PDA

View Full Version : Icelandic Volcano Eruption will COOL Global Warming.


revefsreleets
04-16-2010, 09:56 AM
It's a fact. Sulfur Dioxide, a byproduct of volcanic eruptions, is released into the atmosphere and acts as a "sunscreen" for the planet, reflecting sunlight back and cooling the planet. In 1991, an eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Phillipines released so much SO2 into the air that the Earth's temperature actually cooled .9 the following year.

In fact, if we wanted to stop Global Warming, we could geo-engineer a device to pump sufur dioxide directly into the atmosphere for a teeny-tiny fraction of the cost of all these crazy cap-n-trade type deals. Sulfur, by the way, is a byproduct of removing oil from shale, like we do in Canada. They literally have mountains of the stuff laying around with no use for it.

Of course certain moonbattery elements of this board will refute this notion simply because I'm the one saying it, but do your own research. Start with Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen and uber-genius Nathan Myhrvold's work on the idea. It would cost about 250 million, and end global warming, whether man-made or not, forever.

Oddly, though, the mainstream scientific community hates these ideas, even though they are sound and have even been tested in nature...I'm guessing because nobody is going to make any money off this simple, affordable solution.

ricardisimo
04-18-2010, 02:47 AM
My understanding is that it's less like sunscreen and more like Coppertone QT; it's going to give the Earth a tan, but a fake and sickly orange one, not unlike George Hamilton's.
http://images.sugarscape.com/userfiles/image/editors/george-hamilton-big-12_11_09.jpg

revefsreleets
04-19-2010, 09:30 AM
Not single credible poster from either side of the issue has a response?

That's odd....

WH
04-19-2010, 11:48 AM
It would definately work. The Science is there, but the Threat of Global Warming is such a money maker for so many overpowered people.....a project like this, if presented to the general public, would be vilified almost immediately.

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-07/ff_geoengineering?currentPage=all

Al Gore and main stream Green groups have already disagreed with globalengineering.

The details in that article, however, have me agreeing that it's not a bad idea, not a bad idea at all.

ricardisimo
04-19-2010, 03:25 PM
Not single credible poster from either side of the issue has a response?

That's odd....

You're questioning the legitimacy and credibility of George Hamilton?

beSteelmyheart
04-19-2010, 03:59 PM
It will be a convenient "out" for scientists who want to jump off of the global warming bandwagon.

tony hipchest
04-19-2010, 11:30 PM
Not single credible poster from either side of the issue has a response?

That's odd....

BORING! :drooling:

1. it is draft week
2. schedule about to be released.
3. our #1 wr was just shitcanned.
4. our 2X sb winning qb (who is regarded as the best above brady and manning by many is about to be suspended.

what do you expect on a steelers fanboard?

what is odd is the use of the word "odd" 4 times in this thread so far.

are you volunteering to spew all the hot air and volcanic ash into the atmosphere? because if not, i see no other viable mechanism in place.

so your answer to fighting pollution is to create..... more pollution?

youre not really suggesting one can be made for 1/4 of the price it took jerry jones to build a new football stadium, are you? :sofunny:



BRILLIANT! :applaudit: (talk about putting sunscreen on a pig).

How Geoengineering Works: 5 Big Plans to Stop Global Warming

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/4290084

1. Copy a Volcano
2. Shoot Mirrors Into Space
3. Seed the Sea with Iron
4. Whiten the Clouds with Wind-Powered Ships
5. Build Fake Trees



6. None of the Above
Despite its spectacular potential, Rutgers' Alan Robock can cite many potential drawbacks to geoengineering. He lists relatively trivial concerns, such as fewer blue skies, and technological ones, such as thwarting the potential of solar power. Some fears touch on the apocalyptic: For example, scientists have no idea whether they could shut down some of these geoengineering projects once they start.

Plus, and perhaps most important, geoengineering treats the symptoms of global warming, and could very well undermine efforts to address the root cause. If scientists engineer what appears to be a solution to global warming, Robock says, people may feel as though they don't need to reduce their personal carbon emissions and companies may continue to conduct business as usual, expecting researchers to clean up the mess.

