Scientists Want to Fight Climate Change by Blocking the Sun With Dust

submitted by format from singularityhub.com

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]StillLessons 12 insightful - 3 fun12 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 3 fun -  (29 children)

As a person with a history within the belly of the "climate science" apparatus, I can tell you this idea has been around for a long time, longer than the particular project this article discusses.

This kind of thinking puts its finger on a bunch of the central themes in climate change. The first problem is that if we accept that CO2 is actually the driver of our current change (a more debatable proposition than how it is presented in the press or in the groupthink of current "climate science"), then simply stopping the input of additional CO2 - which is what almost all the mainstream strategies are geared toward - would be insufficient. The CO2 that is already there will continue to warm the planet - again, important to note the assumption that CO2 is the thing creating our problems, which is a massive simplification of an extremely complex system.

This is where ideas like this come from. More than "stopping CO2" would be necessary. We would need to counter the warming from what is already there. Enter geo-engineering, such as what is described here.

The major problem I have with a strategy such as the one described is that it is irreversible. Once dust would be released, you can't get it back, and we are stuck with consequences that we honestly understand or can predict extremely poorly.

If we want to do geo-engineering, I would be far more interested in strategies that are reversible. There is, for example, an idea out there of "artificial trees", which are chemical stands placed in high-wind areas designed to leech CO2 from the air; said CO2 would then be injected underground (where it originally was, before we dug it up and burned it). What I like about this idea is that if we discover unexpected negative side-effects to our tinkering, we would be able to tailor it as necessary (remove "trees" or other adjustments).

But dumping a bunch of dust in the air with no possibility to undo what is done as an engineering solution to solve an engineering problem we created by thinking we understood the world better than we clearly do? These morons keep coming up with ways to add potentials of making a bad situation exponentially worse.

[–]hennaojichan 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Call in little Greta and put her back on the Rothschild teat again. That child genius will sort out the climate for us. After all, she nearly has a high school diploma. Putting dust in the atmosphere when the planet is entering a mini ice age—now—seems to be a very idea at this time. How dare you?

[–]kazenmusic 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Hi, I'm guessing that you intended to type "very good idea" /s there; but I want to tell you I laughed more at what you did type. "seems to be a very idea". LOL, perfect. If I'd typed that, and seen it, I'd have left it. Kudos to you.
As in, "I can't even"

[–]Airbus320 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Found u/gretathroatborg 's alt

[–]goobandit 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (14 children)

hey, I have a question. Would blowing dust into the atmosphere cause the same catastrophic crop loss and cooling that would happen if there was a chain of massive volcanic eruptions?

[–]StillLessons 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Back when "science" hadn't been put in such a straitjacket, you could have gotten a variety of replies to that question, with the potential for good information, and demonstrating just how complicated it is to predict climate reaction to a given input. In today's world, on the other hand, you will receive either "Yes!" or "No!" answers, neither of which is remotely helpful in the real world. The concept that science doesn't "know" absolute answers (which is the truth of what the philosophy of science used to be) has gone out of fashion. No one wants to admit how little we really know. Politicians in particular love to claim one side or another of <pick your highly complicated debate here> as an irrefutable absolute, often with disastrous consequences. They all have visions of being throned as the "science expert", like Al Gore. Now multiple branches of science are a clusterfuck beyond imagining as this cultural shift has very real funding consequences.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

I remember that JFK while President was convinced that the US government would "soon" (and he seemed to mean 1-2 decades at most) control the climate completely. I wonder where he got that idea? ;-)

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

I wonder where he got that idea? ;-)

Cause they already started using this tech to influence the weather during the Vietnam war. It was called Operation Popeye.

They can't control/predict the weather (completely), because they can't control/predict the changes in a number of external input variables:

  • Sun's magnetosphere.
  • Earth's magnetosphere.
  • Solar winds (ionized radiation, and non ionized radiation).
  • Cosmic rays (external inputs to the solar system, which is impacted/shielded by the two magnetosphere's above). Some of these have mindblowing particle energies (allegedly, anyway.

It's probably worth mentioning that I was also fooled by the global warming hoax for years, so...

I'm a recovered environmentalist.

/s/StillLessons

The climate models are useless, because they fail to account for (ignore) variations in the actual system inputs.

This is analogous to having a group of corporate accountants who focus on expenditure's (energy loss/retention), but completely ignore all changes in revenues (energy inputs).

