You left yesterday at a pretty convenient time.
the climate change scam
- Thread starter kinglear
- Start date
so for a long time now so called 'conspiracy theorists' have been claiming that the deep state has been spraying nanoparticulates into the atmosphere from planes and now some scientists are calling for governments to do just that
However they are already clearly doing it so what this is a disclosure except they will claim they are only just starting to spray and that they are doing it to combat 'climate change' when they have already been meddling with the weather for decades!
A last-ditch global warming fix? A man-made 'volcanic' eruption
Scientists and some environmentalists believe nations might have to mimic volcanic gases as a last-ditch effort to protect Earth from extreme warming.
by James Rainey / Oct. 11, 2018 / 11:47 AM ET
The international panel charged with reining in climate change said this week that the world needs to take "unprecedented" steps to remake its energy, transportation and agriculture systems to avoid the worst effects of global warming.
What the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change did not discuss was an even more radical potential response — one that would re-engineer Earth’s stratosphere to create a massive heat shield by effectively duplicating the fallout that follows a volcanic eruption.
This kind of revolutionary “solar geoengineering” — known by some as the “Pinatubo Strategy,” after a volcano whose 1991 eruption shrouded the planet in a sulfurous cloud — was once relegated to a far corner of academia. But a number of scientists and environmental advocates said this week that the IPCC report — punctuated by Hurricane Michael, which hit the Florida panhandle and may have been intensified by global warming — argues for speeding up the study of the once unthinkable.
“The politics of this were impossible a few years ago. But not so much now,” said Rafe Pomerance, chairman of the environmental alliance Arctic 21 and a four-decade advocate of increased action on global warming. “If we think the problem of climate change is catastrophic, how can we say that we can’t at least consider this as an option?”
That view was seconded this week by the “grandfather” of modern climate science, by the founder of the Harvard laboratory that is a center of geoengineering research and even by scientists who have raised serious reservations about human tampering with the Earth's singular climate system.
“I think it makes sense to have a substantially larger research effort on solar geoengineering,” said David Keith, the professor of applied physics who leads Harvard’s Solar Geoengineering Research Program. Like others who have looked at the unusual alternative, Keith believes that humankind’s primary focus should be on reducing greenhouse gas emissions by cutting coal-powered energy, shifting to non-fossil-fuel burning vehicles, and many other changes.
“No scientists working in the field think geoengineering is a 'solution' to the global warming program,” said Alan Robock, a professor of atmospheric science at Rutgers University. “It may be a temporary Band-Aid or tourniquet, but only mitigation will solve the global warming problem.”
The climate intervention most commonly discussed by researchers grows out of observations made following two very large volcanic eruptions — at El Chichon in the Mexican state of Chiapas in 1982 and at Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991. In both cases, sulfur dioxide gas from the volcanoes spiraled into upper layers of the Earth’s atmosphere known as the stratosphere. There, the gas combined with hydrogen and produced the fine droplets or powder that scientists called “aerosols.” Those particles reflected enough sunlight back into space to cool Earth’s surface by 0.3 to 0.5 degrees Celsius (nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit). In the case of Pinatubo, the cooling lasted for about a year.
Researchers have envisioned duplicating the phenomenon by launching jets equipped to fly to 70,000 feet, the lower reaches of the stratosphere, where they would release a sulfur compound. The effort would bleach blue skies a lighter color and make sunsets more vivid, while shielding Earth from some of the sun's rays.
The flights would have to be numerous and long-running to create anything like the reflective power of the volcanic eruptions. But Keith and others believe the technical hurdles could be cleared and an aerosol “umbrella” created, at least for a time.
The National Center for Atmospheric Research, a nonprofit that is a leading climate research center, has run computer simulations that show such a program would cool the Earth’s surface. The cooling could reach 1 degree Celsius if Pinatubo-level sulfur injections could be duplicated continuously, said Simone Tilmes, a research scientist at the Boulder, Colorado-based center.
Without endorsing or rejecting such a project, the National Academy of Sciences in 2015 recommended more research. The Obama administration also endorsed more study.
So what are the potential drawbacks?
Many, according to a list of 27 “concerns and risks” outlined by Robock in a 2016 paper that also concluded more research was needed. Among the potential downsides: depleting the ozone layer, failing to slow ocean acidification, slowing plant and crop growth, diminishing solar electric power and — among the most daunting concerns — triggering unexpected consequences.
One unintended consequence of climate engineering might be the “moral hazard” of driving humanity away from the kind of deep-seated cultural, economic and political changes needed to put the planet on a more sustainable path, Robock wrote.
