White House cautiously opens the door to study blocking sun's rays to slow global warming

submitted by Drewski from eenews.net

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]StillLessons 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

Oh, yeah, here we go...

This is end-of-the-world stuff here. We can only hope temperatures go down enough in the notable future that they forget about this shit.

This ranks among contenders as the stupidest idea humanity has ever entertained. Two-part problem. First problem: what is the correct surface T on Earth? Well now, that's an impossible question to answer as Earth has never (never as in 100% of its history) had a stable surface temperature. What temperature, then, should we target, and what would be the consequences of achieving that temperature? Anyone who answers those questions with definitive answers is a fool and is lying to you. WE. DON'T. KNOW. And it is impossible TO know the answer to this question. This is the problem with geoengineering as even a concept. VERY STUPID to play with a system we don't understand. Kids playing with matches.

Second part of the problem: let's assume we could ignore part one, above. Even if we knew the temperature we wanted, what they are talking about is still insanely stupid. How much aerosol in the atmosphere will achieve that result? I worked in the "climate change biz" for about eight years. I have read the literature, and I am published in the literature. The least well-controlled variable in Earth's climate? CLOUDS. We have next to zero understanding of how clouds work, even after millions spent by NASA on precisely this question. So these asshats are going to fuck with a system that WE DON'T UNDERSTAND to achieve their goal. Let's imagine they introduce some number of metric tonnes of some particulate into the atmosphere to "block the sun's rays". Then they watch for a while. Oh, wait! We put in too much. The effect is greater than we thought! Hmm... WHAT NOW?!!? SHIT!!!! You cannot undo what they are talking about doing. You cannot un-cook the omelette.

Again, the first part of the problem is enough to put an absolute lid on even the concept of fucking around with a system we don't understand. BUT if they really feel the need to fuck with this system, it MUST BE REVERSIBLE. They would have to be absolutely able to turn off the fuckup once they turn it on.

Otherwise, they could literally destroy the conditions which make life possible on Earth with shit like this. Not just for humans. For LOTS of species. And they wouldn't even know why their experiment failed. That's the point. They are playing with a system they pretend to understand, but the level of understanding we have is far more primitive than they are willing to admit.

This is not a toy they should be allowed to play with. But it's just the conditions for life on Earth? How badly can they fuck it up? Right?

[–][deleted]  (10 children)

[removed]

    [–]In-the-clouds 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

    If they stop oil, how will all those rockets get launched?

    [–]UbiquitousCultOfSelf 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    They are stopping drilling for liquefied dino and plant remains, not closing down the hollywood sound stages the rockets are filmed from! Don't overreact here! We still need the money pumping into the "space" agencies, so kindly hush on the pseudoscience so we can continue with business as usual.

    [–]In-the-clouds 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    All those satellites in orbit, that power things like GPS and global communications, got there somehow, didn't they?

    [–][deleted]  (6 children)

    [removed]

      [–]In-the-clouds 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

      It's time for man, if he wants to live, to put his trust in the Lord God instead of in corporations or governments.

      [–][deleted]  (4 children)

      [removed]

        [–]In-the-clouds 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

        Many witnesses also saw his empty tomb and watched him ascend in the clouds.

        The prophecies have yet to be fulfilled for the Anti-Christ and the worldwide mark of the beast for buying and selling. But yes, the world continues to descend and this is the generation that will see the scriptures fulfilled. Jesus returns to rescue those waiting for him.

        [–][deleted]  (2 children)

        [removed]

          [–]In-the-clouds 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

          Yes, and the COVID injection was the precursor to the mark of the beast. Look at how much of the world accepted it, demonstrating they are now willing to take the mark in the right hand or the forehead, without which no man will be permitted to buy or sell. And as the book of Revelation (given by Jesus to John) says:

          Here is the patience of the saints. Here are they which keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

          It is the time of testing and purification for the body of Christ.... the time of great tribulation. With God's help, we can overcome the world. Nothing can separate us from his love, care, and mercy through Christ Jesus.

          [–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

          Particulates in the stratosphere are not permanent. All your fears are nonsense. This is a far better plan than the carbon credit road to tyranny.

          [–]MaiqTheTrue 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          I mean we actually don’t know that. We don’t know what they’ll use, or how much or how they’ll get them up there.

          [–]StillLessons 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          It's not either/or. You think that if they dump a bunch of particulate, they're going to stop with the carbon credit scam? You know they wouldn't. It's far too profitable (only for them, of course, nobody else). They'll do both.

