I recently saw a program on PBS about Global Warming/Global Dimming.
Perhaps I'm just not learned enough, but couldn't it help to just plant more dark green leafed trees in unused, open spaces.
Some people claim( that there's a woman to blame...hehe) that we're running out of potable water, but if it comes down to survival
why not start macro-scale desalination of the oceans.
Floating solar plants?
I saw in CPU magazine that someone has come up with solar cells that you can paint onto any surface.
They say that it's still in the development stage, but I think that it's still in the "unanswered greed" stage.
In the Global Dimming section they said that dimming is keeping the hell of global warming at bay.
Dimming is cause by normal smoke, not cfc-type gases, and by high-flying jet contrail sometimes referred to as
chemtrails.
Well if dimming can keep things cool, perhaps a way can be found to increase the amount of dust and smoke in the air over the poles.
Again what is the real problem here.
GREED!

Thats all true.
The problem is MONEY with POWER = GREED

It's not as easy as it sounds. First, there is no good place for them. The largest uninhabited places in the US are the rockies and the Great Plains, neither of which are very fertile and, thus, couldn't sustain plants. Canada's climate is too diverse for most plants, and Mexico is a huge desert. Central America can support trees, but they already have a bunch. South America has the rain forest. Europe is far too populated. Russia is obviously not a good place for a new forest. China is too dry or already has trees. South-East Asia is full of trees already. The Middle-East is pretty much a simile for desert. North Africa has the Sahara. The Savanna has the same problem as the Great Plains. South Africa is too dry or too mountainous. Central Africa already has trees. Australia is mainly desert. The pacific islands have trees already. Knowing that, tell me, where do we plant those trees?


[sarcasm]
Wow! Why didn't we think of that earlier? Free water for all! Then the African tribes would be drinking dirty water filled with strange, deadly diseases.
[/sarcasm]
Don't you think we would have done that sooner if we could? The problem is, that's impossible. The four (now five ) major oceans take up 75% of the earth. If you haven't figured it out yet, they're too big! Also, I'm sure the environmentalists would scream in terror and pull their hair out if we even tried; millions upon millions of animals and other organisms live in that water and desalinizing the water would kill them all. That's right, every last one. Why? They need that salt. That's why if you put a salt water fish in an aquarium with fresh water, it dies! (and vice-versa)


?
If you're talking about having a bunch of plants floating in the ocean, you can forget about it. Not only is it impossible, but the plants would die. Plants need dirt, too. It's not just there so that the plants won't fly away. The dirt gives the plants minerals which they need to survive like nitrogen. You can't get nitrogen from the water.


Very nice, very nice, now tell me how you take that solar energy absorbed by the panels and use it. It's not like simply painting a solar panel on something will make it work. You need cords and such to transfer the energy. Now if you can paint a cord that works, I'll be amazed.


[sarcasm]
And what a hell it is. I would hate to have the world a few degrees warmer! That would be terrible! More tolerable winters. I don't know if I could deal with that.
[/sarcasm]


Yes, beside the fact that wind will blow it all away and people in cities near the poles who are just minding their own business will find it rather difficult to breathe all of a sudden.


I thought Global Warming was caused by gases like CO2. I guess human emotions control the weather. Does that mean if I get real angry, a storm will appear?

Most places could support trees if they could be chosen sensibly and looked after. As with all such ideas, including desalination and extensive hydroponics, it is a question of economics. Who is going to pay? You try to convince the wealthy republicans of middle America that they should be taxed more to allow desalination plants to be built for the poor old water starved LA for instance. Of course if things become critical the money will be raised but the danger is that by then it might be too late. Greed may be a part of it but ignorance and uncertainty are others. Nobody knows what to believe any more - the media lies for sensationalism, politicians lie for votes, scientists lie in support of those that fund their research. (Not all of them, maybe, but enough to cause serious credibility problems.)

In geological terms the time since the last ice age is shorter than any gap between previous ice ages. There is botanical evidence that oranges once grew at the north pole. Is global warming a repeating phenomenon that leads to increasing water cover and thus to more cloud, cooling and a new ice age? That theory used to be popular. I have no idea. It is not my field of study. All I can say is that the general confusion, mixed in with a proliferation of hidden agendas on all sides, makes me unable to decide what is true and what is scaremongering.

