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 →

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

This video?

The experts explain the global warming myth: John Coleman

It's on YouTube, which is cancerous. ;-)

[–]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.