[–]StillLessons 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

You have dug into details on an area I chose to stay out of in my comments. You clearly have more than a passing knowledge of the nitty-gritty of the concept of what was one popularly called "the greenhouse effect". In your other comment, below, however, you say that this is complicating a "fairly straightforward process". Your comment, however is anything but straightforward. I mean that as a compliment. You are addressing the actual physics/chemistry of how this "process" is supposed to work. Even in your comment, these physics have many layers, which makes them not "straightforward".

The reason I didn't want to get bogged down in what is actually a technical discussion is that I wanted to make only one point, which none of what you write (about which the people in the field spend careers arguing over) alters: when you dump a bunch of dust in the atmosphere, you cannot get it back. That's all I wanted to say. I found the details of climate fascinating when I was involved in the technical side (I also am a recovered environmentalist; I like the phrase), but those details in this case can serve only to distract readers without the technical background from the intuitive simple truth that "solutions" like the one posted by the OP are more likely to cause harm than good, even if you accept the premise of the change in the first place.

I, like you (though perhaps not quite as strongly), am deeply skeptical of the original premise of anthropogenic warming, but even if I weren't, even if I accepted it as we are directed to daily by our Dear Leaders!, the solution posited in the article on which this thread rests is still a monumentally stupid idea.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

In your other comment, below, however, you say that this is complicating a "fairly straightforward process". Your comment, however is anything but straightforward.

The scientific principles can be taught in high school chemistry/physics.

Suggesting that these concepts are beyond the grasp and understanding of the scientific community is absurd.

Additionally, the average person on the street can understand these concepts of they're adequately described with a given set of assumptions, and some basic analogies.

I explain this stuff to the neighborhood kids, and they understand much of it.
It's takes a bit longer to explain, and I have to think of creative analogies.

Climate hoaxsters intentionally create a unnecessary confusion.
This is done to manufacture confusion.

"Why not whip the teacher when the student misbehaves?" -Diogenes

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

While it is true that the BASIC PRINCIPLES of the CO2 greenhouse hoax, as well as that of the anthropogenic climate change hoax are easy to grasp, it is equally true that figuring out the equations that would allow even a strong AI coupled with a strong supercomputer to predict climate changes is insanely complex. There are, as u/StillLessons points out, simply too many damn variables and interactions.

As for the current models, (well to be fair, last I looked into these was about 5-6 years ago) they are so insane that tiny variations, well below measurement errors, of some of their input data can change a prediction from cooling to warming and vice-versa. They've had to adjust their models continuously since creating them, attempting to have them produce a consistent and "right" picture (of global WARMING obviously, otherwise they don't get budget) and they still can't do it.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

There are, as u/StillLessons points out, simply too many damn variables and interactions.

If an honest effort to completely model the inputs and outputs was being investigated, then I would probably agree with you, and concede this point.

Honest being the subjective term. Some people (extinction rebellion, etc.) are brainwashed and thoroughly convinced that up, is actually down, so...

Unfortunately, the variations in solar inputs have been either A) ignored, or B) fraudulently modeled to reflect the inverse of what actually physically occurs.

Grant funding is functionally non-existent for actual meteorology (in the physics dept), and is lavished upon the fake climate modelers, which isn't reflected in reality.

If the models do not predict observation, then they are worse than useless.
The current climate models are tools of propaganda disinformation.

Something with considering:

If I can easily and conclusively debunk CO2 global warming in a shoot-from-the-hip text forum exchange, then how are these theoretically "honest" climate modelers getting their lunacy through the peer review process?

Where are all of the others who understand the basic nuances of physics?

It can't be just be you, me, a handful of others here, and the kids in my neighborhood. ;-)

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

I had a link to a site where John Coleman (founder of the Weather Channel) had a long video explaining exactly how the hoax got started and got out of control. Of course the original was removed from all official sites, and the site I had found it on was pretty cancerous and stopped working before I could strip the video.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

/s/StillLessons doesn't appear to have any actual insight.

Would blowing dust into the atmosphere cause the same catastrophic crop loss and cooling that would happen if there was a chain of massive volcanic eruptions?

Crop loss could be similarly catastrophic for very different reasons.

The initial impact in the reduction in light reaching the surface, as more light is reflected back into space.

This reduction in energy input to the plants from a volcanic winter is much more severe, because the aerosolized particles reach much higher altitudes than planes can fly, and don't rely on the formation of clouds to reflect light.

The light that reaches the surface through the volcanic aerosols is more red (similar to a sunset), because red light has a longer wavelength and can essentially wave around these fine particles; while light with shorter wavelengths will collide with these particles and scatter (deflect, or reflect). This is called Mie scattering.
This is why sunsets are often yellow, orange, and red.
These wavelengths are passing around the particles in the atmosphere.

