Geoengineering debate shifts to UN environment assembly
Another "conspiracy theory" is revealed and goes mainstream. For years now, people have said there was "chem trails" being laid in the skies, with particular emphasis on the use of Aluminium dioxide, and possible negative health effects. For years people said "No, thats just conspiracy theory", and yet, now, they are at the UN deciding how to best contaminate the atmosphere to protect us from a non existent "global climate change"....nice when you find out it was always there....
PS, Freedom, Just posted part 20 and a short video on "Culling the population"...you might be interested.
Question is, what is their real agenda, most of us suspect what that is; but let's say they are truly ignorant...what they are doing not only harms life on the planet but will likely make the coming natural changes even worse that they will be normally.
I have posted the entire series of what we can expect in the future, Could Aluminum possibly mitigate the solar and cosmic radiation? Seems to me that the HOT dust and plasma would heat up the proposed aluminum in our atmosphere and really make things worse.
That ought to ensure nothing ever happens.
If that isn't enough to reflect heat back into space, maybe we need to go primitive and sacrifice important people to Pele (like the UN and their lemmings)....
Rather than withholding judgment, more comments are made proving the assertion.
My opinion: Global warming alarmism is a political movement supported by fraudulent data.
Facts:
-No experimental evidence exists that CO2 in the atmosphere causes increases in surface temperature.
-The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is (primarily) due to the take up and emission from oceans - see Henry's Law which defines CO2 solubility in water.
There being no problem, action taken as a supposed solution can only be harmful.
Then to further discuss this with huge meets and tasty eats, let's next all fly to Singapore, then to Tokyo, then to Geneva, then to Bora Bora and then to even Timbuktu.
Anyone else got a bucket list for places for us all to fly to before the world comes to an end?
Let's hurry now. AOC, the new darling socialist goddess of AC during her oft-traveled jet flight, pontificates that~oh, woe!~we only have 12 years to go!
The enormity of the problem compared to the benefit of slightly reducing carbon emissions is what terrifies people and causes people more prone to irrationality to deny reality altogether or make up conspiracy theories. We need to find more powerful tools to deal with climate change and use them very wisely.
https://youtu.be/TdoRvly02Bo
https://youtu.be/5BRURdS3-PM
https://youtu.be/fv2xNm8gMPo
https://youtu.be/eycwagUnr2c
https://youtu.be/ENeDkGce5-4
A few questions come to mind:
1) Who are “we”?
2) Who should determine the specifications for these “more powerful tools”?
3) Who should be in charge of developing these “more powerful tools”?
4) Who should pay for developing these “more powerful tools”?
5) Should such payment be voluntary or coerced?
6) Who, specifically, should determine when, where and how to use these “more powerful tools”?
7) By what criteria should “we” decide the best way to use these “more powerful tools” “very wisely”?
8) Who should pay for any damage caused by these “more powerful tools”?
9) Who should be held responsible if these “more powerful tools” are not used “very wisely”?
Looking forward to your answers.
Using the metaphor of the lake from my other reply, it's the people who deploy the fertilizers causing the algae growth. If they had to pay for the lost value of their neighbors' property, they might find an alternative fertilizer, choose not to fertilize, or find some anti-algae treatment that counteracts the fertilizer that rolls off their property. In all cases, the property owners pays, either by more expensive fertilizer, an unfertilized lawn or garden, or by paying for the anti-algae. It's the owner's choice, whatever maximizes value for her.
[#8 and #9]
If the anti-algae treatment has unforeseen costs, the person who deployed it has to pay for the value he accidentally destroyed.
Our legal system is better than most in human history. There are still many improvements to make. We're still far from perfection.
All your suggested answers are incorrect, i.e. not what I am saying, except for #5. I do believe in gov't force to protect property. So you correctly characterize #5 but not the others.
"1) Who are “we”?"
That's the rub. It's like having many land owners around a lake using various fertilizers that contribute to algae growth. Imagine the algae growth impedes various uses of the lake more than others. Somehow, they (the "we") have to figure out exactly how much net destruction of value there is who contributed how much of it. (I say net value b/c there may be some benefits to increased algae.) It's so easy to say this sounds like collectivism, so I'd rather pretend that the lake is big enough that activities on the surround land really don't have an impact. Obviously pretending is wrong b/c reality is what it is regardless of whether its consequences are problematic or helpful.
So the question remains, who exactly are the "we" that "need to find more powerful tools to deal with climate change and use them very wisely”?
We are the people who stand to benefit and loose value by getting energy through burning stuff.
