Space junk and global warming?

[FONT=&quot]We believe at lest 40% of today’s global warming is caused by the ring of space junk {Metal} around the planet. Reflecting and there for, magnifying the sunlight towards the earth as well as the outer [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]atmosphere[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT]If this is true N.A.S.A and other countries must be accountable for cleaning up their junk and the environmental damage that they have caused. Magnets maybe used to retrieve their junk?
This can be seen through space junk tracking. Only together as a whole may we have a slight chance to save this planet or we will loss every living thing and it's a very good chance you will be here to see it all.

To do this is self government, get rid of the people destroying it your so called representatives. The Individual Two-Third Majority Vote Self-Government is for you as an individual govern your own countries government department for a true democracy, not this false democracy we have today. :cheers2:

 

Um....
Wouldn't metalic space junk reflect sunlight *away* from the earth, thereby causing global cooling?

Really, if you're thinking about adopting science (or worse yet, pseudo-science) as your religion, you might want to consider something that has a more accurate track record.

Science once thought Thalidomide was good for pregnant mothers.
Science once thought that Fen-phen was good for dieting.
Science once thought that MTBE was a good "anti-pollution" additive for gasoline.
Science once thought that Iridium was a good concept for global cellular phone service.
Science once thought that Silicon was a good matierial for breast implants.
Science once thought that Y2K would be the end of the world.
Science once thought that eggs were bad for us. (no offense to the vegans.)
Science told us we would be killed by killer bees; Ebola; SARS; Bird Flu; Swine Flu; an asteroid; high-power lines; and nuclear winter.

Now Science is convincing us all that:
~the theory of evolution should be taught, while other theories should not.
~Man-made CO2 is causing global warming.
~Ethanol made from corn is a good substitute for gasoline.
~It's necessary to save species from extinction. (Would you really like dinosaurs around?)
~Hybrid cars, like the Prius, have a small carbon footprint (more than a Hummer, when you compare their full manufacture-to-scrap lifetimes.)

I'm telling you, the stuff science thinks it knows (but doesn't) has filled, and continues to fill, volumes. The truth usually only comes out *after* the money and energy are spent.

So, by all means, spend a huge chunk of the worlds wealth vacuuming a few pieces of harmless space junk out of orbit... or maybe feed hungry people.

You be the judge.

 

Bravo!!!!!! Feeding the hungry is only important to governments when they have to discuss it at summits and have to adopt the "we're doing better than you" mentality.

 

couldn't we just throw it into a blackhole?

 

tmmf09

you're spamming and all your post will get pulled if you don't chill

 

Why does someone always through a spanner in the works. This was getting interesting until that tmmf shit!

 

Well said.

 

Sorry, but I don't think it was well said.

You made your list, I'll make one also. It's short, but it makes the point.

Science gave us a green revolution that feeds most of the world.

Science eradicated many infectious diseases that were the scourge of the planet.

Science gave us transportation and communication abilities beyond our wildest dreams.

Science has given us an understanding of the world and the universe that was unthinkable a century ago.


Yes, science has made mistakes, although most of the things on your list were more the fault of politicians than of scientists.

If you expect science (or anything else) to be perfect and without mistakes, you will be sadly disillusioned. Thalidomide was a terrible disaster, but do you want to shut down the entire process of investigating the natural world because of it?

I am not saying that science has all the answers, nor that scientists should rule the world. Someone needs to keep them reined in and focused on things that matter.

But if you did away with an institution every time it made a mistake, human civilization would never exist.

 

This is utter nonsense. Simply reflecting sunlight does not "magnify" it. In order to magnify it, you need a lens.

The full moon reflects a million billion times more sunlight to earth than space junk does. Why don't you think moonlight causes global warming?

 

GRANNY!
Talking about science........ makes me remember an episode of Family Guy that I saw last Sunday. Stewie and Brian go to an alternate universe where Christianity never really took off . So the Dark Ages never really existed. [Something that I would like to add: I don't think they burned witches so alot of herbalists didn't die off. ] There was an extra thousand years of science in that universe- and it was a pretty incredible place! Let's hope that green science will save this universe.

