Sam:
> George,
>
> What are your thoughts on geoengineering, such as cloud
> brightening
> and other methods to reflect more sunshine back into
> space?
>
>
> Cheers!
> Sam Carana
=================
G:
Hi Sam, nice to hear from you.
Of course, not greenhouse reduction, but some sort of
compensating for decreasing reflection power of melting
ices makes any theoretical sense.
As for practical I don't know most, so please, could you
send me links?
Only one I heard about is the proposal of some Japanese
to paint everything paintable, like roots, roofs, etc.
in white. Would have to be sturdy paint to hold the trafic,
wouldn't it? Economically hardly tenable, even theoretically.
I take such ideas with a grain of salt, but like to stay
open minded, so send me links.
Mankind thinking of influencing climate looks to me like a
mosquito trying to push around an elephant. All our nukes
would not deviate a single hurricane.
And yet, a collapse of the Yang Tse damm would tilt the
planet of its orbit.
So, don't know what to think and don't think thinking will do
much good. Worst case planning would be my answer (that would
still involve thinking).
Let me repeat bottom lines of my essay:
QUOTE
You may trigger an avalanche by pulling the trigger of your
gun, but you won't stop it by pushing back the trigger.
Which actions seem advisable in this light?
1.Dissociate GW from Pollution, a distinct, equally critical
problem, which should be investigated in its own context,
unaffected by political divagations about the GW.
2.Admit that GW is inevitable and start immediately to plan
actions aiming at saving millions endangered by inundations,
(expatriation, artificial islands, etc.) and other
sequels of the GW.
UNQUOTE
Cheers
Georges.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.