namatad: 1) hoses held up by balloons spewing sulfur/sulfur compounds into the atmosphere
2) floating things in the ocean splashing to create water vapor clouds.

and it'll be awesome when these two meet each other

it snowed yesterday... what happened to global warming? HMMM AL GORE

I don't know if it's because the Fark mods are getting lazier or because I'm spending too much time on this site, but the threads that get a greenlight are turning into the same ridiculous and boring pattern of garbage that Drew started this whole shindig to mock. Gotta have a our weekly global warming thread, our weekly "battle of the sexes" thread, our weekly "facebook sucks" thread, our weekly "workplace" thread, etc.

namatad: 1) hoses held up by balloons spewing sulfur/sulfur compounds into the atmosphere (think man controlled volcanoes)


I can help with the sulfur compounds. Hoooo dolly.

namatad: there are a number of GW fixes which are concerned with putting stuff into the air to reduce the total insolation.
1) hoses held up by balloons spewing sulfur/sulfur compounds into the atmosphere (think man controlled volcanoes)
2) floating things in the ocean splashing to create water vapor clouds.

I am sure that there are more, but you get the gist.
And given that there is zero chance that the planet will actually reduce global co2 emissions, we probably need to start thinking about these type of solutions or living with the warming.
/unless the warming actually triggers the next iceage. woot

Trouble is, those so-called "solutions" don't involve massive expenditures and economic disruption, draconian social control measures, and codifying every aspect of human behavior and having it controlled by the state. All they do is fix the alleged problem with minimal fuss and expense. No politician or power-mad bureaucrat wants that.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I've always suspected/hoped that the sum total of human effects on the environment would somehow cancel out.

Well, global temperatures have been stable for the past 13 years. There has to be an explanation. Either something like the effect described in the article is happening, or the skeptics are right and humans don't really have much impact on the atmosphere.

Reflect sunlight back into space to reduce global warming.

Everyone should paint their roofs shiny silver in order to do this.

it might very well reflect some light into space.. the problem is that it also reflects the longwave radiation from the earth back down.

check it out next time you have a cloudy night vs the next starry very brisk night.

todangst: I've always suspected/hoped that the sum total of human effects on the environment would somehow cancel out.

The environment's first step is to cancel us out.

Gyrfalcon: This just in: Humans are impacting the planet's environmental balance! We're going to have to live with the consequences! Film at 11!

thats true forest fires use to burn out of control clearing under brush and sending a lot of smoke into the air, 1 erupting valcano probably puts out more pollution than all the people do in a year.

Nuclear war would cancel both out..
plus, more food to go around. so it's got that going for it..

butt-nuggets: Reflect sunlight back into space to reduce global warming.

Everyone should paint their roofs shiny silver in order to do this.

Baldy here. Just doing my part.

First we're told we have to clean up all our pollution to stop global warming. Now we're told we have to stop cleaning up and pollute more to stop global warming. I'm confused.

There are 2 problems with the first suggestion. The first is that sulfur/sulfur compounds in the air creates acid rain and acidification of the oceans is killing alot of fish species that we rely on. Also Sulfur reacts with methane to produce PM2.5 pollution. PM2.5 is any pollutants with a diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers. This means that it can not only get into your lungs, but your bloodstream. The body's response to PM2.5 is to make higher bad cholesterol. Which is why this type of pollution is associated with increases in heart attack and stroke. The EPA regulates this pollutant strongly for this reason.

I haven't looked into the second suggestion.

Well, global temperatures have been stable for the past 13 years. There has to be an explanation. Either something like the effect described in the article is happening, or the skeptics are right and humans don't really have much impact on the atmosphere.

Or the heat has been going into melting ice rather than increasing the temperature. Check the extent of the polar cap 13 years ago and today.

Everything is connected - that's why it is necessary to study and understand the problem before acting on 'solutions'.

Stop dividing by zero, you're farking with my head.

climate sensitivity to CO2 has been overstated. Please educate yourself so you can stop falling for the CAGW meme

Bah! WTF happened to the first part of my post? Those comments were in response to:

namatad: there are a number of GW fixes which are concerned with putting stuff into the air to reduce the total insolation.
1) hoses held up by balloons spewing sulfur/sulfur compounds into the atmosphere (think man controlled volcanoes)
2) floating things in the ocean splashing to create water vapor clouds.

Somaticasual: Nuclear war would cancel both out..
plus, more food to go around. so it's got that going for it..

the people, animals and tree sem to be doing just fine in chirnobyl

So... vote Republican?

some.old.lady.: Oh!? New product!?

Choke'n'Bake: Quick, Easy, and Fun to Make!

I sometimes cough when I bake. sometimes.

BreezyWheeze: I don't know if it's because the Fark mods are getting lazier or because I'm spending too much time on this site, but the threads that get a greenlight are turning into the same ridiculous and boring pattern of garbage that Drew started this whole shindig to mock. Gotta have a our weekly global warming thread, our weekly "battle of the sexes" thread, our weekly "facebook sucks" thread, our weekly "workplace" thread, etc.

Welcome to quite a few years ago.

haywatchthis: 1 erupting valcano probably puts out more pollution than all the people do in a year.

[citation needed]

So my choices are: "or bake?"

--Carlos V.

FerneJohn: haywatchthis: 1 erupting valcano probably puts out more pollution than all the people do in a year.