This is a question we should be working through right now. I do not have the answer. My inclination is for prudence: "when in doubt, don't" The only lever we have that the evidence points to being reliable is reducing carbon emissions. Maybe there are other low-impact approaches, like increasing the albedo of human structure. I suspect these will be a drop in the bucket, so I don't rule out categorically stronger interventions.
Yes. We have a responsibility not to trash other's stuff and to make them whole for accidental damages. Yes we need courts or other institutions empowered to use force to protect people's stuff. "Carte blanche" sounds like giving the power to people rather than the law, which is obviously bad.
People who say property owners are a mythical group lording socialism over victims are engaging in pure straw-man fallacy.
It's outside my area, but my understanding is there's a direct line from CO2 emissions to global warming.
I see the problem being that no one knows the solution. I am not clear that reducing emissions moves the needle, unless it somehow leads to a breakthrough in an energy source and storage vehicle that don't cause global warming. So the idea CO2 causes global warming, so lets reduce CO2 might be simplistic.
I find the notion of denying the reality of the problem to be pure wishful thinking. Science is open to new evidence, and there are breakthrough where we discover happy surprises, like butter being more healthful than margarine. It's wishful thinking to cling to the hope that new evidence will uncover we were wrong and things are exactly as we wished they were.
It is possible that CO2 causes something else, and the something else (water vapor, cloud cover, etc) is the cause, but it is well know (among climate experts) that the direct effect of CO2 is NOT the issue.
Isn’t it interesting that this isn’t well publicized? It is possible to find information on this, but it is so suppresssed it should be scary to anyone wondering if there is an alterior motive. Of course their is, “power”.
This is contrary to what the evidence shows. It almost sounds like a political thing.
" the effect Al Gore described"
Oh... you are talking about politics.
This is all wishful thinking. Reality goes on without regard for our wishes.
This is just ignorant, contrary to what we know.
It's like asking me to post the answer of why in a multipath environment, such as an office, you can get higher data throughput by transmitting multiple streams of slower data instead of one stream. I actually know that answer and do not know the details of why releasing carbon --> global warming --> costly impact on property.
It's like talking to someone with a medical diagnosis, grasping for some way that it's all a lie or conspiracy. IF I can't explain to them the pathophysiology of the illness, because I am not a doctor, they think maybe the truth is just what they wish it were.
How can you be so certain that the story is right? Have you noticed that the temperature is not rising in proportion to the CO2? Have you noticed that the only unequivocal result of extra CO2 is that the planet has significantly more plant coverage because plants need CO2.
If it's getting warmer, why does no one talk about the benefits? Warmer is better than cooler. cold kills thousands every winter, even more with higher energy costs which cause people to keep their thermometer's down. Persistent cold causes 90% of all temperature related deaths.
So, if you are going to be the major advocate for AGW on the site, perhaps you should actually do some research like the rest of us?
I don't have a story. I just accept what the science shows so far. I won't be surprised if there's some major breakthrough in understanding in my life. I don't mean a breakthrough in that someone outside the field reading the abstracts finds a conspiracy, but real new information.
"Have you noticed that the temperature is not rising in proportion to the CO2? "
You're asking about the function relating CO2 levels to global temperatures. I do not know it. I suspect it's complicated because temperatures are a function of so many things. But it may be different at the poles vs. equator. This is way outside my area.
"Have you noticed that the only unequivocal result of extra CO2 is that the planet has significantly more plant coverage because plants need CO2."
I know the basics, about plants taking in CO2 + energy in the form of sunlight, and realasing O2 and storing the energy in chemcial bonds. The energy comes out when an animal eats it or it burns. I have a chemistry 201 level of understanding.
"why does no one talk about the benefits? "
"Research like the rest of us"?? Even my very basic reading of science articles on this topic has covered some of this. Some places are getting longer growing seasons. I am wondering if you have not even read the basics on this.
"Warmer is better than cooler."
If the temperature increases enough where it's noticeable, i.e. so much that the lakes don't freeze in WI, it would be hugely costly. This likely will not happen. In any case, it's very simplistic to say I like the climate of Tennessee better than WI's, so it's actually good if temperatures rise worse than the worst predictions. What's the worse thing that happen?
"if you are going to be the major advocate for AGW on the site"
I am not. I simply accept reality, whether I like it or not. Maybe this should become the site of denying reality in favor of conspiracy theories. It's exactly the opposite of what I took away from the three Rand books I read. In my reading, they're about what greatness humankind can achieve through work, reason, and liberty. Appeal to personal incredulity and appeal final consequences are obviously contrary to reason, but what bothers me the most is the fatalism, the idea that global warming is a disaster that will end the world or that statists are bound to exploit it. If you look at the unbelievable plenty that reason and human ingenuity have provided and the unbelievable liberty we have, all of it in ways that would be hard to explain to someone three hundred years ago, and you celebrate the achievement, the fatalistic view is that you're somehow undermining that achievement. So you must be lamenting how god-awful things are, like some bizarre parody of Ayn Rand with severe depression. I do not even understand this point of view, so count is a major advocate for reality.
