OT: I know how to solve global warming

[Jack Simth]

Slight problems:

1) Sunlight is what causes global warming. It's also what feeds plants. Cut down on the sunlight, and there's issues with little things like O2 production.

2) Space is kinda hostile. Millions of very small meteors hit the Earth regularly. Most simply burn up in the atmosphere. This thing would have to be outside the atmosphere - it would be liable to get cut to ribbons.

[Will]

More 'slight' problems:

3) Good God, do you realize how much time, energy, and money it would take to build such a thing? Even beyond the huge engineering problems of preventing the thing from falling apart from constant meteor and space-junk impacts, we still have barely progressed beyond Apollo-era space technology. And some would say we have regressed to pre-Apollo technology, by swamping everything in more complexity. And you're proposing to create something that massive?

4) As a corollary, the time, energy, and money that would need to be poured into such an endeavor would have a much bigger impact if put into, say, infrastructure to reduce current emissions of carbon dioxide, and/or methods of recapturing carbon, research into sustainable energy like fusion, and growing enough food to feed every person on Earth.

Also, I have to say that Jack's first objection isn't that big a deal if this is something that only partially blocks the sun's energy, either by turning "on and off", or by only blocking out a percentage. In either case, plants get the energy during daylight hours and store it in ATP, and then constantly use that stored ATP to convert carbon dioxide and water into sugars and oxygen, whether there is light or not. Reduce incoming energy enough to lower the global average temperature by a few degrees centigrade will not have a significant impact on the total energy the plants recieve to keep the rest of us breathin'.

[Atrocities]

Recently they have discovered that the tempreture of the water below the polar ice caps is heating up, not because of anything we humans have done, but because of underwater vulcan activity. This is a contributing factor to why the polar ice caps are now melting along with all of the man made crap. Also it is generally speculated that this is just the natural progression of mother nature and is a natural event as the planet ages. That is to say that the older the planet gets, the hotter it will become. While this theory is not widely viewed as acceptable, more and more evidence is mounting in favor of it.

Mother Earth is a living breathing thing and mommy anit happy with us.

[Renegade 13]

Jack Simth said:
1) Sunlight is what causes global warming. It's also what feeds plants. Cut down on the sunlight, and there's issues with little things like O2 production.

As Will mentioned above, this can be averted by having a system that is only blocking sunlight part of the time; I was thinking blocking say half an hour of sunlight per day around the world. On a side note, I bet that that half hour of darkness would be absolutely pitch black. Probably couldn't see an inch in front of your face without other lights!

Jack Smith said:
2) Space is kinda hostile. Millions of very small meteors hit the Earth regularly. Most simply burn up in the atmosphere. This thing would have to be outside the atmosphere - it would be liable to get cut to ribbons.

Now this I hadn't thought of, and it'd be a little tough to get around. Though now that I think about it, how does the ISS avoid micrometeorite punctures? Sure, you can map those in Earth orbit, but what about those that come in from elsewhere? Not sure of a solution to this one.

Will said:
3) Good God, do you realize how much time, energy, and money it would take to build such a thing? Even beyond the huge engineering problems of preventing the thing from falling apart from constant meteor and space-junk impacts, we still have barely progressed beyond Apollo-era space technology. And some would say we have regressed to pre-Apollo technology, by swamping everything in more complexity. And you're proposing to create something that massive?

Well, I'm not saying it would be easy or cheap! Though it may be cheaper than all that will be necessary to prevent further climate change and to effect a reversal, I'm not sure. There would definitely be absolutely massive engineering challenges, but I don't think it would entail anything fundamentally beyond our technology level.

Will said:
4) As a corollary, the time, energy, and money that would need to be poured into such an endeavor would have a much bigger impact if put into, say, infrastructure to reduce current emissions of carbon dioxide, and/or methods of recapturing carbon, research into sustainable energy like fusion, and growing enough food to feed every person on Earth.

I'm not sure if the money would be better spent funding other methods of halting and reversing climate change (which I'm not sure is even possible), since the shield would essentially do the same thing that all the environmental efforts are aimed at.