but I think setting the atmosphere on fire is a bad idea.
| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Signs, Portents, and the Weather- |
| Air Force plans atmosphere burn |
| 2016-08-13 |
| Posted by:Skidmark |
| #5 If it helps ours, it helps theirs also. |
| Posted by: Blossom Unains5562 2016-08-13 18:51 |
| #4 Doping the ionosphere with clouds of plasma to control the radio wave reflection properties may seem silly at first (maybe it is). But what happens in a peer-vs-peer conflict when the orbiting satellites get turned into clouds of fragments? |
| Posted by: magpie 2016-08-13 18:46 |
| #3 Bad for glowball warming, Bobby, but great for graft proliferation. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2016-08-13 08:05 |
| #2 Maybe it's just me, but I think setting the atmosphere on fire is a bad idea. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2016-08-13 07:48 |
| #1 I'm sure that, somehow, this will be discovered to be bad for global worming/climate change. Keeping the radio waves inside the more potent ionosphere will add to the heat inside the greenhouse. On the other hand, fewer waves will leak out into space, which make a beacon to |
| Posted by: Bobby 2016-08-13 07:33 |