Should We Use Cloud Geoengineering

The Global Warming theory has become increasingly popular over the past few years. Citizens of the world are being encouraged to be more environmentally conscious by others including politicians, celebrities, and world organizations. The problem with the theory lies in the fact that it has become more and more controversial as it gains publicity and attention. The basic concept behind this theory is that the earth was made with a balance of “greenhouse gasses”. These gasses are naturally occurring within the atmosphere and they essentially make the planet habitable by keeping it warm.

concerned of the effects climate change could have on the world. There is so much evidence that climate change exist so we need to find a way to stop climate change so the effects of climate change won’t happen. We soon learned that the cause of climate change could have been through greenhouse gases. There are different types of greenhouse gases, but the one we’re going to talk about is carbon dioxide. Greenhouse gases (which are located below the atmosphere) are gases that allow light from the sun to pass through the gases and some light/heat back out into space, but a certain amount of light gets trapped on the earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.

Patterson expresses a fear that “Man will be convinced by these climate cultists to turn his back on the very political, economic, and scientific institutions that made him so powerful, so wealthy, so healthy”. By framing his argument in a way that transitions from highlighting the scientific ignorance of global warming to the policies that such a worldview could impact, Patterson attempts to establish a chain of logic that justifies his concern for global warming as an influence on government. The language used in the sentence (“climate cultists” trying to convince “Man”, turning their back on beneficial institutions) also implies to the reader that the proponents of global warming are actively attempting to undermine the institutions that have allowed humankind to thrive in the modern world. This opinion is underlined later in the article, when Patterson contemplates why many “hope” for climate change catastrophe.

“Lets get right to the point. There is no such thing as “global” warming.” This provocative statement presented by the author makes

One of the solutions is geoengineering. It’s considerably cheap that even middle-income countries could utilize it single-handed. This shows that geoengineering could possibly help, but in order for it to work, all greenhouse gases must be removed from the earth’s atmosphere. Porter mentions how figuring out how to combat global warming on the cheap side is difficult due to the fact we continue on to exploit fossil fuels. The final thing Porter mentions is how the worst case for the deployment of geoengineering is the possible threat of a nuclear war. The thought of war is a terrifying subject, making the reader feel compelled to learn more about global warming, and thinking of possible ways to educate others. When arguments are convincing, it makes it hard for the readers to

The content in which the author’s argument is structured is crucial to the overall effect of her article. She begins with a statement describing how some feel uncertain about climate change and more specifically the disagreement about anthropogenic climate change. Subsequently, the author proves her main claim that humans are affecting climate change with supporting evidence from credible organizations. She continues to examine her gathered evidence to reinforce her argument as factual, and not merely opinion based. Towards the end of her article, she generates an emotional tone “our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it”, which connects her to the audience (par. 9). This advances her purpose because she then asks the readers to take action and listen to climate scientists, who have tried to make anthropogenic climate change clear to the public (par. 10).

The argument put forward by John Coleman, in his article “Global Warming Greatest Scam in History!”, is flawed mainly due to numerous logical fallacies. “Ad Hominem”, “Guilt by Association”, “Red Herring”, “Appeal to Irrelevant Authority”, “Hasty Generalization”, and “Genetic Fallacy” are some of the logical fallacies that can be observed to prevail in Coleman’s argument. As a consequence, the soundness, validity, clarity, reasoning and consistency of the whole article are insubstantial. Coleman’s premises fail to support his proposition that global warming is a scam, making the whole argument distorted and faulty.

Geoengineering can be a risky option to counter climate change, not just because it is not verified on the results that could happen but the unpredictable changes that it could bring to the Earth and new problems that were never expected. There are many uncertainties dealing with Geoengineering of the climate.

