Topic: Climate change: Scientists test radical ways to fix Earth's climate - page 3. (Read 836 times)

As a matter of fact, my 'biases' were on your side as recently as the middle of the lifetime of this forum.  My 'biases' were implanted during my exposure to the state funded education system.

Once I finally decided to knuckle down and study the climate change issue it only took a few weeks to see the fraud, and after years more of off-and-on study, evidence favoring the hypothesis of the whole thing being a politically motivated hoax only gets stronger.

In my case the fraud perpetrated by the climate change scammers has induced me to delete a whole bunch of my 'understandings' gained through 'education' about the nature of 'science'.  As well it has induced me to increase my study of political systems, religious systems, etc, etc.

I doubt that this is the desired outcome, but it's also probably the experience of only a relatively small minority.  A bearable 'cost of doing business' in the climate change hoax project's balance sheet.  You (or I should say, your sponsors) are winning, but you are also creating a 'remnant'.  We'll see how that plays out.

The scientific community has an easy way of outing fradulent science and the peer review process weeds out anything that isn't credible.  All of the data used to reach a scientific consensus is reproducible.  If you have doubts about the credibility of scientific consensus, you are a science denier.

  My quote calling tree technology was sarcasm.  Its obvious that forests cannot grow back if the land has been developed or is still being used for farming or grazing.  Its true that temperate forests grow back relatively quickly but haven't traveled to enough tropical places because tropical rainforests have difficulty growing back once they have been cleared as the soil is quickly depleted.  Even a simple process like growing bananas and shipping them away depletes the soil because the nutrients are in the bananas being shipped away and that biomass never returns to the soil.

Scientific thinking involves actively rejecting your biases and identifying root causes or problems.  People don't destroy the planet because they want to, they do it for survival and profit.  This is because capitalism creates an economy that puts no value on the health of ecosystems, or the distant future.  Anyone who searches for the root causes of environmental problems will arrive at capitalism as the culprit.  This doesn't make anyone red or a communist but solutions to capitalism-induced problems will clearly be at odds with the mindset of maximizing profits at all costs.  
The question itself is a distraction from the cause of the problem.  Temperature change is a response to human greenhouse emissions.  Just one of the many responses.  Instead of focusing on one effect, why not focus on what the amount of carbon dioxide should be because its the root cause of all of the other things we are worried about?

Scientifically it is proven that we can bring climate changes by introducing the appropriate chemical agents into the atmosphere but it is practical? Even if possible it is not enough to bring changes on whole world.

So you are not going to answer my simple question.

Surely a climate Scientist should be able to tell us.

What is the correct temperature of the Earth?

If that's difficult, then can you tell us simply what the equilibrium temperature of the Earth is?

Note how easy this should be. I'm letting you pick the temp during the Medieval Warm Period, The Little Ice Age, the last 100 or 200 years. Or the average of the last 1000 years. Or the average of the last 100,000 years.

That should be Climate Science 101 - first quiz, first week. Right?

Those of us who know something about science and have studied the issue simply don't trust the data advertised by the chicken-little crowd.  It's demonstrably fake a lot of times, and you 'climate scientists' have been caught engaging in fraud for money often enough.


No 'technology' except nuclear fusion can 'take CO2 and turn it into energy'.  That is an ignorant thing for a high school physics student to say, much less a 'climate scientist'.

In my area when you cut down a tree dozens will grow back where they have sunlight to do so.  The same phenomenon exists in every part of the world I've visited, and I'm relatively well traveled.


I have serious doubts that you are either a climate scientist or a commie, but let's say for the sake of discussion that you are.  This would be a good example of a 'watermelon'.  Green on the outside and red on the inside.  The climate change scammers make no bones about the fact that their overall goal is to change the economic system of the world, which explains why they have no compunction about engaging in pseudo-science and outright fraud.

The sad thing is that a lot of the boots on the ground really in their heart of hearts believe in Socialism/Communism/whatever and earnestly believe that that is what they are working towards.  They are not.  The people who pull their strings (e.g., issue them grants) are the oligarchs who made their pools of wealth in the industrial revolution timeframes (often in the energy sector) and are engineering a way to keep and grow these pools of wealth in the post-industrial times.  You are not going to get 'communism' out of this green scammery.  The design goal is to get a more complete dictatorship with a technocratic control grid.  Those who actually do have a strong belief in 'socialism' will probably be bumped off.  But most of these people believe that 7 billion is to many people for the planet anyway, so at least they get to be 'part of the solution' for a change.

CO2 concentration and temperature are linked (greenhouse effect).  The natural limit before the industrial revolution had been 300ppm so  the temperatures that correspond to the correct amount of CO2 (180-300ppm) would be the correct temperature.   The problem is people who don't know science muddying the waters by injecting their own ignorance into the debate.

Scientists and meteorologists can barely predict the weather a little. What makes them think they have even a clue about changing the climate?

What is the correct temperature of the Earth?

As a climate scientist, I thought we had come a long way in the world but reading this thread has been very disappointing.  To see so much anti-science and pseudoscience amongst a tech-savy demographic is about as devastating as it gets.  No matter how much access of information we have, people still end up misinformed.   

There will never be a magic bullet entire idea that we can just invent our way out of living in an unsustainable way is why our backs are against the wall now.  Of course we have technology that can take CO2 and turn it into energy.  Theyre called trees and we are cutting them down. 

Geoengineering could bring the temperature down but not in the same way we are raising it.  Our goal is not to bring the temperature down.  Our goal is to keep things like they were.  An Earth with less incoming radiation, more co2, and the same temperature is still a completely different Earth. 

Reputable scientists, including those such as reporting through the IPCC on climate change, do not hold that it is a massive crisis. They do not maintain that massive countermeasures are necessary or wise. They do not maintain that climate change is a crisis that may cause massive numbers of human deaths.