If you simply look at the simple model described in the paper (linked below). You can see on p77 the attention to the effect of water vapor. In all present models, the dominant greenhouse gas (direct effect) is water vapor. The effect of water vapor is clear physics. The cause of a change in water vapor is variously assumed.
p84 notes "Suffice to say that clouds are the main source of uncertainty in climate modeling, from the toy system (this papers example) and the GCM (global climate model)."
https://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id...
You can also note the various areas of other uncertainty described, such as vegetation.
CO2 is quite clearly NOT the dominant greenhouse gas. All the experts know it, and avoid educating the common person because it erodes funding and power transfer.
The cognitive dissonance is yours, not mine. You have admitted you don't understand this but accept the positions of experts before. Do not belittle me with statements like wishful thinking, when I do the work to understand, and you simply rely on the word of experts enjoying increased funding from funded.
You're presenting it to the wrong person. If you're a scientist, go out and revolutionize climatology by presenting research to other scientists. What a thrilling discovery it would be if human activities did not contribute significantly to global warming. It would be even better if the research might lead to ways to modulate the climate to human needs.
I think we're talking about something that's not happening because you are most likely are not an expert in this field. But unlike some other arcane area of research equally outside both our areas, this one you and most other people really wish to get one answer. Despite all the increased funding for the desired answer, we don't rely on the worlds of experts getting funding. The scientific process tries to get at reality despite human foibles.
I suppose this invalidates your card to argue this subject here, and expect continued silence from you on this subject.
Science delivers the goods. Carbon emissions are already decreasing, and if irrational restrictions on nuclear energy were lifted and some breakthroughs in energy storage happened, the problem could conceivably go away. Unscientific people will move on to something else, not fear of GMOs, homeopathy, fear of vaccines, or conspiracy theories about every human event, but rather something I can't even imagine right now.
The examples you give each stand on their own. GMO, homeopathy, vaccines, etc. I agree with you on each of these. There is a key difference in every one of these examples and the CO2 discussion. None of them require economic freedom and power to be significantly redistributed. This is the reason to be additionally skeptical of the CO2 issue.
The simple fact that no additional funding has been applied to nuclear power, the only practical solution to the CO2 "issue", is clear evidence the people pressing the issue do not want a solution, they want power, very much like Al Sharpton. If racism couldn't be highlighted, he'd have to eat TV dinners.
You are welcome to believe whatever you want, but you should not disparage people who are skeptical and look deeper simply because they are not members of the closed climate science society.
I learned a long time ago that if someone can not explain something to me clearly such that I understand it, the issue is theirs (as an expert), not mine (as a learner). The fundamentals of this subject are not difficult: energy balance, radiative hear transfer, albedo, black body constants, etc. The higher-order effects are complex (and almost invariably less significant). It is quite clear from the fundamentals, as I have shown, that CO2 is not the issue as a first order greenhouse gas, very clear. All the climate scientists know this, and with pressing will admit it (sometimes it takes a lot). These last two statements should be troubling to anyone, particularly you.
Go check with one of you climate expert associates/friends. You will find out that it is true..."...but...CO2 is still the root cause...". Then you will no longer be able to follow the discussion, because it is no longer physics. It becomes various system behavioral hypotheses that are unverified.
Why would one avoid this simple question? You believe what you want, and I'll continue to study what I want and need to, and enjoy my heart, against the direct advice of the Chief of Cardiac Surgery at Yale.
My father had a similar experience. They recommended stints for his heart problem, although I think his problem wasn't inadequate profusion of blood to the heart. He had had colleagues who apparently did have coronary insufficiency who said stints were great. He was opening for a similar effect. The stint didn't help. Then he got another intervention that did treat his problem, and he amazingly bounced back to good health. I think delaying the drugs that solved the problem in favor of an expensive and invasive procedure put him at unnecessarily risk. If I ever have such a problem, I will really investigate.
"None of them require economic freedom and power to be significantly redistributed. This is the reason to be additionally skeptical of the CO2 issue."
Global warming doesn't require usurping economic freedom but I agree people definitely use it as a reason to undermine freedom and promote socialism.
The facts, of course, don't care even if the final consequences are that this changes everything and successfully sells people on socialism. That would be a horrible consequence. Consequences have no bearing on reality though.
