Scientists Propose Asteroid Dust Shield to Combat Global Warming

[Hum]

A a group of scientists in Scotland are publishing a paper in the journal Advances in Space Research that contemplates using asteroid dust to shield the Earth from solar radiation, thus mitigating the effects of global warming.

The idea has some problems, however.

The plan, according to Space.com, would be to capture an asteroid -- 1036 Ganymed, for preference -- and use a mass driver to throw out material from it to move it to the L1 point, the Earth Moon Lagrange Point that lay directly between the Earth and moon. Then the same mass driver would create a stream of asteroid dust that would surround the Earth and block out enough solar radiation to cancel out the effects of global warming, giving the world enough time to switch from a carbon based energy economy to something else.

According to JPL, 1036 Ganymed is the largest known Earth-approaching asteroid, with a diameter of about 32 kilometers. It is an S type asteroid, meaning that it is composed of metallic iron mixed with iron- and magnesium-silicates. Space.com states that the asteroid has a mass of 130 million-billion kg. Using it as a source of a dust shield would create a cloud of 5 million-billion kilograms stretching about 2,600 kilometers wide.

According to Space.com, the scientists behind the proposal concede that politically moving such an enormous mass close to Earth would be difficult at best. An accident or a miscalculation could cause 1036 Ganymed to hit the Earth, which would end human civilization :| and likely a considerable amount of the biosphere.

more

[shockz]

According to Space.com, the scientists behind the proposal concede that politically moving such an enormous mass close to Earth would be difficult at best. An accident or a miscalculation could cause 1036 Ganymed to hit the Earth, which would end human civilization :| and likely a considerable amount of the biosphere.

more

I think I'll take global warming over that..

[theyarecomingforyou]

According to Space.com, the scientists behind the proposal concede that politically moving such an enormous mass close to Earth would be difficult at best. An accident or a miscalculation could cause 1036 Ganymed to hit the Earth, which would end human civilization :| and likely a considerable amount of the biosphere.

So it's a win-win?

[Solid Knight]

The easiest way to end global warming is to build a super big A/C that vents into space.

[Rippleman]

global warming is a temporary condition It happens from time to time just like the Ice ages. Once you have this "dust" shield, you would then also have to remove it (or clean it up) once the earth started to cool again. The earth has looked after itself for 4 billion years, i figure it can handle this global warming thing on its own. We, on the other hand, will just have to hang in there and enjoy the ride nature takes us on. This one sadly is beyond our control for now.

[TPreston]

global warming is a temporary condition It happens from time to time just like the Ice ages. Once you have this "dust" shield, you would then also have to remove it (or clean it up) once the earth started to cool again. The earth has looked after itself for 4 billion years, i figure it can handle this global warming thing on its own. We, on the other hand, will just have to hang in there and enjoy the ride nature takes us on. This one sadly is beyond our control for now.

Im no rocket scientist but i think there might be a tiny chance that pumping 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year into earths atmosphere might have an effect on our climate :/

[tiagosilva29]

We should set up an electromagnetic shield.

[Detection]

http://meninblack.wikia.com/wiki/ArcNet_Shield

[neo1911]

This is trolling at finest. Instead start compulsarily implementing green eco friendly technologies in vehicles NOW. The technologies are there. Just there is no political will.

[Phouchg]

An accident or a miscalculation could cause 1036 Ganymed to hit the Earth, which would end human civilization :| and likely a considerable amount of the biosphere.

Or Batarian terrorists...

[Crisp]

I'm just up for migrating to Mars...

or URanus lulz.

[Rippleman]

Im no rocket scientist but i think there might be a tiny chance that pumping 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year into earths atmosphere might have an effect on our climate :/

nature does that more in a single event... the volcano that erupted in the phillipines put more CO2 in the atmosphere in one single event that humans have done in their ENTIRE existence. Humans causing global warming is like saying ants are killing the US transportation infrastructure.

[TPreston]

nature does that more in a single event... the volcano that erupted in the phillipines put more CO2 in the atmosphere in one single event that humans have done in their ENTIRE existence. Humans causing global warming is like saying ants are killing the US transportation infrastructure.

[citation needed] but i fully expect you to come through with this and overturn the current state of climate science :rolleyes:

[insert humerus comparison to creationists carbon dating claims]

[XerXis]

nature does that more in a single event... the volcano that erupted in the phillipines put more CO2 in the atmosphere in one single event that humans have done in their ENTIRE existence. Humans causing global warming is like saying ants are killing the US transportation infrastructure.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/volcanoes-co2-people-emissions-climate-110627.html

Despite statements made by climate change deniers, volcanoes release a tiny fraction of the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by human activities every year.

In fact, humans release roughly 135 times more carbon dioxide annually than volcanoes do, on average, according a new analysis. Put another way, humans emit in under three days the amount that volcanoes typically release in a year, according to the best estimates of volcanic emissions.

Don't believe everything you hear unless they/you can back it up with numbers

[The Laughing Man]

I hope the asteroid they pick doesn't contain the black cancer.