But there are certainly things that could cause climate change.

In the 1980s, Carl Sagan and others popularized the idea that following a nuclear war, there could be a "nuclear winter" that changed the climate for perhaps ten years.

This was IIRC a complete hoax.

A large asteroid strike could easily change the planet's weather, along with killing most or all creatures.

^^^

Genesis 8:22:
Matthew 5:18:

There is something I'd like to know how possible is it for the climate of the earth to be destroyed, I mean climate change is a hoax, There is a God if we don't believe or believe and he made the whole universe. Sorry am being so radical but I guess there is still freedom of speech. If God made it and we know he is all sufficient, then am sure He can keep it safe. Haha

Aerosols are the LEAST UNDERSTOOD of all of the causes of, or things affecting "climate change."

I'm glad that you have confidence in your beliefs.

Next are we going to hear, "....the Climate Models SAY..."?

Yes, that's exactly how you create "acid rain."

Sulfur --> Sulfuric acid in little raindrops

That was seen down wind of chemical refineries in the 1970s until it was banned by those smart guys.

... So now the smart guys want it back?

I don't really dig this guy's style and all the adds, but he has good info and good reference notes:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqtspcKMdEY

I've come to distrust the 'main dude' on this stuff who's name is Dane Wigington or some such.  OTOH, Jim Lee and climateviewer.com is someone I do have confidence in.  This video leverages his work and gives him credit.

That (balloon slung hoses) an interesting idea and one that I neither ran across or thought up myself.

4 years ago or so I was highly skeptical of the whole 'chemtrail' thing.  Around that time I was spending a lot of time outdoors developing some land which happens to be next to a 150 square mile unpopulated forest.  When I bothered to look up into the sky, it wasn't a few weeks before I started researching this stuff.  Very odd things.

I started looking at other people's youtube stuff.  Lots of what I saw was suspicious and similar to what I was seeing.  Then after a few months something interesting happened rather suddenly.  LOTS of 'chemtrail' videos where some 'raving lunatic' was carrying on about a perfectly normal looking sky.

For the first few years of my observations I saw lots of artifacts caused by aircraft.  Almost without exception the most interesting things were caused by aircraft which didn't show up on flightradar24.com.  There were also things which showed up 'out of nowhere' with no aircraft visible.

Then I we went though a period of maybe a year where things where pretty normal, though the 'whiteout' conditions descried by those who want to do geoengineering 'in the future' claim will be an unavoidable consequence could be seen sometimes.  That is basically where the sky is no longer very blue but just a thin haze in the upper atmosphere.  As of the last few years, I see very little attributable to aircraft, but oddities in cloud formation are common as are 'whiteout' or 'whiting'.

Just FWIW, I'm just North of California.  During the timeframe where I was seeing a lot of aircraft activity, California was experiencing 'catastrophic droughts.'  They were also experiencing changes to the laws which gave the state a lot more power over water use.  And things like the development of 'watch your neighbor' phone apps so you could spy on your neighbor and report him to the authorities.  When the aircraft activities stopped, the drought stopped.  And indeed, they nearly had a catastrophic dam failure due to so much rain.  Of course the water laws put in place during the drought survived.

I remember someone suggesting spraying sulfur aerosol into the atmosphere to reflect the light. Basically make a long tube up to the sky using balloons and spray away. I don't think they've much progress but it's a simple idea.

Not sure how that would affect the atmosphere though or if it could end up producing harmful substances. The rationale is that this is what exactly happens when volcanoes erupt.

There are some fundamental elements of thermodynamics that fewer and fewer people understand (as more and more people are herded into 'school' to become 'literate'...go figure.)

'efficiency' has nothing much to do with the discussion.  For the sake of discussion we can assume everything is 100% 'efficient' and dispense with that word which is inserted mostly to confuse people.

Fossil fuels contain relatively high potential energy levels.  The origin of this energy was from the sun and it has been trapped in hydrocarbons for millions of years.  When we drill and collect it, we release that energy in the combustion chambers of our cars, our stove burners, etc.

We also release the individual components in the form of CO2 and H2O primarily.  These float off into the atmosphere.

I'm sure that if 'we' spend enough, 'we' could recapture the CO2 which simply requires out-competing plants which are doing the same thing as fast as they can and are basically starving for CO2 most of the time.  Then we must to feed energy back in to build another hydrocarbon.  Where does this energy come from?

I suspect that nuclear fusion is probably ready to go.  This is effectively unlimited energy for very little cost (which is not terribly welcome by the energy corporations among others.)  I suspect that all of the scientific fraud and dumbing down associated with the 'climate change' psy-op is to lay the groundwork for a shift to a 'carbon economy' where the exact same people who build vast pools of wealth in the energy sector during the industrial revolution move on to control the 'carbon balance' and profit by taxing it.  To save the earth dontcha know.

I've got a radical way to fix the climate problem. Just accept that the greatest problems come from war, attempted regime change, false flags, pollution, Big Pharma, over concentrated populations, and the weaponisation of weather changes. Lock the Washington, Westminster, bankers and other toy cupboards, and don't let the politicians have the keys.

#1 Ocean Spraying - so the salt gets in the clouds right? So what happens when the water fall down back to earth? I'm assuming they are going to do this over the Pacific but some of that salt would still get into the soil.

#2 Convert CO² - I don't think this can be converted to fuel. They can sequester it though to reduce the amount in the air. I remember hearing about this but it seems they still haven't found one that is also energy efficient.

#3 Algal Bloom - more trouble than it solves. Once the algae starts decomposing it's just going to consume oxygen, which is already problematic since water have even less oxygenation due to the warming temperature.