Light Spectrum And Plant Growth

Most of the photosynthetic activity is in the blue and red frequencies, which makes full spectrum LED grow lights so beneficial.

These aerosols filter out much of the available blue light.

Also, these volcanic aerosols are more persistent (multiple years), because they reside well above the cloud cover's maximum altitude, and aren't filtered out of the atmosphere by rainfall.

The location of the volcano has a significant impact as well.
The north and southern hemispheres have separate "oceans" of air that only interact near the equator.

So, volcanoes well above/below the equator will significant impact the hemisphere that they reside in.

Volcanoes located near the equator can affect both hemispheres, and have a greater impact (global).

Clouds formed by Chemtrails are white, and reflect a broad spectrum of light back into space.

Additionally, cloud seeding adds harmful (and unnatural) nano-contaminants that polute the environment. (See my other comments below for contaminant specifics.) These materials become trapped in the soils, and damage the natural biodiversity (bacteria, fungi, etc.) in healthy soils, which affects the balance of the soil ecosystem.

This creates a serious potential for long term damage to the environment.

I'm sure you won't be surprised to learn that this hasn't been thoroughly examined by mainstream science.

Cloud seeding with nano-particles is an inexcusable crime.

If you're interested in this then I'd recommend this documentary.

SHADE the Motion Picture

TLDR: The Chemtrails behave like toxic mirrors (reflect a broad spectrum), and volcanic aerosols behave like filters (reflect/scatter shorter wavelengths: blue, green, etc,).

Blue and red light are both required for photosynthesis.

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

Thanks, this is the info I was hoping for.

My thinking was that the dust is essentially acting like volcano ash so it’s cool to see how it’s different. Where I’m at now is /StillLessons said you can’t take it back once it’s in the atmosphere, so what would happen if they executed the dust plan perfectly AND THEN like Krakatoa blew up and you had both shits up there blocking the sun? Isn’t that a guaranteed catastrophe?

I don’t know, I’m obviously not a scientist...I watch some Oppenheimer Ranch Project and their Magnetic Reversal channel for weather, some Ice Age Farmer, and some Adapt 2030 and they all say basically the same thing you’re saying. I appreciate you responding to my know-nothing-ass questions because like you said it’s not thoroughly examined mainstream information since everything is focused on CO2 climate change warming so I appreciate you taking the time to explain even though I’m probably off the deep end with hypotheticals.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

The CO2 that is already there will continue to warm the planet - again, important to note the assumption that CO2 is the thing creating our problems, which is a massive simplification of an extremely complex system.

I'd argue the exact opposite. An attempt is made to complicate a fairly straightforward physical process.

CO2 is a gasseous molecule.

As such, it can only absorb and emit light at discreet wavelengths. Period.

CO2 is completely transparent to +95% (low estimate) of all visable/infrared light in the atmosphere.

This is because CO2 isn't a form of condensed matter, and therefore has no vibrational lattice to absorb/emit a broad range of other frequencies.

A vibrational lattice is necessary for any absorbtion/emission of a broad spectrum.

Man made global warming is a HOAX. They ginned up this idea at the Club of Rome on the 60's..

Conversely, water is overwhelming the most significant green house gas.
Water vapor (gasseous state) is similarly transparent to CO2, for the reasons I mentioned.

However, clouds are formed from condensed water droplets, as either a liquid, or crystalline solid.

The liquid/solid phases of water have a vibrational lattice, and can absorb/emit a broad range of frequencies.

This is why cloudless nights are colder (for example: desert nights are cold) than overcast nights, because the cloud cover absorbs a significant portion of the infrared light emitted from the surface, and re-emits a significant percentage of infrared light back to the earth's surface.

The goal of the cloud seeding (Chemtrails) is to reproduce the effect of cloud cover.

What they're not discussing is the fact that Chemtrails are full of nasty nano-particles of aluminum, strontium, and barium.
These materials destroy healthy soils, and contaminate aquifers.
The actual devil in the details.

Edit: The 99% of all material elephant in the system is being ignored.
The sun (99% of the matter in the solar system) is condensed matter, and re-emits a "full spectrum".
Actual macro scale climate changes (ice ages, etc.) are driven by changes in solar cycles.
These aren't well/widely understood, because of funding to the fake science of the "climate modelers", which isn't physics. It's bullshit.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Bingo.

[–]StillLessons 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Fully agree that the "models" are garbage, given the poor understanding of the inputs on which the results are based. 100% on board there.

