Comments on: The Best Flavor of Geoengineering Stills Leaves a Bad Taste

By: Crelia@grovermail.com

Crelia@grovermail.com — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 19:18:34 +0000

I reckon something really interesting about your web blog so I saved to bookmarks.

By: John Blake

John Blake — Sun, 12 Sep 2010 19:26:45 +0000

The truth is that stratospheric geoengineering is already being practiced on a large scale . What we call ‘chemtrails’ have been identified to be releasing aluminium particles, barium, silicom and othet toxic substances onto the earth’s surface for at least the last 10 years. So why is there this talk about it being just a speculative idea?

By: Justin Lapp (ActualityScience)

Justin Lapp (ActualityScience) — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 07:45:01 +0000

There shouldn’t be a reason we can’t investigate things like this while still putting our full effort into preventative measures to the problem. Science has a big place in both. Researching geo-engineering methods does not mean that we think they are the best answer, or that we even plan on using them. These stories should not alarm people. No one is saying that we give up on stopping damage to the environment and will just fix it another way, but it is good to know about these methods in case they are needed eventually, or we find one that can reverse damage that is already done without the possibility of negative side effects. We may never understand all the effects our actions will have, but that doesn’t mean we should stop trying.

By: Turboblocke

Turboblocke — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:25:42 +0000

Who’s going to take responsibility for geo-engineering? If we can’t get organised enough to stop burning fossil fuels, what makes you think we can organise global geo-engineering?

And who pays when it goes wrong and weather patterns get disrupted? Every little incident could get blamed on it, which could lead to increased terrorism or even wars. We might even see people trying to sue if their BBQ gets rained off.

By: Gail Zawacki

Gail Zawacki — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 19:12:11 +0000

Ocean acidification and warming are already killing life in the sea, which, aside from providing food for hundreds of millions of people, also creates most of the oxygen we need to breathe.

Unmentioned in the article is the little problem of the “other” greenhouse gases we emit when burning fossil and biofuels. Even if we could manage (haha) to successfully contain the problem of heating from CO2, the ecosystem will collapse because ozone and acid rain from nitrous oxides, sulphur dioxides, and acetaldehyde are toxic to vegetation. Trees are rapidly dying all over the globe from the inexorably rising levels of tropospheric ozone. Crops are failing from direct foliar damage interfering with photosynthesis, and soils depleted of essential nutrients after decades of acidic precipitation.

All forms of plant life that produce chlorophyll, representing the bottom of the food chain, are diminishing. The biosphere is shrinking, and top predators cannot find sufficient prey. Humans are top predators.

Fix that with geoengineering!

By: Liz

Liz — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:49:39 +0000

Weather modification has not been highly successful even on a small scale. Why do we think we can modify the climate of the entire planet? Humans might think they can control Mother Nature but she will have the last laugh…

By: Paul D.

Paul D. — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 20:06:46 +0000

Geoengineering isn’t the solution to global warming, any more than sprinkler systems are the solution to building fires. But sprinklers get installed anyway, since we’re better off having them. We’re better off understanding how to use ham-fisted techniques to forcibly cool the planet as well, even if they are just a last resort if prevention fails.

By: Liz

Liz — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:45:39 +0000

Geoengineering is scary – it reminds me of introduced species (like Kudzu) that cause unforeseen and often disastrous consequences. Let’s hope we don’t go there…

By: Georg

Georg — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:20:49 +0000

“….as if it wasn’t obvious already, that much of this is still highly speculative. The rapidly changing nature of climate models, from which most of these findings are drawn, also makes it inherently difficult to predict with any uncertainty what this scheme’s exact outcome will be.”
Strange, You never mention those “rapid changes” when defending climate
“calculationes”.
Georg

By: Rhacodactylus

Rhacodactylus — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:14:34 +0000

I’m normally the first guy to rock the science answer to a problem, but it seems like Geo-engineering will at best, put us behind the problem, and at worst, lead to dramatic unforeseen consequences. I hate to go too hippie on you all, but maybe we should just try and back off the destruction now.