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 -  (3 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.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 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.

[–]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.