The one thing which keeps me from being as ruthless as you in trashing the whole field is that while past climate cycles were triggered by solar cycles (we agree on that), the correlation in the core records is clear: when temperature began rising, it was associated with an increase in atmospheric carbon. That carbon then appears to have reinforced the warming in past episodes. There are no historical analogs to a situation where a bunch of carbon associated with industrial activity is relatively suddenly (from a planetary perspective) moved from the lithosphere to the atmosphere. In the past, carbon has been a product of warming cycles, but also likely acted to reinforce those cycles. I'm not quite as willing as you to completely dismiss the effects of a new pool of atmospheric carbon when this has never happened before. We truly are in uncharted territory regarding how the planet will react / is reacting.

That said, I am far more closely in tune with your perspective than I am with the patently false narrative being promoted in the popular/political arena regarding climate. John Kerry - just yesterday - said, "We have nine more years!" [shocked gasp, oh God, honey, get the kids!!!]. Thinking of climate in this way is the height of ignorance.

Who was it who recently said the Enlightenment is over? Sounds about right to me.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There are no historical analogs to a situation where a bunch of carbon associated with industrial activity is relatively suddenly

Carbon trapped by dead dinosaurs is another absurd hoax.

https://www.rt.com/business/exxon-sakhalin-well-record-727/

The shaft of well Z-44 is 12,376 meter deep (40,840 ft), which is the equivalent to 15 times the height of the world tallest skyscraper the Burj Khalifa in Dubai.

Scientists found microscopic fossils of single-celled organisms at 4.3 miles (22,704 ft)(7 kilometers) down. And at nearly the same depth, they discovered water. They also found that the temperature at the bottom of the hole reached a blistering 356°F (180°C). Too hot to continue, drilling officially halted in 1994.

So, we have two choices.

Either:

If "fossil fuels" managed to migrate an additional 18,000 feet through solid rock from the deepest location where they have ever been discovered.

Or..

Drilled hydrocarbons are abiotic, and are created in the natural environment deep underground.

The process requires heat and significant pressure, and has already been reproduced in a lab back in the 1920's.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemical-engineering/fischer-tropsch-synthesis

Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis, developed in the 1920s, is a highly successful method for the production of liquid hydrocarbons from syngas. The FT process can produce high-quality diesel oil from biomass or coal with no aromatics and with a high Cetane number (>70). The composition of this product is very similar to that of petrodiesel.

If this process requires energy input.

The earth's core is arguably the largest heat source on the planet, so...

One last detail.

Oil wells have been known to refill...

Oil Fields Are Refilling...Naturally - Sometimes Rapidly ...

Although it sounds too good to be true, increasing evidence from the Gulf of Mexico suggests that some old oil fields are being refilled by petroleum surging up from deep below, scientists report. That may mean that current estimates of oil and gas abundance are far too low.

Ever wonder why all of the pipelines are still being built around the US???

Who was it who recently said the Enlightenment is over? Sounds about right to me.

We're in the era of propaganda, shills, and corporate sciencism.

It's easy to debunk these scumbags if you know what to look for.

[–]No_ 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Co2 Doesn’t warm the climate, it keeps warmth in.

The sun warms the climate, and blocking the sun will prevent some of it gettin in.

[–]GConly 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I was more a fan of the idea of orbiting panels to block a little light.

Much easier to remove or alter.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Or moving the earth out a little further in it's orbit, which is just as likely as the nations being able to launch up enough panels to make a difference. The ISS is a joke, I call it the International shanty station since it's just an ad-hock conglomeration of junk. Where are the big orbiting ring stations they talked about in the 1960's? Well someone finally did the math on how much it would be to boost all the shit into orbit and the cost was astronomical.

I see bezos is rehashing the idea now, he want's to replace Musk as the chief cock-jerker of the techie brigade and that means cooking up even more outlandish dreams than the South African huckster has to date. On any given day a solar flare can erupt and wipe out the global electronic systems we have built. If that happens Amazon will cease to exist, followed a month or so later by a few billion people who though it was smart to rely solely on week to week shopping at the local supermarkets and takeaway shops. Ahhh, the world is truly an amazing place.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Here, have a look at the toerag he got to replace his wife! With all those billions and this is the best he can do? He should kill himself.

https://www.the-sun.com/news/735517/homes-amazon-boss-jeff-bezos/

[–]kazenmusic 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's just occurred to me looking at this pic, remembering back at all the years of "plastic surgery gone wrong" pics- that look, that "gone wrong" look, is the same every time, more or less. Hm.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I thought that too, a real freakshow! All I can say is she must give Goood blowjobs and that he never got any from his wife.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It seems as reckless as injecting the majority of the world's population with DNA-altering "vaccines" and hoping things will work out fine. FOR MONEY.