The main limitation of the article is that the author's name was not listed on the page. Also, even though the information in the article was very accurate and could be corroborated with other sites, the article website is not considered extremely reputable. The majority of the text is objective and factual although the author also included various opinions in the introduction. This was done to make the global warming issue more riveting, urgent and consequential so readers would be influenced to help avert the major effects of global warming. Nevertheless, the article is considered very accurate, well explained and the information is

One of the first men to give thought into geoengineering was Nils Gustaf Ekholm, a Swedish meteorologist who in 1901 “speculated about the possibility of climate modification via engineered enhancements of [carbon dioxide] emission” because he believed that elevated carbon dioxide had beneficial effects on climate and plant growth (415, Keith 2000). Decades later, geoengineering, known in the 1950’s and 1960’s as ‘weather control,’ was mainly seen as a way to improve the natural state or mitigate natural hazards. Both the Soviet Union and the United States were the leading countries interested in this ‘weather control,’ and from the 1930’s through World War II both countries conducted experiments dealing mostly with cloud manipulation and precipitation. For example, a Soviet experiment during the winter of 1960-61 is reported to have cleared clouds over an area of 20,000 square kilometers (Keith 2000). In 1946, the United States General Electric research labs discovered cloud seeding which sparked a huge interest in weather modification within the country. It was not until 1965 that the attention was shifted from modification of weather to the modification of climate in order to fix the carbon dioxide problem, which is the center of interest today. David W. Keith spoke about this transition in his article Geoengineering the Climate: History and Prospect:

Thesis Statement: Global warming is a growing concern of scientists and researchers who believe that it is a serious problem for our planet. The concerns and research have also been questioned and have even been called myths. Millions of people find themselves affected by these weather pattern changes and are concerned for their futures. Activists on both sides of the argument are very passionate and not afraid to attack each other in every way they can. There are many questions that are still not answered, however, we continue to see drastic weather changes to Earth. We must go beyond the arguments and learn as much as we can to stop what could possibly lead to the destruction of our planet, our way of life and our future.

Concerning Climate Change “Clear, Catastrophic threats, Manne opens the article with an anecdote, that  a “part of the english syllabus [as a schoolboy] was “clear thinking”” (Manne 2011). This anecdote should set up a relevance and an accessibility to the reader drawing them in and sympathising with the argument that will be put forward. Almost a third of the article is dense with data. “1500 or so leading climate scientists” (Manne 2011), “928 scientific papers”

Throughout the expanse of this paper I will be utilizing terms and phrases that may be unfamiliar to some individuals. This particular potion of this essay will be dedicated to defining any foreign jargon before delving more deeply into the topic at hand. A prima facie wrong, a phrase already employed in this paper, is the notion that an action may look wrong at first glance, but upon further inspection, and in actuality, nothing may be wrong at all. A couple acronyms will also be stated during the course of this argument: AGCC, ICI, and GHGs. Anthropogenic global climate change can be broken down into the term AGCC, while GHGs are the shortened manner of saying greenhouse gas emissions. The most vital acronym of the three is most certainly ICI, which when elaborated means individual causal inefficacy. Individual casual inefficacy states that common individual actions are too causally insignificant to make any difference with regard to climate change . The definition and importance of these terms will play a role throughout the duration of this paper.

Today we are debating the important topic of global warming. As the affirmative team, we strongly believe that global warming is caused by the actions of humans. But this is not just a belief, this is a fact. Global warming, by definition, is a gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth 's atmosphere generally attributed to the greenhouse effect caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, CFCs, and other pollutants. The greenhouse effect is the trapping of the sun 's warmth in a planet 's lower atmosphere due to the greater transparency of the atmosphere to visible radiation from the sun than to infrared radiation emitted from the planet 's surface. In simpler terms, this means that the pollution

“When taking the heating of the entire climate system into account, our planet has warmed at a rate equivalent to 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second over the past 15 years” (Cook). Our planet is becoming warmer. When scientists add up all the heat warming the land, oceans, atmosphere, ice melting, earth is accumulating heat equivalent to four Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second. Global warming is a serious issue faced by our world as there has been a significant increase in temperature over the years. But the article published by Dr. Mark Sircus on “Global Warming -largest science scandal in the history” refutes the theory of global warming. Dr. Sircus states that there is no linkage between carbon dioxide and temperature leading to global warming, the sea level is not rising, arctic sea ice extent is now higher and climate change is due to solar activity. Dr. Sircus also points out that that the recent weather changes are not in line with global warming and “we are in the beginning of a deep freeze” (Global Warming - Largest Science Scandal in US History). NASA and the scientific community states that global warming is not a hoax and there is a rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to greenhouse gases released as people burn fossils. NASA states that the “key indicators of global warming are based on surface, satellite, and ocean temperature measurements, satellite measurements of energy imbalance and of receding glaciers, sea ice, and