The Rutgers scientist also expressed alarm at how some researchers seemed to ignore potential risks when he first heard the subject discussed, at a meeting in 2006. “The hubris of some, who thought that this was just a mechanical or physical problem to solve,” Robock wrote, “and the lack of awareness of the science of climate change and the natural chaotic variability of climate, was very scary.”
Tilmes agreed that the work should proceed judiciously "in order to understand if this approach should be considered as an option in addition to large-scale mitigation. At this point, there are too many uncertainties to rely on [geoengineering] and more research is needed."
Scientists in the field are nearly unanimous in believing that humanity must radically reduce the amount of carbon it pumps into the atmosphere to preserve the long-term livability of the planet. The IPCC report this week said that any temperature increase of more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (about 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) will increase droughts, coastal flooding and destruction of critical natural habitats like coral reefs and Arctic permafrost.
But progress toward that target remains painfully slow, said Wallace Broecker, a professor of geology at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.
“We are converting to non-fossil fuels at a little less than 1 percent a year and that means it takes 100 years to completely move off fossil fuels,” Broecker said. “We have really put ourselves in a very dangerous position by letting so much carbon dioxide go into the atmosphere without any short-term hope of getting it back again.”
The veteran scientist, dubbed the "grandfather" of climate change research, said he does not see the kind of "heart" and political will needed to sustain "a World War II-scale effort" to limit greenhouse gases. "So far, actual action is small," Broecker said. "So I am convinced that, at some time, we will have to get into geoengineering.”
While not a preferred option, creating a shield for some of the sun’s heat could be a temporary solution that allows humankind time to reduce behaviors that are warming the planet, advocates say.
“If you took a vote, there would be a lot of opposition to trying this, because people don’t want mankind to start fooling around with climate,” Broecker said. “They are right. But maybe we are going to have to.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna918826
However they are already clearly doing it so what this is a disclosure except they will claim they are only just starting to spray and that they are doing it to combat 'climate change' when they have already been meddling with the weather for decades!
A last-ditch global warming fix? A man-made 'volcanic' eruption
Scientists and some environmentalists believe nations might have to mimic volcanic gases as a last-ditch effort to protect Earth from extreme warming.
by James Rainey / Oct. 11, 2018 / 11:47 AM ET
The international panel charged with reining in climate change said this week that the world needs to take "unprecedented" steps to remake its energy, transportation and agriculture systems to avoid the worst effects of global warming.
What the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change did not discuss was an even more radical potential response — one that would re-engineer Earth’s stratosphere to create a massive heat shield by effectively duplicating the fallout that follows a volcanic eruption.
This kind of revolutionary “solar geoengineering” — known by some as the “Pinatubo Strategy,” after a volcano whose 1991 eruption shrouded the planet in a sulfurous cloud — was once relegated to a far corner of academia. But a number of scientists and environmental advocates said this week that the IPCC report — punctuated by Hurricane Michael, which hit the Florida panhandle and may have been intensified by global warming — argues for speeding up the study of the once unthinkable.
“The politics of this were impossible a few years ago. But not so much now,” said Rafe Pomerance, chairman of the environmental alliance Arctic 21 and a four-decade advocate of increased action on global warming. “If we think the problem of climate change is catastrophic, how can we say that we can’t at least consider this as an option?”
That view was seconded this week by the “grandfather” of modern climate science, by the founder of the Harvard laboratory that is a center of geoengineering research and even by scientists who have raised serious reservations about human tampering with the Earth's singular climate system.
“I think it makes sense to have a substantially larger research effort on solar geoengineering,” said David Keith, the professor of applied physics who leads Harvard’s Solar Geoengineering Research Program. Like others who have looked at the unusual alternative, Keith believes that humankind’s primary focus should be on reducing greenhouse gas emissions by cutting coal-powered energy, shifting to non-fossil-fuel burning vehicles, and many other changes.
“No scientists working in the field think geoengineering is a 'solution' to the global warming program,” said Alan Robock, a professor of atmospheric science at Rutgers University. “It may be a temporary Band-Aid or tourniquet, but only mitigation will solve the global warming problem.”
The climate intervention most commonly discussed by researchers grows out of observations made following two very large volcanic eruptions — at El Chichon in the Mexican state of Chiapas in 1982 and at Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991. In both cases, sulfur dioxide gas from the volcanoes spiraled into upper layers of the Earth’s atmosphere known as the stratosphere. There, the gas combined with hydrogen and produced the fine droplets or powder that scientists called “aerosols.” Those particles reflected enough sunlight back into space to cool Earth’s surface by 0.3 to 0.5 degrees Celsius (nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit). In the case of Pinatubo, the cooling lasted for about a year.
Researchers have envisioned duplicating the phenomenon by launching jets equipped to fly to 70,000 feet, the lower reaches of the stratosphere, where they would release a sulfur compound. The effort would bleach blue skies a lighter color and make sunsets more vivid, while shielding Earth from some of the sun's rays.