PAX

 

I'll bet it was!

I truly believe it will be love that saves the universe, but it will have to be assisted by science. The population of the earth is going to double at least one more time. Where is all that food going to come from?

Not only that, we have not done a very good job of taking care of the earth so far, and if we are to turn the tide with all that, it will be science that provides the tools.

 

Well said, Granny.

 

No, you're right, Granny.
Science is responsible for a great many advances. And you're also right that politicians (and capitalists) are the ones who typically distort the information, if not outright lie about it.

My point is that science makes its advancements by trial and error. They typically get it wrong the first dozen times before they hit on a genuine breakthrough. When it comes to really big, world shaking stuff, I would prefer that we pitch out all the rhetoric and agendas and simply take a good, honest look at what we're being asked to believe, rather than all jump on the bandwagon when the politicians and media get a hard on for some cause.

Right now, "green" is the big hot-button. If anyone so much as hints that something is "green", why... half the world climbs on board and rides that pony - even if it turns out to be complete bullshite. And believe me, there are a LOT of bullshite merchants out there.

These hybrid cars that are supposed to be so green - they're one of my favorite examples. Their "dust to dust" energy consumption (meaning their *full* lifetime, from raw minerals to a pile of rust) is almost double that of a Hummer. In some cases, it's more than double. And yet, people still buy them, thinking they're doing something good for the earth. (FYI, the car with the best lifetime record is...... the Ford Focus. Read 'em and weep, Toyota Corolla @ #9.)

This sort of thing just makes me shake my head in wonder at the foolishness of people. At the expense of sounding like an X-Files commercial, the truth is out there if one hasn't drunk the kool-aid, yet, and still has an interest in looking for it. Of course, when I say something like that, someone will always want to argue with me by saying, "well, we have to try, or the world is going to go to hell in a handbasket." And my response is always, "Yes, by all means, let's do whatever we can to make things better, but for God's sake, lets make *sure* that, whatever we decide to do, it really is going to make things better and not worse."

Science is based on mostly trial and error, with an occasional success thrown in to make it worthwhile. As my ol' daddy used to say, "even a blind pig gets an acorn once in a while." The acorns are nice, but lets not start believing that it's all acorns, okay?

There are many endeavors out there that are much more worthy of the money and energy. We can't afford the continued luxury of expensive gaffs like the ones I mentioned earlier.

 

Here's a little trade-off for science to consider: There is a finite amount of food that the world can produce. We may not be there, yet, but it's still finite. If science gives us a world where annually the mortality rate is reduced and longevity is increased, then it contributes to the overpopulation of the world. There is an end result to that, but it's not a very nice one.

Nature will resolve the problem, even if we can't. There will be pestilence, disease and famine. This will fix the population problem, although it won't be pretty. We're seeing this happen already, with the antibiotic resistant staff infections (MRSA). This is a direct case of nature overriding science. Living in a natural world requires one to submit to the rule of nature. Instead, we try to sterilize eveything around us, to the point where our bodies have no need for natural resistances. Then, when we do catch a bug, we need antibiotics to kill them. Pretty soon, the bugs get comfortable with the antibiotics and we're all screwed.

Newton said that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Of course, this is supposed to refer only to bodies in motion, but I think it holds true for just about anything. It's Yin and Yang, the natural balance of the universe. You can't make something better here without making something worse there - and vice versa.

 

I think as much light that is reflected towards the earth is also reflected away from it with space junk. Not a problem.

 

This is complete misinformation. Interesting -- it shows how you doubt scientists but you believe any rubbish coming from the internet.

The person who originally posted the hybrid-Hummer calculation has admitted that they were completely wrong. Hybrids are WAY better on a life-cycle basis than Hummers.

 

I hate to sound like Columbo here, but I have "one more thing" to contribute to the discussion. This is in reference to your points quoted above, Granny.

Science gave us the green revolution which allowed us to feed more people than ever before, which in turn allows for more population growth, which will mean that even the green revolution won't be able to feed everyone, eventually. The problem just got delayed and a lot bigger, it didn't go away.