If you ask a bunch of geoengineering experts how we should launch massive, Earth-changing projects, their most common response is that we shouldn't. Given the cost, maintenance, political headaches and unknowns involved in geoengineering, even the scientists who know the most about it see it as an absolute last resort. But some, like Manchester's Brian Launder, believe that now is the time to research these proposals so that in 10 or 20 years, should governments fail to act, scientists have them at the ready. As Launder and fellow Royal Society member Michael Thompson write in a special geoengineering issue of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, "While such geoscale interventions may be risky, the time may well come when they are accepted as less risky than doing nothing."

i chalk this up there with other brilliant ideas such as burying nuclear waste inside an active fault line. :hatsoff:

revefsreleets
04-20-2010, 08:47 AM
That's about as insightful as an irrelevant and unrelated VP bunker map.

Besides, Tony, I said "credible". You're strictly a C-list 3rd rate political hack...

Anyway, did anyone bother to check out the credentials of the actual scientists who are proposing this? Inevitable diversionary personal character attacks and insults from my Braintrust fan club (and I use that term strictly in it's SF social group meaning) aside, these guys are pretty sharp and have some real street cred in the scientific community. I also heard this topic brought up by a couple scientists on a recent NPR forum, so it looks like it's getting some legs under it...

Borski
04-20-2010, 11:05 AM
BORING!

so your answer to fighting pollution is to create..... more pollution?



Seriously.

I may be some crazy conservative who doesn't believe in human caused global warming.

But we shouldn't be intentional polluting just to see if it works, it may achieve it goal of cooling the earth, but at what cost? could it cool it too much and send us spiraling into an ice age? could it affects and wild life in a negative manner in a yet to be seen manner?

As a conservative I do support many of the "green" ideas, just not for their fight global warming goal. I support them because many could help us be energy independent and we should try and pollute as little as possible in the first place, not because of global warming, just because its the right thing to do.

WH
04-20-2010, 12:51 PM
http://www.livescience.com/environment/geoengineering-earth-climate-100210.html

Some negatives of geoengineering are discussed here.

Looks like Acid Rain and a change in weather patterns are 2 of the cons.

Borski
04-20-2010, 12:57 PM
Another thing regarding Iron seeding the water to produce algae blooms.

Yeah Algae eats up alot of CO2, but algae blooms are not a good thing, they also eat up all the nutrients of water and oxygen and basically creates a "dead zone" in the water after the bloom ends. (source: Oceanography Professor )

ricardisimo
04-20-2010, 01:34 PM
What's truly odd is just how many replies this thread has received.

And speaking of odd...
http://yeeeah.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/anne_hathaway_tan_100.jpg

WH
04-20-2010, 01:54 PM
WHAT THE **** HAVE THEY DONE TO ANNE HATHAWAY!!?!?!?

ricardisimo
04-20-2010, 02:05 PM
WHAT THE **** HAVE THEY DONE TO ANNE HATHAWAY!!?!?!?

It appears to be a transmissible disorder:
http://www.churifita.info/Hollywood%20Movie%20TV%20Celebrity/Anne%20Hathaway/ANNE%20HATHAWAY%20AND%20VALENTINO%20GARAVANI%20-%20GREAT%20FAKE%20ORANGE%20TAN.jpg

revefsreleets
04-20-2010, 02:17 PM
Interesting. So, it's better for us to burn up in a global warming catastrophe, where litrally BILLIONS either starve to death or are swallowed up by the Ocean, than to pump a little natural occurring sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere and force temperatures back down so the planet will survive?

There IS a reason moonbats are called moonbats, I suppose...but it's time to get the story straight. Either this bullshit is going to destroy the planet or it's not. If it IS, then this plan needs implemented...if it's all just a money grab, than we need to shut that scam down toots sweet.

Borski
04-20-2010, 02:56 PM
Interesting. So, it's better for us to burn up in a global warming catastrophe, where litrally BILLIONS either starve to death or are swallowed up by the Ocean, than to pump a little natural occurring sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere and force temperatures back down so the planet will survive?

