SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Any attempts to engineer the climate are likely to result in "different" climate change, rather than its elimination, new results suggest. Prof Ken Caldeira, of Stanford University, presented research at a major conference on the climate risks and impacts of geoengineering. These techniques have been hailed by some as a quick fix for climate change.
But the impacts of geoengineering on oceans, the water cycle and land environments are hotly debated. They have been discussed at a meeting this week of 12,000 scientists in Vienna. Researchers are familiar with the global cooling effects of volcanic eruptions, seen both historically and even back into the deep past of the rock record. With this in mind, some here at the European Geosciences Union General Assembly ( http://www.egu2015.eu ) have been discussing the possible worldwide consequences of pumping sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to attempt to reflect sunlight back into space and cool the planet.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday April 18 2015, @05:25PM
I never claimed that the scientists have nothing. I'm stating that "climate change" has been politicized. I'm stating that a lot of people stand to profit on selling this concept of climate change. I state clearly that the UN promotes this climate change, which fits like a hand in a glove with their desire to redistribute the wealth of the industrialized nations.
I am simply not buying into the theory that mankind has changed the environment, to the extent claimed. Oh, yeah, we've CONTRIBUTED to something that we little understand. That is unquestionable.
Your earlier claim that we've accelerated warming, when the climate should have tilted back the other way. What about that? On what basis does anyone CLAIM to know when the interglacial period was "supposed" to reverse itself? I suppose that you are aware that states such as Wyoming were once rain forests? On the Eurasian land mass, I suppose that the rain forests probably extended all the way up to Krakow and Moscow.
On what basis do we conclude that the natural course of events wouldn't see those jungles returning to the same latitudes?
Now, before you hit me with continental drift and all that - the last glacial period was only a couple tens of thousands of years ago. It took MUCH longer than that for the North American land mass to drift where it is from the tropics.
Long story short: I don't doubt the data being studied. I doubt the ability of those studying the data to arrive at relevant conclusions.
Yeah, I believe that mankind may be a contributing factor to global warming and/or climate change. I do NOT believe that mankind is causing it. That massive fire that appears to rise in the east, and set in the west each day produces more energy on it's most passive day, than mankind has unleased in all of his history. That ball of fire is the primary regulatory agent in any climate change.
(Score: 5, Touché) by kadal on Saturday April 18 2015, @05:40PM
Long story short: I don't doubt the data being studied. I doubt the ability of those studying the data to arrive at relevant conclusions.
Maybe you should become a climate scientist, study the data and publish in a good peer-reviewed journal then.
That ball of fire is the primary regulatory agent in any climate change.
Try http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/solar-variability-statistics-vs-physics-2nd-round/#more-277 [realclimate.org] and many other posts on that site.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday April 18 2015, @10:26PM
I'm stating that "climate change" has been politicized.
You know, there is a solution to this. Stop politicizing it by being an anti-science denier! See? Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 19 2015, @03:44AM
So, your solution is to just stand by, and watch the next Holy Roman Catholic Empire birth itself? You do realize that "climate change" is rapidly becoming a religion, which metes out punishments for those it considers to be heretics? It may take time, but you can expect the next Inquisitions to be driven by members of the Climate Change Church.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday April 19 2015, @04:06AM
So, your solution is to just stand by
Oh, I beg your pardon, I thought you had identified a problem, and were asking for solutions. Instead it seems you are engaging in self-fulfilling prophecy, sort of like a sorcerer or heretic would do . . . . . OMG! "We found a witch! May we burn it?" [Monty Python and the Holy Grail, somewhat before Scene 24]
To repeat, the solution is to do science, and that means you must stop watching Fox News, reading the Drudge Report and the World Daily News, and listening to Republican congressmen and khallow. See? Already Anthropogenic Global Warming is de-politicized! The first step in solving a problem is to stop causing it. I am glad to have been able to be of assistance to you in this matter. Please feel free to call on me again if you have problems in the future. Oh, one more tip, sorcery does not work.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 19 2015, @05:36AM
So, you're pretending that the issue isn't political on the OTHER side. Al Gore and his cronies have NOT made million or billions on their carbon credit scams, and other nations do not stand to benefit from the deinstrialization of the US and Europe. Got it. All the evil is coming from the heretics.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 19 2015, @07:25AM
For all intents and purposes you've just admitted to everything you accuse the "other side" of doing.
That's "fair and balanced" logic at work - the other guys are scum so we have to be scum in order to balance it out!
For guys like you its nothing more rational than tribalism.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday April 19 2015, @07:35AM
Not pretending. So you can get it, all on your own! Yes, it is all coming from rightwing nutjobs taking their talking points from the rightwing press, and do you know why? Because they are not smart enough to figure it out on their own. They cannot be climate scientists because it involves math, and so they go back to third grade in the early 1960's, and deal with hypothetical innuendo, like just "suggesting" that AGW is not real. Well, what if it is? You see, politics is actually a good thing. It is not a brawl where whoever brings the most idiots to a fight wins. It is the rational, realistic, assessment of where we are, as whatever political entity we are, and based on that, a rational debate over what we should do. That is called "policy", which is related to the word "politics". which derives from the Greek "polis" which means city.
For you, or anyone as obtuse as you, to suggest that politics is a bad thing, and that it immediately implies ulterior motives, only shows that you have been hornswaggled by Murdock, the Kock brothers, the one percenters who actually do have a financial interest in nothing being done about climate change. But you see, that is not an argument that their objections to climate change are wrong. In fact, it has as much to do with the question as your suggestion that maybe climate change is not real. Many here have pointed out to you that this is a joke. Yeah, maybe. And Al Gore and the scientific community say not, based on data, observation, and, you know, predictive science? Of course it could be wrong! That is not the point at all.
I am detecting a powerful disturbance in the force. I am getting it from you, from other oil company shills or patsies, from Gamergate failed-to-launch males and science fiction writers that no one wants to read. The disturbance is the stupid. And the main problem with the stupid is, as stupid usually does, that it does not realize it is stupid. Thus they think they are being oppressed just for having a different opinion. But they are wrong, They are not just different, they are truly stupid. You have made some great progress by acknowledging the fact that all the politicalization of Anthropogenic Global Warming is coming from the right. Follow through. Do some research. Check your sources for conflicts of interests. Ask yourself why some one would want to go against all scientific opinion on a particular subject. Is it because they are a heretic, or is it because they are stupid, or because they have very basis financial interests in the status quo. Yes, all the evil is coming from the heretics. But I don't blame you. I just think you do not know any better. And I am embarrassed for you, that you let yourself be used in such a fashion. So just stop. Comment on things you actually know something about. You have made some great contributions to Soylent News. It would be a shame to destroy your reputation for Exxon. Think about it.