We may as well sell up now..

[Si W]

Climate change should probably go on the list of topics not to be discussed on SGL The trouble is, people are either in one camp or the other and neither will actually listen to the other's opinions. It is a fascinating and somewhat relevant subject, and discussions about it can be very interesting. But they can also quickly descend into, "you're an idiot if you believe this" "no, you're an idiot if you cannot see this". How about this...

The earth's global temperature will naturally increase and decrease in cycles over time.

"Global warming" refers to an overall net increase, which may or may not be 100% natural, and which can see some places getting colder.

The impact of man's activities (burning fossil fuels, etc), may or may not cause a tipping point for global temperatures.

Back to the cloud machine. Don't they already do something similar with cloud seeding before big events to get rid of moisture in the atmosphere?

I have alway's sat on the fence with regards to Global warning, I have listened to both sides of the argument, and TBH neither side can produce any real factual evidence to say that Global warming is a real issue or not. I think the Jury is still out until someone, or group of people present a water tight case to settle the argument once and for all, and this is my point earlier in this thread, what the hell are these nutters going on about making clouds when the dont understand any concepts that really drive this planet and it's weather pattern's.

[JamesF]

I think it's exceptionally unlikely there will ever be "a watertight case". It's always going to be on balance of probabilities.

When you get leading lights in the anti-climate change lobby starting to say "you know, I was wrong, and here's the evidence and reasoning why" however, I think it's harder and harder to genuinely claim that "the jury is still out".

James

[Ant]

There isn't any room for extra clouds around the UK. So I doubt it would have much impact on us - the cloud cover really cannot get any worse.

Global Warming...? the climate is clearly changing, I am not sure if it is down to us or not. BUT, are we willing to take the risk that it is us and we stood by and did nothing. I am far from an activist, but I try not to waste energy at home, I drive carefully and get maximum mpg from the car and we try no to waste food etc. However I will not stop doing things that I want to do.

One thing is for certain, this issue isn't about saving the planet. Earth will be fine in the long run. It's Humans that I'm not so sure about!

Ant

[Si W]

It's Humans that I'm not so sure about!

Ant

I'll second that !

[Naemeth]

There isn't any room for extra clouds around the UK. So I doubt it would have much impact on us - the cloud cover really cannot get any worse.

Global Warming...? the climate is clearly changing, I am not sure if it is down to us or not. BUT, are we willing to take the risk that it is us and we stood by and did nothing. I am far from an activist, but I try not to waste energy at home, I drive carefully and get maximum mpg from the car and we try no to waste food etc. However I will not stop doing things that I want to do.

One thing is for certain, this issue isn't about saving the planet. Earth will be fine in the long run. It's Humans that I'm not so sure about!

Ant

Not wasting energy at home is a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned, If anything it saves money. I agree about the Earth being fine, it's been around for billions of years, and will be around for another 5 billion when the Sun either boils it off (assuming the Sun becomes a red giant and engulfs the Earth, or comes very close to it), or makes it completely uninhabitable, rather like Mercury is now.

[Shibby]

And Polar bears, the ambassadors of green living!

This is Nth-hand knowledge, but I'm pretty sure that most scientists agree that global warming is real and that humans are a major cause of the greenhouse gases causing it.

My problem with this solution is that it's desperate and does not tackle the root cause of the issue, not to mention the unpredictable results if it were ever rolled out! If somebody came up with an effective way of scrubbing CO2, this might be better... but nothing is better than reducing emissions in the first place! Of course, we know the real reason everyone here is against the idea

[hypnotoad]

I thought they have already started !

hypnotoad

[skywatcher58gb]

Oh NO just when I thought the local council might turn our lights off after midnight.

[BrixtonAstronomer]

Two points:

1.) I personally cannot believe I am seeing climate change scepticism on an astronomy forum full presumably of people with some interest in/respect for science. There is no serious debate. On one side you have science and on the other - the US Republican Party and a bunch of oil companies - I know which side I trust more! I think this short video by David Mitchell just about sums my position on the matter.

www.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DSI5ulKiZAoE&ei=rvk5UI2YOca_0QWl3YHADQ&usg=AFQjCNGNGq81acJrxKlyGp-9idbEihmCZg

i.e. even if its 50/50 (and it isn't) do we want to take the chance?

2.) Following on from what someone else said, it would be awesome to calculate how much money and carbon would be saved if we switched off all our streetlights from 1am-5am? Im sure its not that hard to come out with a figure. Would solve so many problems all at once. The UK government has to reduce emissions by 30% in the next 20 years - I can see them being receptive to a petition from a bunch of astronomers who are 'very concerned about climate change' - ;-)

[BrixtonAstronomer]

Sorry - Link was wrong. Here it is:

[michaelmorris]

one possible solution is re-neutralise the ocean, by adding alkaline elements (not entirely sure what) to neutralise the effect of CO₂.

#

Given that there are about 1,200,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres of seawater and it is has a relatively high buffering capacity (it takes a lot of material to change its pH), I suspect that the quanities of alkaline minerals needed to neutralise it would be biblically vast. It wouldn't surprise me that mining and preparing this material would create more CO2 than it neutralised. Also I suspect that the most commonly available alkaline materail would be limestone (Calcium Carbonate) - a sink of carbon.

[Naemeth]

#

Given that there are about 1,200,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres of seawater and it is has a relatively high buffering capacity (it takes a lot of material to change its pH), I suspect that the quanities of alkaline minerals needed to neutralise it would be biblically vast. It wouldn't surprise me that mining and preparing this material would create more CO2 than it neutralised. Also I suspect that the most commonly available alkaline materail would be limestone (Calcium Carbonate) - a sink of carbon.

The PH of the ocean indicates that it has absorbed a huge amount of CO₂. Ocean acidification is causing the destruction of coral, and as it becomes more acidic, it's ability to be a carbon sink will decrease, thus more CO₂ will stay in our atmosphere. The PH of the ocean is only around 8.069 now, but used to be 8.179 (pre industrial revolution), it's expected to get to 7.824 in 2100/