[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_volcanic_eruptions


don't ask again, do you own homework

namatad: 1) hoses held up by balloons spewing sulfur/sulfur compounds into the atmosphere (think man controlled volcanoes)

A while ago I heard a suggestion to use high-sulfur jet fuel for the high-altitude cruise portion of long-haul flights, with airplanes switching to a tank of cleaner fuel for takeoff and landing. I don't know if there has been any further development of this idea, but it sounded quite promising. It puts the aerosols up where they're useful, it doesn't cost much if anything (the dual-fuel complexity is offset by the lower refining cost of the high-sulfur stuff), and by the time the sulfur eventually makes its way down into rainwater it is spread out around the planet and diluted.

The idea that man is changing the environment is a bunch of mindless hippie crap.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: haywatchthis: FerneJohn: haywatchthis: 1 erupting valcano probably puts out more pollution than all the people do in a year.

[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_volcanic_eruptions


don't ask again, do you own homework

"Explosive eruptions usually involve thick, highly viscous felsic magma, high in volatiles like water vapor and carbon dioxide."

The only sentence in that link that even mentions carbon dioxide. Does not even contain the word "pollution". I know I'm not allowed to ask since you made a rule, but you don't happen to have a link that's even remotely relevant to the topic, do you? I mean, I wouldn't want you to accidentally link to this when you had a real link and come out looking like a total idiot or anything.

look i know you don't comperhend words very well, but if you need more info on the subject there is a very good documentery that aired on PBS about it, look it up

LouDobbsAwaaaay: haywatchthis: look i know you don't comperhend words very well, but if you need more info on the subject there is a very good documentery that aired on PBS about it, look it up

Just so I have this straight: Your claim "1 erupting valcano probably puts out more pollution than all the people do in a year" was challenged for a source, then you provide a Wiki showing only that volcanoes exist, then you say I don't comprehend words very well because I called you out on it.

Is that about right? I wouldn't want to misrepresent you if you weren't, in fact, being a total knob.

i sai probably, i was stating my opinion

haywatchthis: LouDobbsAwaaaay: haywatchthis: FerneJohn: haywatchthis: 1 erupting valcano probably puts out more pollution than all the people do in a year.

[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_volcanic_eruptions


don't ask again, do you own homework

"Explosive eruptions usually involve thick, highly viscous felsic magma, high in volatiles like water vapor and carbon dioxide."

The only sentence in that link that even mentions carbon dioxide. Does not even contain the word "pollution". I know I'm not allowed to ask since you made a rule, but you don't happen to have a link that's even remotely relevant to the topic, do you? I mean, I wouldn't want you to accidentally link to this when you had a real link and come out looking like a total idiot or anything.

look i know you don't comperhend words very well, but if you need more info on the subject there is a very good documentery that aired on PBS about it, look it up

Slap fight!

Gyrfalcon: This just in: Humans are impacting the planet's environmental balance! We're going to have to live with the consequences! Film at 11!

I'm not sure that this really counts as irony or not, but the "irony" is, this IS news to a lot of people. On a global scale, there are plenty of people who have never heard it suggested, and on the local scale, there are plenty of people who refuse to believe it.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: haywatchthis: i sai probably, i was stating my opinion

"X is probably greater than Y" is not an opinion. An opinion isn't something that is either factually true or false. You can't say that 5 is probably greater than 9, provide a Wiki page for the existence of 5, and then say "I was stating my opinion".

Is English your first language?

Gyrfalcon: This just in: Humans are impacting the planet's environmental balance! We're going to have to live with the consequences! Film at 11!

thats true forest fires use to burn out of control clearing under brush and sending a lot of smoke into the air, 1 erupting valcano probably puts out more pollution than all the people do in a year.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: I'm always weary of these kinds of plans. If the problem is "you're farking with this too much", the solution of "let's fark with it some more" just doesn't sound like a good idea

It's definitely in the "Plan B" pile, but I think it's worth keeping it in mind since Plan A involves inventing a time machine and going back a few decades to when we could have still made a difference by cutting CO2 emissions.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: haywatchthis: derp

I'll never understand this behavior. Congratulations, I guess. By acting like you're an idiot, I treat you like an idiot. Goodbye forever, you lonely, lonely little child.

you don't comperhend reading either huh

LouDobbsAwaaaay: haywatchthis: FerneJohn: haywatchthis: 1 erupting valcano probably puts out more pollution than all the people do in a year.

[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_volcanic_eruptions


don't ask again, do you own homework

"Explosive eruptions usually involve thick, highly viscous felsic magma, high in volatiles like water vapor and carbon dioxide."

The only sentence in that link that even mentions carbon dioxide. Does not even contain the word "pollution". I know I'm not allowed to ask since you made a rule, but you don't happen to have a link that's even remotely relevant to the topic, do you? I mean, I wouldn't want you to accidentally link to this when you had a real link and come out looking like a total idiot or anything.

Carbon dioxide isn't "pollution", it's a naturally occurring waste product of all human and animal life, and it's also plant food.

leevis: LouDobbsAwaaaay: haywatchthis: FerneJohn: haywatchthis: 1 erupting valcano probably puts out more pollution than all the people do in a year.

[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_volcanic_eruptions


don't ask again, do you own homework

"Explosive eruptions usually involve thick, highly viscous felsic magma, high in volatiles like water vapor and carbon dioxide."

The only sentence in that link that even mentions carbon dioxide. Does not even contain the word "pollution". I know I'm not allowed to ask since you made a rule, but you don't happen to have a link that's even remotely relevant to the topic, do you? I mean, I wouldn't want you to accidentally link to this when you had a real link and come out looking like a total idiot or anything.

Carbon dioxide isn't "pollution", it's a naturally occurring waste product of all human and animal life, and it's also plant food.

So is feces. If it starts piling up, it can be unpleasant.