From: "Robert Comer" 

> My other underlying point goes to my contention that we should be
> concentrating on adapting rather than pretending we can change the
> climate.

That wont help if the methane ice under the ocean and at the icecaps melts,
we're not methane breathers, not to mention it would heat things up more...

I'm beginning to think the only way we can survive is to start changing the
climate.  And don't kid yourself, we *can* do it already. (and, in fact,
that's what got us into this mess.)

--
Bob Comer





"Mark"  wrote in message
news:44c947f2{at}w3.nls.net...
> Yes, what I meant was it makes sense that it would work, not that it was
> advisable to do.
>
> My other underlying point goes to my contention that we should be
> concentrating on adapting rather than pretending we can change the
> climate. But let us assume that we could do it, that strategically located
> "sulfur guns" were fired off according to a scientific formula and we
> succeed in lowering the temperature by a degree. Everyone is slapping each
> other on the back on how brilliant we all are, then the super volcano in
> Yellowstone blows (or even just a regular volcano) and lowers the already
> lower temperature by 2 more degrees and turns a 160 day growing season,
> not into 70 days, but into 0 days. We won't look so smart then, will we?
> Especially if the volcanic dust drives our man-made sulfur into the sea
> and kills the mackerel too.
>
> The people in 1816 adapted by eating fish as they had no crops and that
> was a really quick forced solution in the face of cataclysmic climate
> change in a single year by a single volcano. You global warming alarmists
> are wetting your pants over the same 1 degree change in climate (assuming
> the "science" is even right), but in the opposite direction,
and over a
> 100 year period vs. 1 year. I see no reason to believe we can't adapt to
> that and avoid destroying the world economy with misguided Kyoto type
> limits on our activities.
>
> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
> news:44c91bdb{at}w3.nls.net...
>>I agree that the sulfur would lower the temperature. It's just that the
>>proposed cure will present another problem - possible major - acid rain.
>>That's one of the reasons for fuel standards that limit it.
>>
>>
>> "Mark"  wrote in message
>> news:44c91aa3$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> Makes sense to me. When Krakatoa erupted in 1883 it dropped the world
>>> temperature by 1 degree (C) and the same thing happened back in 1815
>>> when Tambora erupted. Indeed in 1816 New England farmers claimed it was
>>> the year without summer as the growing season was cut from the typical
>>> 160 days down to 70 and a whole lotta people ate a whole lotta mackerel
>>> to make it through that winter.
>>>
>>> Uh, no I don't happen to know this off the top of my head, the above
>>> facts and many, many more interesting tidbits are in Simon Winchester's
>>> Krakatoa that I happen to be reading this summer 
>>>
>>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>>> news:44c90e33{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>> cooler earth with an acid rain problem?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.livescience.com/environment/060727_inject_sulfur.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One way to curb global warming is to purposely shoot sulfur into the
>>>> atmosphere, a scientists suggested today.
>>>>
>>>> The burning of fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide, a
greenhouse gas,
>>>> into the atmosphere. It also releases sulfur that cools
the planet by
>>>> reflecting solar radiation away from Earth.
>>>>
>>>> Injecting sulfur into the second atmospheric layer closest to Earth
>>>> would reflect more sunlight back to space and offset greenhouse gas
>>>> warming, according to Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen from the
Max Planck
>>>> Institute for Chemistry in Germany and the Scripps Institution of
>>>> Oceanography, University of California at San Diego.
>>>>
>>>> Crutzen suggests carrying sulfur into the atmosphere via
balloons and
>>>> using artillery guns to release it, where the particles
would stay for
>>>> up to two years. The results could be seen in six months.
>>>>
>>>> Nature does something like this naturally.
>>>>
>>>> When Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in1991,
millions of tons
>>>> of sulfur was injected into the atmosphere, enhancing
reflectivity and
>>>> cooling the Earth's surface by an average of 0.9 degrees
Fahrenheit in
>>>> the year following the eruption.
>>>>
>>>> "Given the grossly disappointing international
political response to
>>>> the required greenhouse gas emissions, ... research on the
feasibility
>>>> and environmental consequences of climate engineering of the kind
>>>> presented in this paper, which might need to be deployed in future,
>>>> should not be tabooed," Crutzen said.
>>>>
>>>> This proposal is detailed in the August issue of the
journal Climatic
>>>> Change.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5