There IS a reason moonbats are called moonbats, I suppose...but it's time to get the story straight. Either this bullshit is going to destroy the planet or it's not. If it IS, then this plan needs implemented...if it's all just a money grab, than we need to shut that scam down toots sweet.

Well I don't believe in the impending "global warming catastrophe" I think the earth has cycles warm and cool periods, etc.


I do however think people in general should want to pollute less. I just don't think it should be regulated or forced by the government.

I like the fact companies are starting to make Electric cars and looking at alternative sources for fuel.

I think the united states should strive to be energy independent and move away from foreign oil

Borski
04-20-2010, 02:57 PM
What's truly odd is just how many replies this thread has received.

And speaking of odd...
http://yeeeah.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/anne_hathaway_tan_100.jpg

please tell me that is a photoshop

revefsreleets
04-20-2010, 03:05 PM
Well I don't believe in the impending "global warming catastrophe" I think the earth has cycles warm and cool periods, etc.


I do however think people in general should want to pollute less. I just don't think it should be regulated or forced by the government.

I like the fact companies are starting to make Electric cars and looking at alternative sources for fuel.

I think the united states should strive to be energy independent and move away from foreign oil
With the passage of healthcare, cap and trade is right behind it.

Borski
04-20-2010, 03:43 PM
With the passage of healthcare, cap and trade is right behind it.

I know it is, I am against that, that wasn't my point though

Preacher
04-20-2010, 03:44 PM
It appears to be a transmissible disorder:
http://www.churifita.info/Hollywood%20Movie%20TV%20Celebrity/Anne%20Hathaway/ANNE%20HATHAWAY%20AND%20VALENTINO%20GARAVANI%20-%20GREAT%20FAKE%20ORANGE%20TAN.jpg

I don't think we have agreed on a single think in since you came here.... but that just changed.

That, is a absolutely HILARIOUS post. :rofl:

steelerohio
04-20-2010, 06:45 PM
As a conservative I do support many of the "green" ideas, just not for their fight global warming goal. I support them because many could help us be energy independent and we should try and pollute as little as possible in the first place, not because of global warming, just because its the right thing to do.

I agree with you there... :thumbsup:

tony hipchest
04-20-2010, 08:01 PM
Anyway, did anyone bother to check out the credentials of the actual scientists who are proposing this?

i would actually assume you read Superfreakenomics if your OP wasnt such a horrible crib job of a book review that was probably the 1st topic that popped up after a quick google search. you have been guilty of this and called out on it in the past.

infact, this was almost a verbatim cliff notes version. i can understand not having an opinion of your own but such blatant attempts to mask plagairizm is shameful.

anyways, lets just check "your" ubergenius source-

Myhrvold jumps the shark — and jumps ship on SuperFreakonomics

Nathan Myhrvold, who Levitt and Dubner call the “polymath’s polymath” — who is one of the primary “experts” the authors rely on to make the case for their central geoengineering-only approach to global warming — has just publicly repudiated that approach. Apparently he never read the chapter — or didn’t understand it if he did. And apparently in their rush to print this “rebuttal” to my debunkings, the Superfreaks didn’t bother to read it closely, since he just wrote this jaw-dropper on their blog: Geoengineering is proposed only as a last resort to try to reduce or cope with the even greater harms of global warming!

… The point of the chapter in SuperFreakonomics is that geoengineering might be good insurance in case we don’t get global warming under control.
You can’t make this stuff up.

As the Union of Concerned Scientists posted here about Myhrvold’s amazing defense repudiation of Superfreakonomics:

That is exactly the opposite of what the book argues and represents a complete repudiation of the chapter from one of the main sources on which Levitt and Dubner relied.





http://www.grist.org/article/myhrvold-jumps-the-shark-and-jumps-ship-on-superfreakonomics/ (more to the article with the actual links to above quotes in text)

completely bushleague revs. :shake01: thats why people dont waste their time responding to these amateurish, wannabe high minded postings and threads of yours.

WH
04-20-2010, 08:04 PM
Since we brought up the WWE in a thread about that volcano.....