The flights would have to be numerous and long-running to create anything like the reflective power of the volcanic eruptions. But Keith and others believe the technical hurdles could be cleared and an aerosol “umbrella” created, at least for a time.
The National Center for Atmospheric Research, a nonprofit that is a leading climate research center, has run computer simulations that show such a program would cool the Earth’s surface. The cooling could reach 1 degree Celsius if Pinatubo-level sulfur injections could be duplicated continuously, said Simone Tilmes, a research scientist at the Boulder, Colorado-based center.
Without endorsing or rejecting such a project, the National Academy of Sciences in 2015 recommended more research. The Obama administration also endorsed more study.
So what are the potential drawbacks?
Many, according to a list of 27 “concerns and risks” outlined by Robock in a 2016 paper that also concluded more research was needed. Among the potential downsides: depleting the ozone layer, failing to slow ocean acidification, slowing plant and crop growth, diminishing solar electric power and — among the most daunting concerns — triggering unexpected consequences.
One unintended consequence of climate engineering might be the “moral hazard” of driving humanity away from the kind of deep-seated cultural, economic and political changes needed to put the planet on a more sustainable path, Robock wrote.
The Rutgers scientist also expressed alarm at how some researchers seemed to ignore potential risks when he first heard the subject discussed, at a meeting in 2006. “The hubris of some, who thought that this was just a mechanical or physical problem to solve,” Robock wrote, “and the lack of awareness of the science of climate change and the natural chaotic variability of climate, was very scary.”
Tilmes agreed that the work should proceed judiciously "in order to understand if this approach should be considered as an option in addition to large-scale mitigation. At this point, there are too many uncertainties to rely on [geoengineering] and more research is needed."
Scientists in the field are nearly unanimous in believing that humanity must radically reduce the amount of carbon it pumps into the atmosphere to preserve the long-term livability of the planet. The IPCC report this week said that any temperature increase of more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (about 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) will increase droughts, coastal flooding and destruction of critical natural habitats like coral reefs and Arctic permafrost.
But progress toward that target remains painfully slow, said Wallace Broecker, a professor of geology at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.
“We are converting to non-fossil fuels at a little less than 1 percent a year and that means it takes 100 years to completely move off fossil fuels,” Broecker said. “We have really put ourselves in a very dangerous position by letting so much carbon dioxide go into the atmosphere without any short-term hope of getting it back again.”
The veteran scientist, dubbed the "grandfather" of climate change research, said he does not see the kind of "heart" and political will needed to sustain "a World War II-scale effort" to limit greenhouse gases. "So far, actual action is small," Broecker said. "So I am convinced that, at some time, we will have to get into geoengineering.”
While not a preferred option, creating a shield for some of the sun’s heat could be a temporary solution that allows humankind time to reduce behaviors that are warming the planet, advocates say.
“If you took a vote, there would be a lot of opposition to trying this, because people don’t want mankind to start fooling around with climate,” Broecker said. “They are right. But maybe we are going to have to.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna918826
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent."
To be fair 'Probably puzzlenuzzle' @Deleted member 16771 .. perception management is very evident in UK e.g. Brexit. Before the referendum I had never seen as much bullshit in my entire little life
yes the BBC (government propaganda arm) was very clearly anti-brexit
the corporate media pushed 'project fear' to try and scare people into voting to remain in the EU
the 'remain' campaign was of course funded by goldman sachs who were also involved in the economic destruction of greece
no it was legit
the majority that voted decided to leave the EU despite the big corporate forces trying to bully them into staying
the same thing happened with the irish with the lisbon treaty referendum. The irish said no to the treaty so the powers that be ramped up project fear in the corporate media and then they made the people take another referendum
basically they bullied them into voting how the elites wanted them to vote
despite the british people saying they want out of the EU they are still in after two years with the prime minister trying to extend the period and keep the UK in a customs union ie still in the EU
none of the people who voted to brexit are shocked at all
the only thing they don't like there is paying any money to the EU
people who voted 'leave' knew exactly what they wanted. They wanted out of the EU, out of the customs union, control over their borders and the ability to trade with the rest of the world
the EU is a major exporter to the UK and needs its trade. There was no need for a 'transition period' as without any deal things simply resort to world trade organisation rules
Yes there are plenty shocked. 'I didn't know this would happen', 'what about my amazon
' etc. Not everyone understood the extent of things beyond immigration.
Yes there are plenty shocked. 'I didn't know this would happen', 'what about my amazon
Not everyone understood the extent of things beyond immigration.