All I do believe is that continued unchecked usage of finite resources cannot be good for the planet whether it be fossil fuel, irreplaceable forest or whales.

I hate to nitpick, but it's impossible for oranges to grow at the North Pole. There isn't and never was land at there. There's ice, but no land. The closest land to the North Pole would be Greenland, but it never was at the North Pole.

Heres something>>>>Heat vs Cold<<<

The green group Earth Policy Institute, which first totaled the deaths, tells us that as “awareness of the scale of this tragedy spreads, it is likely to generate pressure to reduce carbon emissions. For many of the millions who suffered through these record heat waves and the relatives of the tens of thousands who died, cutting carbon emissions is becoming a pressing personal issue.”
While 35,000 dead is a terrifyingly large number, all deaths should in principle be treated with equal concern. Yet this is not happening. When 2,000 people died from heat in the United Kingdom, it produced a public outcry that is still heard. However, the BBC recently ran a very quiet story telling us that deaths caused by cold weather in England and Wales for the past years have hovered around 25,000 each winter, casually adding that the winters of 1998–2000 saw about 47,000 cold deaths each year. The story then goes on to discuss how the government should make the cost of winter fuel economically bearable and how the majority of deaths are caused by strokes and heart attacks.
It is remarkable that a single heat-death episode of 35,000 from many countries can get everyone up in arms, whereas cold deaths of 25,000 to 50,000 a year in just a single country pass almost unnoticed. Of course, we want to help avoid another 2,000 dying from heat in the United Kingdom. But presumably we also want to avoid many more dying from cold.
For Europe as a whole, about 200,000 people die from excess heat each year. However, about 1.5 million Europeans die annually from excess cold. That is more than seven times the total number of heat deaths. Just in the past decade, Europe has lost about 15 million people to the cold, more than 400 times the iconic heat deaths from 2003. That we so easily neglect these deaths and so easily embrace those caused by global warming tells us of a breakdown in our sense of proportion.
How will heat and cold deaths change over the coming century with global warming? Let us for the moment assume—very unrealistically—that we will not adapt at all to the future heat. Still, the biggest cross-European cold/heat study concludes that for an increase of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the average European temperatures, “our data suggest that any increases in mortality due to increased temperatures would be outweighed by much larger short-term declines in cold-related mortalities.” For Britain, it is estimated a 3.6°F increase will mean 2,000 more heat deaths but 20,000 fewer cold deaths. Likewise, another paper incorporating all studies on this issue and applying them to a broad variety of settings in both developed and developing countries found that “global warming may cause a decrease in mortality rates, especially of cardiovascular diseases.”
But of course, it seems very unrealistic and conservative to assume that we will not adapt to rising temperatures throughout the 21st century. Several recent studies have looked at adaptation in up to 28 of the biggest cities in the United States. Take Philadelphia. The optimal temperature seems to be about 80°F. In the 1960s, on days when it got significantly hotter than that (about 100°F), the death rate increased sharply. Likewise, when the temperature dropped below freezing, deaths increased sharply.
Yet something great happened in the decades following. Death rates in Philadelphia and around the country dropped in general because of better health care. But crucially, temperatures of 100°F today cause almost no excess deaths. However, people still die more because of cold weather. One of the main reasons for the lower heat susceptibility is most likely increased access to air-conditioning. Studies seem to indicate that over time and with sufficient resources, we actually learn to adapt to higher temperatures. Consequently we will experience fewer heat deaths even when temperatures rise.

It is ages since I read the article, perhaps it said 'Pole' and meant Antarctica. The land masses however have moved around a lot since it started as Pangaea. I'm afraid I don't remember. All I do know is that it has been warmer in the past and that we are still emerging from the Laurentian Ice Age.

We may be speeding up the process but it is very hard to know for sure.