"no additional funding has been applied to nuclear power, the only practical solution to the CO2 "issue",
It's such a shame. I don't want to apply gov't funding to nuclear power, but I think if we got rid of fear-based regulation and instead charged people the costs to others of burning stuff and the costs of maintaining nuclear reactors and managing the waste, nuclear would be a clear winner for profitable energy in the free market. Nuclear energy is scary to many people, making gov't interfere with it. At the same time, we're pulling fossil fuels out of the ground in a way that would not be profitable if people had to pay for the costs the global warming it causes.
Global warming is such a costly issue that the need to reduce gov't restrictions on nuclear power is bordering on an emergency. Energy drives human achievement, so this is huge. We should never have gotten scared of nuclear power in the 70s and 80s.
"The fundamentals of this subject are not difficult"
If that's right, they have me fooled. Like anything it seems easy if you do it all day. But I would not be able to read journal articles in that field (or any field other than electronic signal processing), and then put what they did into MATLAB, and device a way to test it. That's true for all areas of science. I find it laughable when people outside a field read some abstracts and think they've discovered something that would overturn the current paradigm. If this were true, and the supposed dilettante could actually revolutionize the field, she's in the wrong field. She should go out and do it. The answer usually is, "but there's a conspiracy". It's the same pattern for people who've discovered a perpetual motion machines and alternative medicine.
- You admit you don't understand this subject technically.
- I have attempted to provide first order math to illustrate my point, that I do understand. (not "abstracts")
- I have offered that you verify my assertion with experts.
However, you choose not to evaluate my argument, and rather attempt to reduce my position to that of an amateur conspiracy theorist. This is inappropriate and offensive. I am a well-established engineer, not a perpetual-motion crackpot.
There is no difference between this position you are taking and that of attributing "rightness" to religious experts/leaders. Using the word "science" in this context sounds objective, but it does not mean "knowledge" as it does in the Latin from which the word came. Rather, it is a cover for "belief".
If you don't have anything to add to the technical discussion, stop arguing what you don't understand.
I haven't even read the abstracts. If you're a scientist with a contrarian view, I wish you luck in upending the field. That's what science is all about. If you discover that there's much less or even zero cost to releasing stored carbon into the atmosphere, that would be a wonderful discovery.
If they did, it would not change the way the universe works.
"You are defending the right of the state and a political party to imposes huge burdens on people and saying because the world is ending, and have no scientific proof to back it up. "
No, to all three: not defending imposition burdens, not saying the world is ending, and not accepting fringe science.
"That is all this is, and it was made popular by one of the biggest liar charlatans in the last 100 years: "Al Gore"
Neither popularizers of science nor politicizers of science have have no impact on reality. If you want to see some hardcore politicization of science, read Naomi Klein. I only got through about 15% of one of her books.
"He has NEVER changed his behavhior, he rides around in private jest, huge vehicles, and creates more carbon than 10 families."
This also has no impact on reality, beyond the bit of global warming caused by the emissions.
I understand the urge to give up energy consuming activities, but I don't think that's the solution. If we live like paupers to avoid emissions, we've defeated the purpose of protecting the environment.
No. You may be confusing me with someone else, which is easy to do because there are so many radicals on the Internet.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...
Maybe this guy will be able to get through to you with data and facts:
https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-l...
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weathe...
What's the antecedent of "that"? Is it wishful thinking about global warming? If reality cared about my wishes, human activities wouldn't be costly. This would not only save money but also remove one bogus way to promote socialism.
This (above). You seem to insist the global warming gang is correct, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I have given you evidence of an overwhelminga amount that NOTHING IS WRONG, it is normal climate change, standard earth variation, and is driven by the sun, primarily.
Out of context I would not be able to tell if you're parodying people unsophisticated about science and reason. If we're making up reality, I would make up one where global warming isn't a problem, not only to increase value in the world but also to take away one argument from the Naomi Klein's of the world who will use any problem as a way to get to socialism.
[Sarcasm]Only the chosen few can see through the conspiracy and how they're behind all the facts and risks we don't like in the world.[/Sarcasm]
"THEY want you to "believe" in global warming, so they can use it to tell you everything you can own, eat, use, see, and design, AND also take every penny you own,"for the state". "
Setting aside all the ridiculous anti-scientific, anti-reason conspiracy theory nonsense, this one statement is true. There really is a significant population who won't let a crisis go to waste, who also thinks central planning is more efficient, and that seeking happiness for everyone but yourself is a virtue.
Reality doesn't care about these people and their activities. We have to address with the threat of socialism with reason, facing reality squarely.