          Again, the problem is the initial hubris to think that we are sufficiently knowledgeable even to know what "the climate should do", not to mention to control that for our own ends. I don't trust any "nudging" humans will do (dropping the catastrophism out of it to follow your lead for the sake of argument) to be clearly "better" than the system would have created on its own, without our input. The climate's going to change whether we do anything or not; it always has and it always will because it's a dynamic system. Is any change we provoke going to be preferable to the natural change in our absence? That's a bold premise from which to operate. It's a thoroughly unprovable proposition.

          [–]rrzibot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

          These are good questions that you are asking. Don't you want to find the answersnto them?

          [–]StillLessons 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

          "Answers" are static. The miracle of the universe is that it never stays still. The answer to today's configuration is rendered obsolete tomorrow because the boundary conditions have changed. Wanting "answers" is an absolutely human desire, and following this desire has led us to a lot of very cool discoveries. There are some questions, however, where the infinite motion of the system (at least on human timeframes) makes such an "endpoint" meaningless (an answer being an endpoint to a problem).

          [–]rrzibot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

          Do you prefer people to stay ignorant or understand what would be the impact of playing with the different methods of blocking the sun and how dangerous this is?

          [–]StillLessons 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

          Understanding and answers have two different meanings. Those who understand a complex subject matter best know they are offering rough descriptions (with huge gaps) of processes that can and do change with time. That's not the same as an "answer", which suggests the completion of a process.

          This is semantics, but it's important. For people to gain the understanding you are pointing to, we need to recognize precisely the constraints under which "science" is operating when scientists offer information and the models derived from that information.

          In fact, our exchange here illustrates precisely the problem I see in the climate debate. The political / corporate powers have decided they have the "answer" to climate change: carbon (now nitrogen as well...). Because they have an "answer", they can use that answer to reverse engineer the problem; answers are reproducible. But their answer is a ridiculously oversimplified model of the effects of a single variable (going to two...) on the system. They are distorting our society in radical and tyrannical ways based on their strategies to mitigate a problem using the incomplete information from a false answer. Now, in this thread, we're introducing a new variable: solar radiation. Solar radiation, just like carbon and nitrogen cycling, is not static. We're in this never-ending battle to impose our "solution" on to a system in motion. As I said to Canbot above, I remain firmly unconvinced that we are sufficiently wise or knowledgeable to nudge this system in a manner that will create a "better" outcome than what it naturally would have shifted to without our influence.

          Beware confidently-stated and defended false answers! They motivate actions that 99% of the time (made-up number, of course) lead to harm, not benefit.

          [–]rrzibot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

          To your point it is a complex subject. Do you think people should be educated on the subject, it's complexity, dangers, details and be provided with data and evidences of how dangerous and unpredictable these methods for limiting the solar radiatios are? Because the alternative is to have ignorant people that think they can blocks the sun with a let's say... an umbrella.

          [–]StillLessons 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

          This is why censorship is bar-none the greatest evil in history. Censorship is the prevention of having complex discussions. There's a reason the founders put the first amendment first. How can we educate people when the free speech required for such education does not exist? What I have written above would be disallowed from NYT, NPR, the alphabets, etc as climate disinformation (the modern term for heresy). So instead we rattle around in the backwaters like this site that remain small enough that the censors focus only limited effort in shutting us down.

          [–]rrzibot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          You are making a good point. Help me understand what do you think about my question?

          [–]twolanterns 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          sounds like a good formula for yet another disastrous 'solution' which takes more freedom stealing control to try to fix

          they COULD MAYBE make one hell of an umbrela out of those trillions of wasted dollars converted to single dollar bills and glued together ...

          [–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          What temperature, then, should we target, and what would be the consequences of achieving that temperature?

          People use the pre-industrial mean temperature. The IPCC reckons that 2°C warmer than that will have very negative consequences for humanity in terms of loss of productivity of oceans and arable land, and drowning infrastructure and homes.

          Ecologists have suggested 1.5°C instead, as there are many ecosystems that would be collapsing by 2°C.

          So these asshats are going to fuck with a system that WE DON'T UNDERSTAND to achieve their goal.

          We're already doing that will the greenhouse gasses.

          This is not a toy they should be allowed to play with. But it's just the conditions for life on Earth? How badly can they fuck it up? Right?

          It's not a great outcome. But neither is global warming.