Unfortunately the sustainability of the biosphere is not part of the agenda. The current path of humanity on Earth is not sustainable. The institutions responsible for human well being on Earth are incapable of breaking an addiction to fossil fuels that has caused much of the irrational behavior of the developed nations in the past 60 to 70 years. While this behavior is normal and even necessary to facilitate the ripening of the Earth project; it also leads this inviable state. Hopefully the harvest will come before the biosphere becomes inviable.

I know, I'm full of it Right? May be, but if its not true at least it makes for good fiction.

<FLAME = ninjalord666>
First of all 'Impossible' is a word that should be banned from the English language.
Flight was impossible
the titanic sinking was impossible
a microprocessor was impossible
the Internet was impossible
you get it right?

ANY WHO...

"Plants with dark green leaves"
"If you're talking about having a bunch of plants floating in the ocean, you can forget about it. Not only is it impossible, but the plants would die."
Now, miscommunication aside (I'm pretty sure he means POWER plants...) have you ever heard of an amazing little thing called a swamp? (of which there are many here in Florida) In a swamp there are multitudes of plants living on the water, yes they are semi-dependent on the soil under the water, but just keep listening. There are also a species of sea-weed that float freely in the water, NO soil, they've got nifty little 'balloons' filled with air on them so they float (don't ask me how it works, ask your god). Having said that, oceans are in a basic sense, a really, really, really, really big lake (simplify, then conquer; but remember complexity), take the green leaf trait from lilies, the fast reproduction of duck-weed, and the floating no-soil trait from that funky sea-weed, BAM! A plant population on the water, think about the problems solved:

*Global-Warming stunted,
with the addition of "funky-lilies" to the ecosystem, the ocean's waters would be cooled by the new shade obtained from the shade provided by the vast forest of "Flilies".

*Atmosphere Rejuvenated,
Flilies would increase the amount of CO2 to O2 conversion, and this is a no brainer, more oxygen = good.

...

Yah. bim.

</FLAME>

First off, lilies need soil; they are attached to the ground. Secondly, seaweed is NOT a plant. Seaweed is multicellular algae, and algae is a type of Protist aka not plant.


Except that "Flilies" are impossible (and yes some things are impossible!). It's almost impossible to interbreed species (and any successful pregnancy has never remained so; the fetus never survives.) now try to interbreed Kingdoms--that is impossible.


Again, 'Flilies' = impossible, and more oxygen does not necessarily mean good. Animals are the only life forms that rely on oxygen to survive; the other five Kingdoms don't. By adding millions more plants, you unbalance the ecosystem, and hurt it more than 'Global Warming' would ever do...of course, by unbalancing the ecosystem, you prompt Earth to right itself...
Also, too much oxygen is toxic even to us animals who need it. If oxygen levels get above about 50%, then it slowly damages the lungs. As the oxygen levels rise, the damage rate rapidly increases. Now I'm not saying this will happen, but adding millions upon millions more plants could do something.

One last note, if you plan to cover the oceans with plants, what about all that marine life? Those thousands of trillions of sea-life need that sunlight. The plant-like plankton needs that sun to preform photosynthesis, the animal-like plankton need that plant-like plankton to eat, and hundreds or even thousands of different sea-life need that plankton to eat, and the rest of the ocean's life needs those creatures to eat or other creatures that eat those creatures. So, by removing the sunlight from the oceans, you'll kill everything in it, but it doesn't end there. Thousands of other land creatures (including humans) need that sea-life. You'll not only kill of all life in the sea, but also tons of other critters, too. Also, (like I mentioned) you'll kill all the humans in the thousands of coastal cities around the world. If you don't care about the other life forms, at least care about the millions of humans you'll be killing.
Now then, what's worse? needing to turn the AC up a bit more, or slaughtering over half of the world's life?

I do not think that the problem is greed, so much as not being able to put the world ahead of a certain nation. A certain scientist has found that the greenhouse gasses are not necessarily causing global warming, but a combination of energy imbalance and revolutionary path differentials.

By revolutionary path differentials, i mean that our path around the sun is not eliptical, but goes from circular to eliptical over a span of time. Other intersteller objects (comets, metors, moon, planets) also play a role in how far we travel around the sun.