Comments on: Let’s not block out sunshine using hi-tech upper atmosphere pollution, OK?

By: Brian

Brian — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:02:22 +0000

Sounds like a great idea to me. Think of the possible benefits: the Sahara might be lush again after thousands of years; we may actually have normal winters again; Santa won’t have to drown; outfielders won’t lose on pop-fly balls; we could save on summer cooling costs; Republicans might move to Panama. I’m sold–do it!

By: peter miller

peter miller — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:24:18 +0000

I found your blog on google and read a few of your other posts. I just added you to my Google News Reader. Keep up the good work. Look forward to reading more from you in the future.

By: Ada

Ada — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:15:35 +0000

It’s an interesting blog you have here. I’ve learned some new information. I’ve bookmarked your site and I’ll be back.

By: Fen Fitzarthur

Fen Fitzarthur — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:37:45 +0000

“breading”–sort of like cloning with yeast. Should have been “breeding” sry

By: Fen Fitzarthur

Fen Fitzarthur — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:33:39 +0000

I can’t understand how a respectable Professor of Environmental Policy could even suggest such a thing–like those scientists who want to send gigantic mirrors into space, or the satirical Dr. Strangelove suggesting that the president build an elite fortress miles below the Earth’s surface and select a 1/10 ratio of elitists/Playboy bunnies for breading. Blocking out the sun for any reason isn’t something a rational person should employ beyond fictional thought. Pres. Obama’s aura must be making people crazy lol (whereas Bush’s inert black hole only made people stupid).

By: Donna Newman

Donna Newman — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 14:31:48 +0000

See the link http://www.atmocean.com/ for a non-polluting answer to increasing the CO2-absorbing power of the ocean while creating oases for plankton, fish, and ocean mammals even in ocean “deserts”. If this type of technology were distributed widely, no one would even think about seeding the atmosphere with pollution, which is a terrrifying idea for so many reasons.

By: Tony Solomon

Tony Solomon — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 19:05:57 +0000

I say no to blocking sunlight. Instead use sunlight and wind to power the world’s machines, and stop using oil and coal.

By: Bob Bousquet

Bob Bousquet — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:43:51 +0000

Respectfully…Don’t be fools for all of your very temporary existences. The only truly reasoned way to regain the health of this very limited planet that we exist upon, is to adapt & use all of the “green energy technology” that we can get up & running. To attempt to use any compromising measure is like cutting off your own to spite your face….

By: Paul York

Paul York — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:09:03 +0000

Geo-engineering is the name for this scheme. The most popular version of it is to send sulphur particles into the upper atomspher to deflect sunlight. A recent scientific study has shown that this would likely burn away much of the ozone layer in the process, irradiating the Earth and destroying much of its lifeforms (including of course many millions of people). So yes, it is far better to engage in mitigation of climate change than crazy “adaptation” schemes such as advocated by geo-engineering scientists. The consequences of such schemes are as bad as the climate change, so instead of both, let us have neither. The problem is that industrial society is not slowing down? What are we to do? I fear that the geo-engineers will get their way and fry us :(

By: Emelie Olson

Emelie Olson — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:27:40 +0000

I agree, this idea scares me. Instead, we must take the measures required to reverse global warming, and accept the inconveniences and sacrifices this entails. It is far safer in the long run.