The WWE might have to cancel their PPV This Sunday. 1/2 of their roster is stuck in Britain.

tony hipchest
04-20-2010, 10:49 PM
Since we brought up the WWE in a thread about that volcano.....

The WWE might have to cancel their PPV This Sunday. 1/2 of their roster is stuck in Britain.thats ok. i'll be watching the NBA playoffs and the NASCAR race.

atleast now, i can sleep well knowing that this volcano will cancel out the carbon footprint of shaqulle oneal, plus 43 racecars (that avg 5 mpg) racing for 500 miles. :thumbsup:

tony hipchest
04-20-2010, 11:25 PM
i checked out some more of the credentials from "actual" scientists.

Mr. Fantastic is a fan of the plan (i suspect he knows global warming can be attributed to the Human Torch).

Dr. Doom.... not so much (no profits to be made).

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/torchpanic.jpg

:toofunny: :toofunny: :toofunny:

ricardisimo
04-21-2010, 05:28 AM
completely bushleague revs. :shake01: thats why people dont waste their time responding to these amateurish, wannabe high minded postings and threads of yours.

Not true! I responded!

WH
04-21-2010, 05:41 AM
Not true! I responded!

shut up C-lister!!!!

ricardisimo
04-21-2010, 06:24 AM
shut up C-lister!!!!

D'oh! My secret shame... I've been found out!

revefsreleets
04-21-2010, 09:31 AM
(Sigh)
It's fine to attack me. It's also part of the modus operandi of certain members here to know NOTHING about a topic I bring up, and 5 minutes later after reading a wiki article about it to profess absolute mastery of the topic. That's part and parcel with being a 3rd string political poster. As is typical, you project your own MO onto me. Let me correct you YET AGAIN...first off, I read both Freakonomics and Superfreakonomics, in their entirety, but that was quite some time ago, and was relatively unrelated to this, since the Volcano in Iceland is what triggered the OP. I have also read two scholarly papers on the matter, one by Crutzen, the other by some other PhD. So, big FAIL there, as usual.

Now, let's get real.

I never stated anything other than this as a last resort. The REAL salient point is that the World will NOT end if we don't clean up our act on the outside chance Global Warming is real. So the 5th rate refutation above is based wither upon ignorance, poor reading comprehension, or simply such blind hatred for me that there is no longer even a semblance of balance and logic on some posters part, they will simply say "black" to my "white" no matter what.

Sad. Pathetic. It's actually more deserving of sympathy than anything else. We see it time and time again, just like with the bunker maps. Hate clouds reason and logic to the exclusion of the actual ability to even properly debate, just simply resorting to attacks against people who have a far deeper and better understanding of how the World around them works.

I feel sorry for you, Tony. You're a small man who gets to play the part of a bigger man on a message board...

As for the validity of the SO2 idea, Crutzen also backs this plan. He's got 2 PhD's, and is actually an atmospheric chemist working at the Max Planck Institute (Google learning opportunity, Tony!). I'm guessing he's SLIGHTLY more knowledgeable on the subject than any of us here. So the plan, AS A LAST RESORT, is completely sound.

But, as the OP stated, this is going to happen regardless, as Eyjafjallajokull has already erupted and is dumping about 3,000 tons a day of SO2 into the air.

ricardisimo
04-21-2010, 06:21 PM
I'm going to start translating rev's posts into plain English, whenever I feel that his bile is getting in the way of intelligibility. Here's my first try:

There appears to have been a misunderstanding at some point along the way; I did not mean to suggest that this plan of polluting the atmosphere on purpose should be effected immediately. My main point is that CO2 is not the imminent threat some make it out to be.

I base this opinion on my reading of Crutzen and some other PhD, and besides, Crutzen has two PhDs, and so can be counted twice.

It saddens me, Tony, that you and I have gotten off on the wrong foot. I hope to avoid these sorts of unnecessary entanglements in the future, and I ask that you likewise strive both to understand me and to be understood by me.

