WASHINGTON (AP) – The president’s new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth’s air.
John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.
“It’s got to be looked at,” he said. “We don’t have the luxury of taking any approach off the table.”
Holdren outlined several “tipping points” involving global warming that could be fast approaching. Once such milestones are reached, such as complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, it increases chances of “really intolerable consequences,” he said.
Twice in a half-hour interview, Holdren compared global warming to being “in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog.”
I am so happy that we have an administration that proactively sees things coming — rather than letting the predictable disaster happen and then claim that “nobody could have seen this coming.”
So, I’m glad they are considering this. But I hope they act very, very carefully. The possibility of unintended consequences seems huge.
Hey! Just like Mao!!
We’re screwed. The jury is still out on global warming, and now we are thinking about engineering global cooling?
How much? How fast?
This reminds me of a true story, something I learned while living in St. Thomas.
Back in the day, trading ships brought rats to St. Thomas. They overran and ruined the ecosystem of the Island, so smart people brought in snakes to eat the rats. Soon snakes overran the Island. So, being the geniuses they were, they brought in mongooses to eat the snakes.
End result. The Island now not only has rats, but snakes and mongoose as well. They didn’t restore the ecosystem to it’s original state, but instead created a new and even more screwed up state.
I see an analogy, but on a planetary scale.
Talk about a God complex.
Well, so much for change. Looks like Bush’s faith based initiative will carry on.
#3 – Agreed. It’s only through human arrogance that we can believe that we know the best way to fix the planet.
What a manic! The community organizer now fancies himself a climate engineer. Is there no end to this madness?
What exactly does the President or anyone else think we can change when 2 of the worlds largest countries (China, and Russia) are some of the worlds biggest polluters. If you believe humans are causing global warming then you have to acknowledge that all humans in all countries need to work together to fix it. One country, continent, or hemisphere can not change an entire plant. Until we reach that point anything the we (the U.S.A) do will be as effective as trying to bail out a sinking ship with a cup.
>> Breetai said, on April 8th, 2009 at 9:07 am
>> Well, so much for change. Looks like Bush’s faith based initiative will carry on.
REJECTING science, is the Bush way.
CONSIDERING science, is the Obama way.
How you could see those two as the same, is curious indeed.
#10 Greg,
Because global warming is NOT science. It’s an environmentalist religion.
The science it’s based on is the backbone of what the local weatherman relies on. They have a poor track record for a reason. The science is junk and shaman and witch doctors are as accurate as they are. People like you shouting the sky is falling of junk science are the reason things like the island of trash in the pacific bult up.
Point the finger at something with reality behind it not one of your fairy tales.
The most important bit of info from the article. “Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.”
Broken into a much more simple idea that is more honest – “Pork”
Some ideas are worth pursuing not because they are noble or correct but most importantly because they are funded.
idiots, they’re all idiots. The planet’s climate is self correcting and much more complex than they can even grasp
>2 of the worlds largest countries (China, and Russia) are some of the worlds biggest polluters.
Read the article again. Pollution, one form of aerosol, helps reduce global warming, by providing a negative feedback to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. This effect has been observed, with Europe’s pollution reductions causing more global warming while China’s increase reduces it.
Let’s see. Using a missile to hit a missile isn’t possible but, artificially altering the whole planets temp & atmosphere to get it the to the temp you want is?
ROLF!
>Once such milestones are reached, such as complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic,
Wasn’t this the prediction among warming alarmists last year, including this site?
What happened? Now, NSIDC is back with a warning that the amount of ice that is less than two years old is at record levels. I’m sure next year they will tell us about the level of ice that is less than three years old.
Of course this has happened in the past, with submarines surfacing at the North Pole.
My understanding is that the Obabma administration is considering using huge pipes with fans to push arctic air up in to the atmosphere in the middle latitudes to offset all the warm air there. That sounds a whole lot better than the “big ol’ air-conditioners” they first proposed.
I hate to break it to you, guys, but NASA had a project to engineer the climate way back 6-7 years ago. They posted it on their website for a few hours before taking it down; I managed to read it and save a copy before they did so
Essentially, all of those contrails that never seem to dissipate, or blanket out the whole sky, are essentially climate engineering efforts. I’m glad that the O admin is at least willing to open a public debate on the topic, rather than continuing to just do it under a blanket of secrecy. . . .
15, That is too funny. 🙂
He’s not wrong about how dire the situation is. I question whether taking radical actions without even considering a nice simple carbon tax that we’ve already seen would work would be a good idea.
I don’t think we know all of the consequences of such actions. We do, however, know how to reduce carbon emissions with proven technologies and a simple tax on carbon. We should at least begin doing so before trying such radical approaches.
#15 – Paddy-tr-0-ll, rolling on the laughing floor drooling his ass off
Boot to the head!
Learn how to make a point as well as how to stay on topic please.
What are you going to do? Stick a huge Air Conditioner in the hole of the Ozone layer?
#22 Are you actually an Orangutan that has mastered the inter-tube-webz? I wouldn’t be surprised. . .
No, the two most prevalent geo-engineering theories amongst -humans- are: Spreading a reflective particulate haze in the high atmosphere; the effect would be to keep a lot of IR radiation from ever getting into the system, thus reducing overall temperatures. This was the NASA plan I was referring to; the delivery system could be as simple as mixing aluminum or barium into jet fuel and having airliners release it. The second proposed method would be dumping iron into the oceans, which would (in theory) greatly increase phytoplankton growth. These phytoplankton would integrate carbon into their bodies, which then drift to the bottom of the ocean, effectively sequestering the carbon.
I’ve heard of people proposing ‘artificial trees’ and the like, but the benefits of putting up fake plastic trees over -real- trees has never made much sense to me.
Here’s another great idea from the O’mama man:
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090407/2327374427.shtml
Climate engineering efforts certainly feels desperate but I’m glad somebody is thinking about it.
I’m sure science is also thinking about the possibility of an asteroid heading in this direction. Very similar line of thinking here.
Ideally we need someone with superhuman powers (like Moses parting the seas) but I believe he’s not with us anymore.
#21 Misanthropic Scott.
I absolutely agree. Spraying aerosols into the atmosphere really doesn’t solve anything. Talk about a planet sized band-aid!
And of course it doesn’t do anything about the acidification of the oceans, a problem at least at big as warming.
#24 – Paddy-tr-0-ll,
Even farther off topic this time. And now, you’re citing a blog as if it were a primary and reliable source of anything.
Have another boot to the head.
Guess I’m just in a head booting mood today.
And to think we were worried about Global Cooling back in the 70s. LOL
http://tinyurl.com/cfpzks
If someone wants to experiment with the atmosphere why not use Mars as a test bed?
Obomba doesn’t know how many states we have or that Austrians don’t speak Austrian (what a dumbass).
Now some of you want our teleprompter nimrod to modify the climate? That’s some good thinking.
The Russians have *TRIED* the iron in the ocean.
It raised the plankton, then, all the predators came up, had a huge feast.
Not a single gram of C02 was sequestered.
This was in the news last week. FAIL.
Li, I think the plankton idea has been tested and it failed. Artificial trees may have something to do with the fact that planting a tree does not remove carbon from the air, as it will eventually die and send back the carbon.
I suspect many environmentalists would be against a solution that does not involve pain.
# 31 Mark Derail said, “It raised the plankton, then, all the predators came up, had a huge feast.”
Well then, just kill all the animals that eat plankton 1st. Duh! 😉