Global Warning/Climate Change

[nett]

https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/1 ... e-climate/

A startup says it’s begun releasing particles into the atmosphere, in an effort to tweak the climate
Make Sunsets is already attempting to earn revenue for geoengineering, a move likely to provoke widespread criticism.

Boy, this seems like a great idea

You saying we SHOULDN'T release climate-altering chemicals into the atmosphere?

Correct.

[temporal1]

https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/1 ... e-climate/

A startup says it’s begun releasing particles into the atmosphere, in an effort to tweak the climate
Make Sunsets is already attempting to earn revenue for geoengineering, a move likely to provoke widespread criticism.

Boy, this seems like a great idea

i believe this “idea/theory” was discussed in this thread (2018-19?) - without the cute business name,
it was the idea of “putting stuff” in the skies/atmosphere to interfere with the sun’s effect on earth.

i might be able to locate that prior forum discussion. it wasn’t lengthy.

“earn revenue for geoengineering” is doubletalk for “getting a generous piece of the TRILLIONS in gov spending” -
which can be counted on to fund all manner destruction.

TRILLIONS IN GOV SPENDING: THE WORST BAD IDEA OF ALL.

we cannot pretend they didn’t tell us about the evils they have every intention of following through on. on the taxpayers’ dime (debt.) they have been candid. “we” have been idiots.

i experienced the years of THE COMING ICE AGE that didn’t come.
if these fools are allowed to tamper with the atmosphere, then the earth cycles back into cooling, it could be WINTER HELL.

no one is held responsible for major gov failures. they just get promoted around government: Example: SOLYNDRA / RON KLAIN
https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/10/ ... -mccarthy/

[temporal1]

2017:

So as we near 50 pages in this thread (by far the longest of any on this forum. only 2 others are even half that long) I thought I would take just a minute to write how my thoughts continue to evolve on this topic.

I am normally very critical of those that do not take science seriously or at face value.
Think GMOs, medical research, vaccines, farming and food nutrition research to name just a few.

I am especially vocal towards those that are constantly harping on the anti vaccine or anti GMO or anti pesticide train.
I fully recognize that I cannot be an expert in all these areas and must trust someone and so I choose to trust those that have made it their life work to study these things.

I do recognize that new stuff is coming out all the time and so I am constantly open to new ideas in any of these fields.
However I am very slow to completely change my mind in any of these things especially when the change involves an immediate radical shift from how things are previously done.
I am even more leery of such changes when the impact would be extremely hard on the less fortunate in the world both locally and internationally.
I am also very leery of things simply being defined as bad with no better alternative in sight.
That in itself often spells trouble.
I also get scared if the so called solutions are largely controlled by a monopoly or if lobby groups get involved in a big way.

So here is my dilemma.
The climate change debate does not fit neatly in any of my boxes.
There is ample evidence that the climate is changing. I accept that.
There is also at least some evidence that things that man does can affect climate change at least on a local level. I also accept that.

Where it gets much more fuzzy for me is the proof that we can in fact slow things down by implementing the popular changes that are often proposed. I am absolutely convinced that cash strapped governments are using it as an excuse to add to their coffers as well as to expand build government. Of that there can be little debate.

And as I have said before the prosed cures do not fit the implied dangers in many cases.
The immediate harm done to the disadvantaged IMO does not justify some of the radical implementations that are being proposed and so I am left with no choice but to continue to watch and listen.

In the meantime I think I do as much and in many cases more than anyone to reduce my footprint where it makes sense.

And I wonder if my grandchildren get to read this post 40 years from now, whether they will see wisdom in it or whether it will be perceived as being written by a dinosaur. Only time will tell.

[temporal1]

2018 / Page 92: GEOENGINEERING posts begin .. moving on to NASA / SOLAR MINIMUM ..

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/geoenginee ... 018-11-23/

A fleet of 100 planes making 4,000 worldwide missions per year could help save the world from climate change. Also, it may be relatively cheap. That's the conclusion of a new peer-reviewed study in Environmental Research Letters.

Dr. Gernot Wagner from Harvard University is an author of the paper. He said their study shows this type of geoengineering "... would be technically possible strictly from an engineering perspective. It would also be remarkably inexpensive, at an average of around $2 to 2.5 billion per year over the first 15 years."

From Robert’s 2018 linked report:

.. Although controversial, some think that trying to mimic the impacts of a volcano eruption is a viable way to control global warming. This proposed type of climate geoengineering is called stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI). Theoretically if done at scale — and sustained — the impact can be large. The 1-degree temperature drop which accompanied Mount Pinatubo's eruption is equal to about half of the human-caused warming Earth has experienced since the Industrial Revolution began. ..

Keep in mind, references to costs in this 2018 CBS report do not factor in present rampant inflation. Double everything. At minimum.

MULTIPLE-TRILLIONS IN GOV SPENDING

[Ken]

https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/1 ... e-climate/




Boy, this seems like a great idea

You saying we SHOULDN'T release climate-altering chemicals into the atmosphere?

Correct.

Do you drive an electric car?

[Robert]

This is another reason why I do not believe or trust those pushing this.

[Ken]

This is another reason why I do not believe or trust those pushing this.

How is the drought doing there in Texas? Do you trust the Texas Department of Agriculture? Let's check in: https://www.texastribune.org/2023/01/03 ... nsecurity/

Texas ag agency says climate change threatens state’s food supply

On the heels of a historic drought that devastated crops from the High Plains to South Texas, a new Texas Department of Agriculture report released Tuesday linked climate change with food insecurity and identified it as a potential threat to the state’s food supply.

The food access study, coordinated by the TDA and the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, notes that “climate instability” is strongly associated with soil loss, water quality, droughts, fires, floods and other environmental disasters.

2022 was one of the driest years on record for Texas, and about 49% of the state was still in drought conditions at the end of December. The drought resulted in failed crops, low yields for farmers and diminished grazing, which forced ranchers to cull their cattle and led to the highest amount of livestock sold — nearly 2.7 million — in more than a decade.

“From the agricultural perspective, concerns were expressed regarding droughts, drying up of [artesian] wells, water use restrictions, fire threats and dangerous conditions for farm workers,” the report says.

Extended dry periods devastated Texas’ agricultural production, said Victor Murphy, a climate service program manager with the National Weather Service.

“We’re seeing longer periods without any precipitation, then when it does come, it’s in shorter, more intense bursts,” he said.

In total, Texas received a similar amount of precipitation in 2022 as in 2021, but most of that precipitation came all at once at the end of the summer.

Much of the state went through the worst of the drought conditions from June to August, during the high heat of the summer while plants are still growing. This was a sharp contrast to the torrential rainfall totals that followed. At the end of August, the Dallas-Fort Worth area was hit with a 1,000-year flood that brought 13 inches of rainfall in 18 hours.

“It is very difficult being a producer to have high and consistent yields with this kind of weather whiplash of extremes,” Murphy said. “It’s extremely difficult to prepare for a precipitation pattern that features long periods of near zero rainfall and short periods of extreme precipitation.”

[Robert]

How is the drought doing there in Texas?

Not in my area. We got lots of rain.

[Ken]

How is the drought doing there in Texas?

Not in my area. We got lots of rain.

Over 70% of Texas is currently in drought. You must be in east Texas.

It is actually worse in Kansas and Nebraska right now where the drought is quite severe

[Robert]

You must be in east Texas.

Yep. Texas always has these dry spells. A couple of years ago, they had unusually high rain fall and floods.