How was that? I'm using a rather old Troll-English/English-Troll dictionary, but I think I got the broad strokes in there.

tony hipchest
04-21-2010, 08:49 PM
(Sigh)
It's fine to attack me. It's also part of the modus operandi of certain members here to know NOTHING about a topic I bring up, and 5 minutes later after reading a wiki article about it to profess absolute mastery of the topic. That's part and parcel with being a 3rd string political poster. As is typical, you project your own MO onto me. Let me correct you YET AGAIN...first off, I read both Freakonomics and Superfreakonomics, in their entirety, but that was quite some time ago, and was relatively unrelated to this, since the Volcano in Iceland is what triggered the OP. I have also read two scholarly papers on the matter, one by Crutzen, the other by some other PhD. So, big FAIL there, as usual.

Now, let's get real.

I never stated anything other than this as a last resort. The REAL salient point is that the World will NOT end if we don't clean up our act on the outside chance Global Warming is real. So the 5th rate refutation above is based wither upon ignorance, poor reading comprehension, or simply such blind hatred for me that there is no longer even a semblance of balance and logic on some posters part, they will simply say "black" to my "white" no matter what.

Sad. Pathetic. It's actually more deserving of sympathy than anything else. We see it time and time again, just like with the bunker maps. Hate clouds reason and logic to the exclusion of the actual ability to even properly debate, just simply resorting to attacks against people who have a far deeper and better understanding of how the World around them works.

I feel sorry for you, Tony. You're a small man who gets to play the part of a bigger man on a message board...

As for the validity of the SO2 idea, Crutzen also backs this plan. He's got 2 PhD's, and is actually an atmospheric chemist working at the Max Planck Institute (Google learning opportunity, Tony!). I'm guessing he's SLIGHTLY more knowledgeable on the subject than any of us here. So the plan, AS A LAST RESORT, is completely sound.

But, as the OP stated, this is going to happen regardless, as Eyjafjallajokull has already erupted and is dumping about 3,000 tons a day of SO2 into the air.

what a complete 180 the OP has taken since the OP's last post errrr.... redaction.

initially the pumping of SO2 was an immediate replacement for the impending cap'n trade which is right around the corner. now, all of a sudden it is a last measure resort. :busted:

delusion defined = the only one in here who has professed absolute mastery on the topic is the OP. and anyone who dares offering a contrary opinion will be personally attacked and rendered null and void. LMAO! yet the OP practically begs anyone to respond to a lame duck thread.

yes, lets get real...

the last post from thismorning was edited 4 hours later to add the cut 'n paste name of the volcano- Eyjafjallajokull (as if he really knew how to spell that) and to address the blatant cribbing of superfreakonomics, which was supposedly read ages ago, even though it is a recent realease from oct. 2009. :toofunny: :busted:

i dont know how that failed edit makes anyone smarter, or supports their take. :noidea:

the original post in this thread doesnt contain a single original idea. here is the actual article that the "cliffs notes of volcanoes for dummies" was stolen from-


Superfreakonomics: Everything you know about Global Warming is wrong

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6879251.ece

dont feel sorry for me, revs. the embodiment of the king in hans christian andersen's "the emperors new clothes" is in no position to pity anyone.

it is everyone else who is laughing as you make a mockery of yourself.

I'm going to start translating rev's posts into plain English, whenever I feel that his bile is getting in the way of an intelligibility. Here's my first try:



How was that? I'm using a rather old Troll-English/English-Troll dictionary, but I think I got the broad strokes in there.

pretty funny. :chuckle:

MattsMe
04-21-2010, 09:16 PM
:popcorn: It's nice to enjoy a thread here again.

But what this thread really needs, is some talk about Ben.

revefsreleets
04-22-2010, 09:04 AM
For the reading comprehension challenged, the title of the thread is "Icelandic Eruption WILL cool global warming", and the original post went on to explain the science.

Nice attempt to "Bunker Map" me, Tony, but whereas you are were just 100% dead-wrong, there's no real way to twist the facts up. You'll need to find something else to pretend to be right about as a counter-argument to me, little man...

Now back your regularly scheduled ad homs and diversionary attacks from the Braintrust.