Ice bridge ruptures in Antarctic

[Chicago]

Well, as a scientist i can say if that is crazy or not, because I cant say what is consider to be "pollution bombs" or what they would do. Also, "harmful rays", i would guess you mean UV.

So no, cant say anything without the FACTS!!!!

Most ideas that has changed the world has been considered crazy, no one believe Albert Einsteins theory because it was "crazy". A quite funny twist, when Albert Einstein heard about x-ray he didn't believe it, until he saw it with his own eyes, and changed his mind. Remember the Einstein where an mathematician working with physics problem, he was an cigar smoker also.

If these "pollution bombs" has been proved to be useful, why not? Its better to do something then do absolute nothing.

Its very easy to criticize science/politicians and I think that most people love doing it, mostly politicians. Because it takes the responsible away from you and you can blame someone else. "If we cant fix it, well, then I dont have to change my life or even do an effort." It takes away the blame and easy our conscience. I would guess that most people who love criticize politicians would never ever have the balls to become one, because if they do they cant blame anyone except themselves.

So you cant judge anything without having the facts and the knowledge to judge it.

If you basement becomes flooded, would you apply the same theory? Because you will not solve it over night either, but if you start getting the water out during the first days and then fix the pluming you will probably be fine.

facts my friends, facts...

[Chicago]

Hey if you promise not to correct my misguided scientific terms, I'll promise not to correct your English? Deal? We could all use a little more compassion and understanding.

[kjellfrick]

The polution bombs are probably just meant to be a way to reduce the amount of incoming radiation (visible light for the most part.) The standard model that describes the planetary energy balance identifes all the major ways this balance is affected, and the amount of light that reaches the surface is a major component, of course. Dirty skies makes it harder for light to penetrate to the surface, hence less warming on the surface. Wouldn't it be nice if we saved ourselves from excessive heat by artificially murky skies? Good bye blue sky...

In all seriousness, I propose that we darken the skies with the fumes from our cigars. Best pollution bombs imaginable!

[Mr Peales]

This is exactly my point. Why are we so arrogant to beleive that we can solver this problem overnight? Pres Obama's team is considering launching "pollution bombs" into our atmosphere to block out the harmful rays. Is that Crazy or what?

Chicago,

Where did you get this information about "pollution bombs"? I can't find anything about it.

[Chicago]

The article was off of the AP wires and written by Seth Borenstein. He was quoting John Holdren, who is a physicist and won a Mac Arthur Genius grant in 1981. Apparently, the proper term is not polution bomb - although I find that term amusing - but the process involves shooting pollution particles into the atmoshpere to deflect the sun's rays. He does, thankfully, warn of "grave" consequences from such actions and conceded that it may not solve "all the problems from soaring greenhouse gas emmissions.."

The article appears in the 4/9 edition of the Chicago Tribune if you want to look it up. I had trouble finding it but receive the hard copy daily.

[OZCUBAN]

What have i started here

But if the world dosn't want to fix its problems all they have to do is ask us

Come one come all