Cleaner Air Adds To Global Warming 751
shmlco writes "In the "You Can't Win For Losing" department, an article on the BBC web site is reporting that reduced air pollution and increased water evaporation appears to be adding to man-made global warming. Research presented at a major European science meeting adds to other evidence that cleaner air is letting more solar energy through to the Earth's surface.
Burn fossil fuels, you make things worse. Clean up your act, and you make things worse. Is it time to set off a few nukes and see if nuclear winter can cool things down?"
Surely that doesn't change things? (Score:3, Interesting)
Cue lots of 'hilarious' ironic tabloid newspaper columinsts suggesting that we all fill up the SUVS to 'do our bit' though.
not that far off (Score:5, Interesting)
Need something explained to me (Score:1, Interesting)
Hopefully somebody can explain this in simple terms. Also, hopefully that somebody isn't on somebody else's politically-based payroll.
I agree (Score:2, Interesting)
By the time my kids are my age that may be the only option.
And it may not be a bad one
The U.S. has some nice large yield hydrogen bombs that are "clean" well as "clean" as a thermonuclear device can be.
Where is the question, would sea level blasts in the arctic work ? or maybe mid atlantic, shit Bikini Atol is still crapped up from last time maybe thats a good place
A "PURE" fusion device would be ideal.
Maybe we could create a "Dust Pump" to chock all that shit upwards, or better yet, figure out how to trigger about 5 large volcano blasts. A volcano produces MUCH more ash and reduces temperatures much more than a Nuke....
Say bye bye Mt. St Helens....
How to solve global warming (Score:3, Interesting)
2. Shoot the beam to outer space
3. Profit!
Change != Worse (Score:4, Interesting)
s/make things worse/change the environment/
Maybe we should just realize that we live and therefore we affect the world around us, and that the environment is ever changing. Oh, and things evolve. And it's not a good idea to build a dream home on a sand dune.
Re:We must completely ban the use of... (Score:2, Interesting)
It is found in 99% of cancer cells
Large quantities are known to kill people
It is found in quantity in the brains of sociopaths
It is a vehicle for spreading most diseases
A powerful solvent in and of itself
Allows the breeding of mosquitos
We actually got quite a few vehement people wanting to ban this chemical in all of its forms.
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Angels Down? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:2, Interesting)
Hmm... interesting conclusion.
Let's see, the earth is warming due in large part to the effects of human beings spewing crud into the atmosphere. A warmer earth tends to be covered with more water, have more violent weather patterns, and be all around less hospitable to life as we currently enjoy it. How do we spew crud into the atmosphere or otherwise adversely affect the ecosystem? Well, there's burning things in bulk, sometimes for transportation and sometimes for industry, there's promoting a certain type of environmentally impactive animal over another less harsh type, there's the paving of large swaths of the earth's surface, and so on and so forth.
Now, you're positing that people who want activities such as the above to be curtailed desire to destroy industrialization. You, sir, win today's specious reasoning award.
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:2, Interesting)
An interesting site, but hardly a neutral one. Ought to find a better link than one that's the scientific equivalent of "because Al Gore said so!".
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:3, Interesting)
Your argument defies simple logic. Food cost are going down and have been going down for over a hundred years. This implies a growing surplice of food, not a shortage. You also blatantly ignore the fact that the US, like Europe and Japan, is in a death cycle. That means that the number of kids we are having per year does NOT replace the next generation. How is it that our population could possibly be going up then? Immigration. If it wasn't for immigration, the US would be in the same ugly death cycle that Western Europe and Japan is in, and we would have all the same social ills that come when more and more of your population is old, dependent, and not working.
Wealth kills the drive to reproduce. The only reason why this isn't a great tragedy in the US is because immigration helps to bring in more and more young strong hard working people.
Re:Volcanic contributions are a drop in the bucket (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No Surprise... (Score:3, Interesting)
The weather satellites do give us pretty good information on the cloud cover, and the subject is known well enough to give good estimates of the total effect. Unfortunately, whether the total effect is "cooling" or "warming" varies on a daily (or hourly) time scale.
With a bit of googling, you can find a number of discussions of the topic. I just asked google about "cloud cover warming cooling effect", and got over 1.6 million hits. A casual glance shows that you have quite a lot of reading ahead if you want to understand the topic. Words like "variable", "depends" and "mixed" are common in these articles.
Re:Don't agree with global warming (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps, but the evidence is that before our agriculture, the grassland habitats that are best for grazing animals were populated with lots of large grazers. We may not have changed the total number by much; we just replaced the wild grazers with domesticated grazers. We really don't know which direction we changed the numbers.
But the really fun part of the methane story is the recent discovery of the "missing methane source". We'd had good estimates that roughly 1/3 of the methane came from our industrial pollution and 1/3 from ungulates (wild and domestic). But the remaining 1/3 was long a mystery. No more. We now know that most of the rest comes from termites.
This sounds like a joke, of course, and some of the science news stories were pretty funny in a geek-humor fashion. But it turns out that the total biomass of termites is greater than that of the grazing animals. Termites digest plant matter in much the same way as the large grazers, and they even use symbiotic bacteria that are close relatives of those inside cattle.
So imagine every second there are billions of tiny termite farts, each releasing a microlitre or so of CH4. There are trillions and trillions of termites in the world, each constantly letting go with tiny bursts of methane.
The world is more complex (and sometimes funnier) than we imagined.
BTW, geese and kangaroos are also grazers, and they add a tiny amount to the world's methane supply. But there aren't really enough of them to make a difference.
Americans childish penchant, instant gradification (Score:2, Interesting)