Yes there are plenty shocked. 'I didn't know this would happen', 'what about my amazon
Not everyone understood the extent of things beyond immigration.
says who?
no one expected a migrant crisis and a wave of terrorist attacks and rapes across europe but they got them
no one expected the economies to collapse across europe leaving countries like greece, spain, italy and portugal with terrible youth unemployment
no one expected 'no go' areas in sweden and grenade attacks
Says the public in UK.
what does that have to do with the other?
But, yes, many did expect wave of terrorist attacks - ISIS explicitly stated that among refugees are terrorists.
Many expected 'no go' areas in Sweden to happen & some kind of attacks to happen too.
How can people not expect that the economy will collapse now and then? What about the Great Depression??
I think its common sense to make yourself aware of the consequences of what happens once leaving EU. Its not like they can vote again in 4 years!
which UK public?
what you really mean is that you read in your elite owned media that the british public actually want to stay in the elite controlled EU and it was all just a missunderstanding when they voted to leave...
you are wrong about that
i warned people it would happen online but i was called all kinds of names by some communists who i was debating with
turned out i was right
the great depression happened after the creation of the US central bank which was supposed to stabilise the economy except it didn't and ever since its creation the value of the dollar has fallen, the wealth has moved upwards into the hands of a few and there are cyclical boom and busts where the central bankers sheer the public like sheep of all their wealth and assets
its a con
well we don't have brexit at the moment and its looking like the elites like theresa may are trying to block it from happening
theresa may by the way was responsible for appointing the people to chair the sexual abuse scandal investigations except she kept appointing chairpeople who were friends with the accused members of the elite...
Are you in the UK? talk to the public and you will see. Read peoples comments on news etc etc. It has turned into a joke.
I don't mean that I read anything anywhere. Most of them had no idea of the consequences. It was lied to them that if they stay this will happen and if they leave this will happen.
They later found out that what they were promised would happen and not happen wasn't that simple.
So they were misled.
No. There are other countries in the world, and also the people you might have been arguing about don't count up for the entire human race.
Yes okay whatever, but if you watch documentaries about countries recovering from the 2008 collapse its evident how certain nations approached it.
Some nations jailed the culprits while others tended to focus on shifting blame which resulted that no action was taken.
Theresa May isn't trying to block it from happening. That's misconception - she's merely trying to meet demands from UK of having soft Brexit while the EU isn't accepting their demands, and has in a sense a polar view.
I don't mean that I read anything anywhere. Most of them had no idea of the consequences. It was lied to them that if they stay this will happen and if they leave this will happen.
They later found out that what they were promised would happen and not happen wasn't that simple.
So they were misled.
No. There are other countries in the world, and also the people you might have been arguing about don't count up for the entire human race.
Yes okay whatever, but if you watch documentaries about countries recovering from the 2008 collapse its evident how certain nations approached it.
Some nations jailed the culprits while others tended to focus on shifting blame which resulted that no action was taken.
Theresa May isn't trying to block it from happening. That's misconception - she's merely trying to meet demands from UK of having soft Brexit while the EU isn't accepting their demands, and has in a sense a polar view.
if you read 'progressive' (communists) newspapers don't be surprised if the comments below the articles are written by communist readers!
they weren't misled. they knew exactly what they were voting for: TO LEAVE THE CORPORATE-FASCIST EU SUPERSTATE
It was pretty much only iceland who jailed the bankers and iceland has one of the most cohesive populations that has been least affected by globalisation hence their care for their society
soft brexit is NO brexit
she is a remainer trying to derail brexit period and she is a pedophile protector
When have I said that?
I just don’t believe YOUR version of what is taking place.
You’ve assumed too much and made your own straw man.
D
Deleted member 16771
I'm not
Im talking about interacting with people. I gave that as an example.No many feel like they were misled. they were made to think that they were creating more jobs for UK by restricting immigration.. but didn't realise that e.g. most of researchers in UK are not British, didn't realise that businesses might leave UK or would change and that they might lose their family business, didn't realise how their daily lives would change.
Yes well, I'm not denying that.
Soft Brexit is not being part of EU while still retaining economic ties, free movement of people to a degree &c
go back and look at your posts
you keep harping on about the world being destroyed by big business as if that is something that is being denied in this thread when it isn't
this thread is about how the elites (who are the guys behind those big polluting corporations) are using carbon dioxide as an excuse to impose their own form of global governance that would destroy any democracy or any say in matters by average people
I'm not
so you are saying that you are using anecdotal evidence of chats you've had with your pals about it as an argument that the british public as a whole regret voting to leave
this is simply not true as a recent poll showed
if you are in the customs union then you must abide by EU rules and cannot trade outside the block without their approval
It also means you have free movement of people and therefore have no control over your borders