Emory - I think you have a good point about the fact that subsequent presidents and other public officials in the US and internationally may or may not be environmentally receptive.....I tend to laugh when anyone calls any government stable...If we were to set up any of these - I personally think that the shades would be less invasive to the planet's integrity as a whole. At least not impacting directly on the solid matter that is earth....might be easier to undo as well.....
ReplyDeletei agree with matt's original post. let whatever happen happen. i feel like if we try to control things dealing with our o-zone or the weather then, yea theres a chance u can improve the environment some, but theres also the chance that it might make things even worse. so like matt said. let nature take its course
ReplyDeleteI agree with you guys about letting nature run by itself. The earth has gone throught some drastic changes like the ice ages and it has been able to return to its normal stage. We should try to adapt to earth not to try to change it to make it do what we want it to do.
ReplyDeletePeople keep saying let nature do its thing...is no one paying attention to the numbers i gave just a few posts above?? humans are a HUGE catalyst, and nature cant keep in controll as long as we continue being humans.
ReplyDeleteangelica- if we get another ice age MANY people are up a creek without a paddle because most americans arent ready for subfreezing temps pretty much year round. so i guess as long as you say wiping out a large percentage of the human population is a better plan that at least attempting to save that percentage of humans then ok let nature do its thing
Hey guys! If you look closely at the major climatic changes that Earth has undergone - they almost always involve an episode of mass extinction ( only exception that i would consider is the K-T boundary extinction. What do you think?
ReplyDelete(hint: ask about K-T if you don't know....)
i think i dont want humans to go exctinct...
ReplyDeleteunless its the canadians, we could do without them (sorry nathan), although i would miss the syrup...
then we could use their land for a giant particle accelerator!!...thats a great idea...
they do make syrup in New England and New York you know.....but the Canadians are our friends...behave!
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Matt on this. I also do not even need to read the articles about geoengineering. I know enough information to know that it is wrong and it goes completely against nature and the way things are supposed to work. Trying to alter neature and the course of the weather, etc, is wrong. As discussed earlier in class, i believe that if you try to fix one thing in nature, something else will go wrong and it will just mess everything up! We need to just let nature run its course like it is supposed to.
ReplyDeleteI meant nature*
ReplyDeleteugh this is the second time typing this so im gonna shorten it up. i feel geoengineering's positives are better than the negatives of doing nothing. we are far past nature taking its own course. we should try to fix or at least patch things weve broken if we can.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Adair that geoengineering requires much more research. Lowering greenhouse gases through geoengineering could alter precipitation patterns and change storm tracks. The sense of unpredictability associated with geoengineering is not worth POSSIBLY reducing impacts. Playing with nature is not the same as a regular experiment because permanent damage could be done to the Earth. So while global warming continues to be a problem, natural disasters should stay “natural” and not tampered with by scientists.
ReplyDeleteI am personally not fond of any of the geoengineering methods proposed in these articles. However, I do believe that geoengineering has a bright future, and could be a potential mitigant for climate change. Also, the phrase "let nature run its course" has been thrown around a lot on this post, and I think it is somewhat ignorant to say that. I believe nature can correct itself when nature is an isolated variable. But that isn't the case of today's situation. We have interfered and become so involved in nature, that nature isn't natural anymore, and it is now a human modified nature. Therefore, I believe that climate change is incapable of correcting itself without human participation. And I really don't understand this: since when does recycling and planting trees reduce CO2 emissions or cool the surface temperature of the earth? So for the people that suggested that, I believe that those ideas on their own are a timid and pathetic solution to counteract the massive problem of climate change. So I think recycling, planting trees, and future geoengineering endeavors should be combined in order to create a comprehensive climate plan. One last thing, I don't think the monetary cost of geoengineering should be a factor in the debate because the monetary and overall cost to our way of life is a much more frightening aspect of not doing anything to fight climate change.
ReplyDeleteGood Wednesday morning! As there may be some confusion , let me remind you that the blog is due....
ReplyDeletei do not want to be associated in that "they are OUR friends..."
ReplyDeletethey are not my friend, and i think syrup coming from anywhere else is a conspiracy theory...the government doesnt want to show canada as being vital to our breakfast menus so they say it can come from other places
au contraire...steve's family in New Hampshire make syrup every year and it is yummy!!!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Caitlin. I don't think we should be doing any major experimentation with the atmosphere or climate until there has been MAJOR research completed and they are almost absolutly positive about the affects. They could unintentially make things a lot more permanent and dangerous for the Earth. Until then we should do as much as we can not to make things worse. I think that planting trees and recycling are great steps however small. If enough people did these things than they would impact more. Maybe in the future there will be enough research for them to start reversing some of the effects of global warming and climate change. But for now they should stick to research and recycling. :)
ReplyDeletei agree with hollis and lydia.. this is all kind of scary! by trying to stop all of these things from occuring in nature would it not just cause all these other crazy reactions that we would need to do something about and it will just never end?!
ReplyDeletealso would'nt reducing the amount of sunlight that hit the earth cause a lot more problems than the water cycle? that just seems like a bad idea to me..
i kind of think we should just let nature take its course but then what emory said about how its too late for all of that makes sense too.
i mean is there no solution that doesn't have huge risks that help correct what we've already messed.. then again what we've messed up will just continue... :( i don't know my opinion i'm torn.. :(
and to what clinton said i don't see how postives or negatives out weigh the other... to me it just seems like it could help but it could also screw us.. i would just want to find one that was full proof.. (and that kind of thing happens in my world :)haha)
ReplyDeleteBlog new intial posting closed. YOu may continue to respond to each other as you choose....
ReplyDeleteinitial posting for this blog is now closed. you may continue to post and chat with each other as you choose.
ReplyDeleteOk, nature has tried to do its thing, but we messed up its whole system as soon as we were able because we were scared.
ReplyDeleteWe could try to see if there is a way to make our whole situation better, but we will only delay the process... This is what happens; its a cycle, rise and decline.
If there is a chance that we can fix this, then why not try? If we mess up even worse than we already have, we do. Either way, if we fix one thing, there is going to be something else that we CANNOT fix thats going to undo everything else that we have fixed...
Emory, yes we have cataylized what nature has had in store, but that does not mean that we need to do anything else.
ReplyDeleteEmilee, I agree with you because if you do "shade the earth" with these aerosol injections, it will mess up the water cycle to some extent.
The major problem with the injections that they are saying in the article is that fact that if they stop for any period of time, even for the shortest time possible, there is going to be a MASS HEATING EFFECT!!!
That is why I am so against this! I'd rather not take the chances of them "forgetting" or "holding off" after they started because that would REALLY screww up the Earth.
And I also agree with what Emilee said about the positives and negatives. They cant outweigh eachother. Where there is a positive, it is causing a negative for someone else in the world.
Also because I wanted to mention this and I forgot....
ReplyDeleteI was watching the Weather Channel last night and they said that compared to the last century or so, August's heat was the 2nd warmest on record and June-August was the 3rd warmest on record. That may be switched around.
They also stated that the warming of the oceans is the WARMEST ON RECORD!!!!!
SEND OFF ANY SIGNS TO PEOPLE?!?!?!
(that should really ignite the conversation)
I think that geo-engineering is a not-so-great idea. Nature should take the course that it is intended to take! Society as a whole is completely capable of recovering from natural disasters, obviously. Sure many lives, homes, etc. will be saved. But that is no reason to interfere with nature's path! Geo-engineering conflicts with the inner-workings of our Earth! and that is unacceptable!
ReplyDelete