Science didn't eradicate diseases, but it did make it so people could beat them... at least for a while. The diseases will just get stronger and come back again. Polio has reared it's ugly head again and Small Pox may be next. Every year we hear about yet another potentially deadly disease on the rise. Most of them turn out to be nothing (like the ones I mentioned earlier) but one day there may be a true "population thinner" that will arise from the ashes of all the diseases that we *thought* we had beaten.

As for the transportation and communication advances, aren't there a lot of scientists telling us that those same transportation advances causing a great deal of climate change, now? And don't they also warn that all the cell phones and other radio waves in the air can cause cancer?

Our "understanding" of the world and the universe frequently leads to war and/or a squandering of the worlds wealth on trivial matters, while people in third world countries die of hunger and disease.

Investigating the natural world is fine, as long as we don't try to "fix" what we perceive as problems. There is always a tradeoff. Less yin results in more yang, and sooner or later nature reacts to restore the balance - often in unexpected and catastrophic ways.

Thanks for your indulgence. I'll try to shut up, now. You can see that I'm not at all passionate about this topic.

 

Keep in mind it takes 10 lbs of grain to produce one lb of meat. If the world ate less meat, there would be a huge multiplier effect in making more grain available.

 

Your science education is weak, I must say. Almost no scientists think that cell phones and radio waves cause cancer. And science and engineering are providing transportation solutions like solar-powered fuel cells and high-speed bullet trains that are solving climate-change problems, not making them worse. The problem isn't science. It's materialism and the profit motive of large corporations.

 

I'd like to see a link or a reference for that last statement, please.

Actually, it wasn't a "person" who made the study, it was an independent study group by the name of CNW Research, and the website has links to most of their responses to their detractors. They are not funded by the automotive industry or oil industry. The thing that was "admitted to" was that the lifetime of the hybrid car was estimated low. I put "admitted" in quotes, because they never denied it in the first place. The initial report had the hybrids coming out at nearly three times the energy consumption of a hummer. This is because it was all of the data they had to analyze. After the re-calculation in 2008, the the rate was still 2x that of a Hummer. CNW has offered it's calculation information to ANY other entity who would like to do their own independent study. To date, there have been no takers. However, there are many activist and political organizations with a "horse in the race" who would like to take exception to the CNW report.

Here's the link to my info:

http://www.cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/

There are a number of websites that refute the information found in the study, but all of them appear to be environmental sites with an activist perspective (none are independent study groups) and they typically don't refute the findings of the independent study so much as they try to ridicule it by misdirection. They say things like, "lets compare the cost of making the Prius batteries (120lbs) to the hummer's tires (240lbs)," as though that weren't already considered in the independent study, or, "Toyota only uses about a 1000 tons of nickel a year to produce the Prius batteries, but the plant in Sudbury produces 95,000 tons of nickel annually," as though the plant's annual output has anything to do with the dust-to-dust cost of a Prius. They use emotional tactics to invoke a specific response from the reader. Many of them cite MIT and Argonne Labs studies, but to date, I have not been able to find those studies anywhere. The only MIT studies that I find talk about fuel usages, which is only a part of the total dust to dust energy cost of a vehicle. Many detractors say that the CNW report is unreliable, because it hasn't undergone peer evaluation. Well, neither has Toyota's own, more favorable, evaluation, but don't forget, they have a vested interest in the more positive outcome of their study. And so far, no other independent peer has stepped up to produce their own report.

It's interesting that you would take the evidence of an unbiased research group as "rubbish", but you take the word of activist groups as truth. This is all part of the "if it claims to be green, it's GOOD!" mentality that abounds today.

Show me your unbiased evidence that refutes the CNW report. I don't want to see any websites that aren't backed up with a link to an independent study, because it will just be more propaganda from groups with a vested interest in the outcome - and I don't want to see any evidence that relies on hearsay to make its claim.

For the record, I own a Toyota Corolla. I'm not anti-Toyota, anti-hybrid, or anti-Hummer. I just like to know the truth about the things I'm being asked to believe.