Recommended Posts

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

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..

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?

  • Like 1

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.

  • Like 2

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 :/

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.

  • Like 2

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.

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]

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

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.

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:

  • Like 1

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Poll: Grand Theft Auto VI price predictions, cast your vote by Pulasthi Ariyasinghe After years of waiting, Rockstar will be solidifying the launch date of Grand Theft Auto VI with the launch of pre-orders next week. While the studio has confirmed a date for this occasion, it is yet to attach a price to the highly anticipated game. So let's see what our readers think it will cost at launch. The Grand Theft Auto VI pre-orders will kick off on June 25 for digital and physical editions. Unless some last-minute changes happen, the release date will be November 19, 2026, across Xbox Series X|S and PlayStation 5. Unfortunately, there's still no information about a PC version from the developer or the publisher Take-Two. Now the question becomes, how much will Grand Theft Auto VI cost at launch? The game is predicted by some analysts to be the biggest launch of an entertainment product ever. With the amount of hype that has been built behind it and with ballooning development costs, Take-Two may price this Grand Theft Auto entry differently from other AAA titles. The current price of a AAA game is $69.99. That norm almost rose to $79.99 before calming down. But with such a massive release, Grand Theft Auto VI may be the game that pushes the boundary again. It's also possible that Take-Two keeps the price relatively low to increase the number of players that jump in early and keep them hooked on Grand Theft Auto Online to spend on microtransactions for years to come. Keep in mind that the below poll is asking for a prediction of the standard edition price, not a deluxe or any other special edition that Take-Two will introduce for additional benefits. Also, there is also the chance of the company splitting up the campaign and online portions. If you think that will happen, put your vote on what you think will be the total cost of the two. Poll Poll: How much will Grand Theft Auto VI cost? $59.99 $69.99 $79.99 $89.99 $100 or more Submit Vote If you have a very specific prediction in mind, sound off in the comments below.
    • Would you please fix your graphics. They are outdated and don't fit the article.
    • The Light of Life? We actually do glow till our Death, study finds by Sayan Sen Image by Rafael Rendon via Pexels A study by researchers at the University of Calgary has found that living organisms produce an extremely faint light known as ultraweak photon emission, and that this glow appears to drop significantly after death. The research was published in the Journal of Physical Chemistry in April 2025 and quickly drew widespread attention, leading to more than 200 news stories about the findings. Ultraweak photon emission (or UPE), sometimes called biophoton emission, refers to tiny amounts of light released by living cells as a result of normal biological activity. A photon is the basic particle of light, and researchers say every living system examined so far, including plants and animals, has been found to emit these photons. The glow is far too faint to be seen by the human eye. “I suppose it has a little to do with people being reminded of auras,” says Dr. Christoph Simon, PhD, one of the authors of the study and a professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy in the Faculty of Science. “It is a fact that living beings glow. It’s a very weak glow, but it’s there and visible with very sensitive cameras.” According to the study, the light involved is extremely weak, ranging from 10 to 1,000 photons per square centimetre per second across a spectral range of 200 to 1,000 nanometres. For comparison, a nanometre is one-billionth of a metre and is commonly used to measure wavelengths of light. Detecting emissions at such low levels requires highly specialized equipment. To study the phenomenon, researchers used electron-multiplying charge-coupled device (EMCCD) and charge-coupled device (CCD) cameras. These imaging systems are designed to detect extremely small amounts of light, including individual photons, while minimizing background noise. The technology allowed researchers to capture signals that would otherwise be impossible to observe. The team worked with the Human Health Therapeutics Research Centre at the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) in Ottawa to examine photon emissions in mice. Researchers took two-hour exposure images of the animals before and after death and compared the results. “We saw that the level of light that they emit – this biophoton glow – is distinctly different between living and dead animals,” says Dr. Daniel Oblak, PhD, an associate professor in Physics and Astronomy and the corresponding author of the study. The images showed a clear decrease in photon emissions after death across the entire body of each mouse. According to the researchers, this provided direct evidence that living and dead tissue produce different levels of ultraweak photon emission. “It’s a very small amount and it’s, of course, very tricky to detect,” Oblak says. The study grew out of discussions between Simon, whose research interests include quantum biology, and Oblak, whose work focuses on detecting light for quantum communication experiments. Quantum biology is a field that explores whether processes described by quantum physics, which studies matter and energy at very small scales, may also play a role in living systems. “Since I work as a quantum physicist on light detection for quantum communication, I thought that experimentally we have a lot of the tools to be able to detect the light,” Oblak explains. The researchers also investigated UPE in plants and found that the light changed in response to stress. When plants were exposed to higher temperatures or physically injured, their photon emissions increased. Chemical treatments also affected the glow. Among the substances tested, the local anesthetic benzocaine produced the strongest emission response when applied to injured plant tissue. These findings suggest that ultraweak photon emission is closely linked to biochemical and metabolic activity inside living organisms. Metabolism refers to the chemical reactions that allow cells and organisms to stay alive and function. Because these reactions change when an organism experiences stress, injury or disease, researchers believe UPE may provide a way to monitor those changes. The researchers stress that the glow is a physical and biological phenomenon, not a metaphysical one. Oblak says more research is needed to understand exactly how the light is produced and what information it may reveal about the condition of living tissue. “We must understand what that is to figure out what’s happening,” he says. “If we can understand how that relates to certain influences on the body – stress, diseases – then that could be used as a diagnostic tool.” The researchers believe the technique could eventually help scientists study health and disease without invasive procedures. Because UPE can be measured without adding dyes, markers or labels, it may offer a way to monitor whether tissue is healthy, damaged or alive. In plants, it could help researchers better understand how organisms respond to injury, heat and other forms of stress. While the work is still in its early stages, the study demonstrates that ultraweak photon emission imaging can provide a non-invasive and label-free way to observe biological activity. Researchers say the approach could become a useful tool for studying vitality, stress responses and other important processes in both animals and plants. Source: University of Calgary, ACS publication This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • Damn, I loved this show back in the day.  
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      hhgygy earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      AMV earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      AMV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Collaborator
      ryansurfer98 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • One Month Later
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      512
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      171
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      82
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      74
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!