An engineering solution to climate change?

[s2udio]

Please also let it rain skittles.......dreamers nonsense
Non of the current set of climate scaremonger' s offer any valid solutions.
Only ones to line their own pockets.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I really hope that was a comment in jest !!.........if not you need help, seriously.
Suppose the next "SCIENTIFIC" hah, debate will be how to remove CO2 from animal and human exhaled breath, wait for the tax on that , wake up sheep!
And then even say its" your" fault to make you feel guilty and the open your wallet
Gullible idiots and manipulated media, just listen to the EXPERTS  ???

In fact I just saw a blurb about reducing the methane emissions from cattle...  reportedly responsible for 14% of greenhouse emissions. 

I too am weary about chasing around this old tree....  The issue is not about the temperature of the planet, an objective fact, but about what to do...

So far nobody is addressing actively cooling the planet (except for an economist written study I mentioned right here years ago).

As I have long cautioned we are the top of the food chain and smart enough to alter the planet temperature, if judged to be in everybody's best interest.  We could cool the planet far cheaper than the economy killing energy restrictions, and feel good wealth transfer to developing nations.

We better be damn careful about what we are doing when we mess with mother nature (gaia).

OTOH when politicians start pontificating about climate change grab your wallet with both hands.

JR

PS: Science is not about taking a vote, that is politics. Science is about thesis and proof.

 

[living sounds]

So far nobody is addressing actively cooling the planet (except for an economist written study I mentioned right here years ago).

Could be very risky. It is a complex system and unintended consequences are always a problem. Unknown unknowns. Much safer to  try and keep things as they are.

 

[s2udio]

We better be damn careful about what we are doing when we mess with mother nature (gaia).

OTOH when politicians start pontificating about climate change grab your wallet with both hands.

JR

PS: Science is not about taking a vote, that is politics. Science is about thesis and proof.

Total agreement there JR
Nature is a far superior force, humans have no say in natures course, and rightly so.
Athough the majority  of the scientific community puts itself above nature, and then politicians see a gold pit funded by
Media and maketing tatics to misinform and appeal to a deluded electorate, that still think democracy exists.
As for factual real based proof........nada , zero

This nonsense from the IPCC today

Quote
Summary:

        The world’s leading climate scientists have warned there is only 12 years to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C and avoid catastrophic environmental breakdown.
        The authors of the landmark report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said urgent and unprecedented changes are needed to reach the target, which is affordable and feasible although it lies at the most ambitious end of the Paris agreement pledge to keep temperatures between 1.5C and 2C.
        Debra Roberts, a co-chair of the IPCC working group, said: “It’s a line in the sand and what it says to our species is that this is the moment and we must act now. This is the largest clarion bell from the science community and I hope it mobilises people and dents the mood of complacency.”
        Political leaders have been urged to act on the report. Christiana Figueres, the former UN climate chief who led the historic Paris agreement of 2015, said: “There is nothing opaque about this new data. The illustrations of mounting impacts, the fast-approaching and irreversible tipping points are visceral versions of a future that no policy-maker could wish to usher in or be responsible for.”

Absolute politically driven drivel.

 

[s2udio]

Much safer to  try and keep things as they are.

Sounds like something King Canute said trying to stop the tide coming in .

 

[desol]

I really hope that was a comment in jest !!.........if not you need help, seriously.
Suppose the next "SCIENTIFIC" hah, debate will be how to remove CO2 from animal and human exhaled breath, wait for the tax on that , wake up sheep!
And then even say its" your" fault to make you feel guilty and the open your wallet
Gullible idiots and manipulated media, just listen to the EXPERTS  ???

No. Of course it was serious!! Also, I was specifically referring to the 'stupidity' gene which would mostly likely have something to do with hollow head syndrome. ie: when there is a head present, but no brain...

 

[ruffrecords]

What makes you so sure you know better than 99% of the experts in their fields?

I don't. What makes you think 99% of experts in this field agree with this paper?

Cheers

Ian

 

[ruffrecords]

Scientists  are debating the degree to which climate change is caused by humans, but the mountains of evidence from a multitude of scientific fields is so overwhelming that the debate after many decades now has arrived at a place of "how bad is it going to be?".

That is the point. Nobody knows if humans activities have any influence at all on climate change.

Science is not decided by debate. It is decided by facts.

Cheers

Ian

 

[s2udio]

hollow head syndrome. ie: when there is a head present, but no brain...

I prefer to call it "Stockholm Syndrome"
Captive slaves will belive anything they are told by their delusional captors

 

[s2udio]

That is the point. Nobody knows if humans activities have any influence at all on climate change.
Science is not decided by debate. It is decided by facts.

Absolutely

 

[desol]

That is the point. Nobody knows if humans activities have any influence at all on climate change.

Science is not decided by debate. It is decided by facts.

Cheers

Ian

"The Role Of Human Activity

In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years."

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

 

[JohnRoberts]

and I repeat that isn't the real question.... what to do about it is... 

Convenient political strategy is to say "because of this, do that"... without justifying the wisdom of doing the that. "Trust me we're from the government and here to help you".  :

Keeping everybody arguing about the wrong questions allows the men behind the curtain to do stuff without much public inspection. I repeat I have heard very little debate about a responsible practical strategy, just feel good, hug the planet stuff.

JR

PS: I suspect governments are already running experiments about active global cooling (like just about every volcano does), but this is a political third rail so kept secret.

 

[s2udio]

Try to get better sources for the real information......
NASA is one of the worst "agencys" for disinformation.
Sorry to shatter your world model

 

[living sounds]

I don't. What makes you think 99% of experts in this field agree with this paper?

Cheers

Ian

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

Maybe not 99%, but well over 90%

 

[desol]

Try to get better sources for the real information......
NASA is one of the worst "agencys" for disinformation.

Prove it.

 

[s2udio]

Scientific Reasearch and Validtion is not a consensus
IE: 90% believe
Religion is a belief not a science, no matter how you twist the language.

 

[living sounds]

That is the point. Nobody knows if humans activities have any influence at all on climate change.

Of course we know. A few obvious points: We can look at our planet as well as at other planets in the solar system, measure the composition of their atmospheres and calculate the thermodynamic effects. We can also look at the historical record, analyze human activity and find a glaring correlation beween an uprecendented CO2 rise and humans setting carbon free.

A massive cognitive dissonance is necessary in order to explain away the mountain of evidence and avoid the only logical conclusion.

Please ask yourself WHY you are so opposed to the idea of anthropogenic climate change. Hint: It has usually nothing to do with science.

 

[living sounds]

Scientific Reasearch and Validtion is not a consensus
IE: 90% believe
Religion is a belief not a science, no matter how you twist the language.

Well, since the data we have overwhelmingly leads to a conclusion of anthropogenic climate change - why do you think it isn't so?

 

[s2udio]

Please ask yourself WHY you are so opposed to the idea of anthropogenic climate change. science.

Mirror mirror
Please ask yourself WHY you are so suppotive to the idea of anthropogenic climate change. science.

Hint : Do I  implicitly believe everything I am told by my peers through  my life from cradle to grave. ?
Quote
Well, since the data we have overwhelmingly leads to a conclusion of anthropogenic climate change.

Who is the WE ?

You only know what you seem to have been told.

 

[s2udio]

Prove it.

Prove the van allen belts dont exist