[Rippleman]

http://news.discover...ate-110627.html

Don't believe everything you hear unless they/you can back it up with numbers

fear sells and sell well, hence why "global warming" has a huge following... i have to take off right now but when i get back i can link 100X more pages back to you saying the opposite of what you linked... just like religion, people seem to believe what they choose to believe based on fear of the unknown, as in they are not in control so they must have something they can influence... nature currently is beyond mass control at the moment. i am not scared :) Could i be wrong? Yes.

[Solid Knight]

Guys, I don't think you all understand. These guys are proposing the ultimate weapon.

[TPreston]

fear sells and sell well, hence why "global warming" has a huge following... i have to take off right now but when i get back i can link 100X more pages back to you saying the opposite of what you linked... just like religion, people seem to believe what they choose to believe based on fear of the unknown... i am not scared :) Could i be wrong? Yes.

That doesn't matter when you are up against mountains of peer reviewed evidence, But hey i trust some random guys on the Internet more than i trust the collective findings of the worlds climatologists... Oh wait i don't :rolleyes:

[JaredFrost]

Im no rocket scientist but i think there might be a tiny chance that pumping 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year into earths atmosphere might have an effect on our climate :/

While true, that same CO2 was in the atmosphere previously hundreds of millions of years ago, life continued and thrived, whether it's human life is

another question.

But the planet itself will go on, with or without humans, and with the chance of causing a possible extinction level event, I think we should look for

another method.

I have no suggestions either.

[theyarecomingforyou]

nature does that more in a single event... the volcano that erupted in the phillipines put more CO2 in the atmosphere in one single event that humans have done in their ENTIRE existence. Humans causing global warming is like saying ants are killing the US transportation infrastructure.

Not true!

Here is a quote from NewScientist:

"Finally, claims that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities are simply not true. In the very distant past, there have been volcanic eruptions so massive that they covered vast areas in lava more than a kilometre thick and appear to have released enough CO2 to warm the planet after the initial cooling caused by the dust. But even with such gigantic eruptions, most of subsequent warming may have been due to methane released when lava heated coal deposits, rather than from CO2 from the volcanoes. Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. Total emissions from volcanoes on land are estimated to average just 0.3 Gt of CO2 each year - about a hundredth of human emissions."

So there you have it - humans produce 99 times more CO2 each year than volcanoes. Fact.

Stop spreading anti-science propaganda.

[TPreston]

Not true!

Here is a quote from NewScientist:

"Finally, claims that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities are simply not true. In the very distant past, there have been volcanic eruptions so massive that they covered vast areas in lava more than a kilometre thick and appear to have released enough CO2 to warm the planet after the initial cooling caused by the dust. But even with such gigantic eruptions, most of subsequent warming may have been due to methane released when lava heated coal deposits, rather than from CO2 from the volcanoes. Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. Total emissions from volcanoes on land are estimated to average just 0.3 Gt of CO2 each year - about a hundredth of human emissions."

So there you have it - humans produce 99 times more CO2 each year than volcanoes. Fact.

Stop spreading anti-science propaganda.

What else is a libertarian to do when faced with global warming ? Grow a backbone and say "sucks2bme" guess my economic/political philosophy ain't gonna work too well here!

Of course not ill just stick my head in the sand and pretend i know more about climate science than climatologists

[Routerbad]

That doesn't matter when you are up against mountains of peer reviewed evidence, But hey i trust some random guys on the Internet more than i trust the collective findings of the worlds climatologists... Oh wait i don't :rolleyes:

I would, random guys on the internet aren't relying on sensationalism to ensure the government keeps giving them grant money. Climatologists have been found several times to be fixing numbers to generate fear and political angst. Keep in mind there are hundreds of thousands of climatologists, geologists, etc that disagree with the notion of man made global warming, who have had a hard time getting published because of the current 'climate' of climate science. Short version? Its a racket.

[TPreston]

I would, random guys on the internet aren't relying on sensationalism to ensure the government keeps giving them grant money.

Yeah like that whole biology racket

Climatologists have been found several times to be fixing numbers to generate fear and political angst.

Citation needed.

Keep in mind there are hundreds of thousands of climatologists, geologists, etc that disagree with the notion of man made global warming,

1 Citation needed.

2 appeal to authority

who have had a hard time getting published because of the current 'climate' of climate science.

Just like those fgolgs at the ICR who cant get their work published because of "darwinisim" give me a break.

Short version? Its a racket.

Prove it, Overturn climate science and when your done with that overturn cosmology,biology etc

[theyarecomingforyou]

Keep in mind there are hundreds of thousands of climatologists, geologists, etc that disagree with the notion of man made global warming, who have had a hard time getting published because of the current 'climate' of climate science. Short version? Its a racket.

So you believe that the 97% of scientists who agree that climate change is man-made are corrupt, yet somehow the 3% who disagree aren't? :rolleyes: Following that logic, I could simply argue that the 3% who disagree are on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry - in fact there is evidence to support that. Further, is it not more likely that media organisations and politicians are being funded by the fossil fuel industry and therefore have a vested interest in discrediting climate science?

Your denial of observable fact and common sense is astounding. Oh well, another one for my ignore list.

[vincent]

Here we go again....