We don't have space shuttles anymore in case you didn't notice.
Every time man meddles with the environment it becomes a disaster.
1. Who do you propose pay for that?
2. Who decides for the world what risks to take?
3. The Space Shuttles are retired.
4. It would further decrease the difference between day and night temperatures.
5. It would not decrease ocean acidification.
The cost to build a space shuttle would be at least $2 Billion. To launch it would cost at least $500 million per mission.
Your definition of the word "practically" differs from my definition. You should be careful of what you call "stupidity". You seem woefully out of touch with political realities. Your whole premise - that there are people who don't want a government-funded solution because then there would be no fear mongering in an attempt to get a solution - is nonsensical.
If you begin with a leading question you will guarantee answers which automatically validate your question, unless people point it out and explain the fallacy.
You present your question without any reference to climate history, eg the Roman Warm Period, with enough physical and documentary evidence to show overall up to at least a 2C rise above the 13.8C world average temperature (as confirmed by the IPCC reports) benefits of warming outweigh the disadvantages, greater food production, less energy usage and fewer people die from hot than cold temperatures (everyone will die from hypothermia while heat up to well over 100F will only kill people who were already dying), and there were fewer wars as less competition for food and land.
Bearing that in mind, and the fact people prefer to heat their homes to around 70-74C, I would suggest most would prefer to be in a room or outside in a warmer temperature than a colder one given the option. Currently the temperature has risen no more than 0.8C since 1850, which is not inconsistent with recovering from an ice age, and not even close to reaching the dreaded 2C for at least another century even if temperatures begin creeping up again, so what's the problem again?
you lost me at "Using our space Shuttle" there is none. American Astronauts go into space on a RUSSIAN rocket.
anything can be done with the right amount of money. The technology is possible, along with dumping a lot of dust in the upper atmosphere.
It should not be a excuse to keep burning more fossil fuels.
Vegetation needs sunlight to grow. Why are alarmists proposing crap that will ultimately devastate life on earth? CO2 is a fundamental building block for life and sunlight is also a requirement for vegetation growth. Specific wavelengths of light even. Life cannot exist on earth without either. Alarmists declare it a pollutant. Now this? WTF is wrong with these people?
Life on earth flourished in times when the world was much warmer and wetter than it is now. No need to do anything. AWG is a myth and a fraud.
It addresses only the heat retention problem, a partial solution at best.
Basically that is similar to dimming. If we would just stoke up all the volcanoes and force them to have eruptions the problem could be solved.
Really, just let our creator control the temperature. He's just been doing a good job so far.
The sad thing is that people believe this rubbish.
Have you considered that some people might welcome Global Warming, what gives you the right to mess with the whole world using a technology as yet unproved that may well be disastrous.
Reminds me of those nutters who advocated exploding nuclear bombs in the centre of Australia to create n inland sea and thus bring the interior into agricultural use, potty, completely barking.
PS: You don't have a space shuttle any more.
Could it be done? Probably. Would it reduce global warming, in my opinion no. I believe it's caused by extracting oil.
Don't you think it will be cheaper to make your roof white, put mirrors on the roof, or better still, install solar panels on the roof?
I have posted the answer to this previously. The answer is YES. Several years ago I participated in a development program which resulted in the development and demonstration of reflectors ( a fraction of a mil thick) which could be folded into a 20 inch diameter 3 inch thick package weighing about 20 lbs which could be deployed in space in orbit above the earth to block an area of several football fields. Using our space Shuttle, which could deploy hundreds of these with one trip, enough of these could be deployed (at a very affordable price) over the span of a few years to block enough sunlight to actually have a cooling effect on the earth. The company which developed the deployable reflector was Sheldall Corp( which is part of the company that makes trash bags). The program was aimed at developing large orbiting reflectors to focus microwave energy from point to point on the earth , but the technology could be used to cool the earth.
I am not a proponent of doing so without carefully considering the effect of altering weather patterns, etc, But it could be done practically within a relatively short time.
Another Yahoo Answer participant asked this question a few days ago and I was astonished at the stupidity of all the 20 or so answers which glibly dismissed the idea. It is my belief that those answerers are opposed to the idea that the earth could be practically cooled because they are against the idea since it would take away their justification for fear mongering about global warming.
