Bitcoin Forum

This is based on the news article from https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48069663 and climate change being a hot topic, i thought i should share it here. According to the proposed fix by the scientists and engineers, they have proposed the following solutions.
See infographics, for more info click link here (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48069663)





---------------------------------------------------------
artificial tree (http://scienceofthetime.net/2013/04/18/recycling-co2-through-artificial-trees/)s-seems like this one has been on the agenda for a long time


credit to scienceofthetime

---

This looks convincing and expensive at the same time, but ignore the the cost factor for now.

Do you think this proposal could actually work? 

All of these are idiotic fantasies based on wrong presumptions.

Where would you like to start with the process of intelligent debunking?

CO2 --> fuel?

The end product of exothermic combustion is CO2.

CO2 does not magically reform into something that is exothermic, right?

It seems like bullshit. If you spray the ocean salt into the atmosphere then it would probably fall down. I can't prove it but I'm sure that it won't be good for people's health, soil and envioronment. Spread the ocean salt over the entire earth via atmosphere? Genious.
Ocean greening: Why ocean? Why not planting some extra seeds on my backyard? You are choosing the most expensive and retarded way of greening.

Well, we will not be able to know if it would work. However, we can actually give them enough time to dry run the concept and see if it is really a solution for climate changes. As much as they have already initiated to solve it then we have to just be contented with it. The development will be on the way time by time.

No, they have not already started it. No also to "we will not be able to know if it will work."

Basic chemistry shows that CO2 will not be converted to fuel without more energy put into the process than was taken out when the material was burned which created the CO2.

All this energy stuff is being done to hide the fact that average people can make all the energy they need, for themselves, right at home, out of everyday materials. See http://cheniere.org/toc.html.

8)

It can be done if you read the below article.
https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/particles-air-aerosols


No body is stopping you but ocean have much larger surface available than we have in land.

Few change in eating habits can fix many things without spendig so much money in these high level science projects.

https://timeforchange.org/eat-less-meat-co2-emission-of-food

^^^ Does the ocean really have way more surface area that the land? Consider a mountain on land. When they calculate the land area of the mountain, they only calculate the area of the base. But if you consider that the sides of the mountain are land surface area, then the mountain suddenly has way more surface area that was at first thought... and even more when you think of all the ridges and tiny peaks on the mountain sides.

Spraying ocean salt into the air is nothing when compared with all the chemtrails they are spraying.

8)

Controlling the weather has been a dream and a fixation of technocrats for tens of thousand of years.  That's what a lot of the dances that 'indigenous peoples' were all about.

The modern technocratic class has had it figured out for probably at least 50 years, although satellite atmospheric monitoring and massive computer simulations would be what makes it ready to roll.  Basically it entails strategic use of the 'butterfly effect', and manipulating the amount of solar radiation absorbed by specific patches of the atmosphere.  It gives the 'force multiplier' or 'power steering' needed.

If the technocrats tried to control the weather 30 years ago the peeps would have said 'Hell no!"  Better medicine was needed.

Fast forward to after 20 some years of laughable global climate change hoax and related propaganda.  Now a plurality of people will say "Oh please save us from climate calamity.  We'll pay you for saving us!"

Mission accomplished.  I actually have to have some respect for these propagandists.  They are good.  Being able to literally  'make money' can give one the tools to mold the world, and the peeps who inhabit it, to one's liking.

What the heck this people are actually doing. Why would they complicate such things when the easiest and safest way of fighting this changes is purely discipline.

It should be and individual effort such as planting trees stop using plastics and do clean up drives. Aside from the fact that this can be a failure it will be just a waste of fundings.

Hydrogen cars

You keep sea levels in check as well.

To burn the h20 first you split it by electrifying the water, it only takes 4% of the oxygen, you create more oxygen in the atmosphere, everyone lives longer. Hydrogen does not go into the atmosphere as it is burned on creation, making it less of a threat than a petro fire.

I will warn people in the super far away future though, they may want to go on solar and off hydrogen because I foresee a problem with that to. It will disrupt the earths orbit if we use to much of the seawater.
For now using water is a win-win.

Any of this idea looks practical? Who is going to plant huge spraying plants in the middle of ocean for the welfare of this whole world?We are not living under single community we are just dispersed everywhere in thousands of format so don't expect any of these ideas work even in future as well.

Is that you, Hank?

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q)

#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.

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.

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 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.

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 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 (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 (http://climateviewer.com) is someone I do have confidence in.  This video leverages his work and gives him credit.

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?

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..."?

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

^^^

Genesis 8:22:
Matthew 5:18:
8)

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.

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. 

What is the correct temperature of the Earth?

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

8)

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.
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/24_co2-graph-021116-768px.jpg

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.

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?

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.

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?

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 question is not a distraction, and your ducking responding is an answer.

Temperature change is a response to many factors, of which one minor one is human greenhouse emissions.

Further, carbon dioxide is not the "root cause of all the other things we are worried about." We need to be worried about global cooling, according to eminent astrophysicists and solar scientists. We certainly need to be worried about random asteroids hitting Earth.

The simple fact is if you cannot state a temperature which is the temperature we should return to, after correcting all alleged problems, you have no credible basis for arguing about climate change. You also have no credible basis for claiming you are a climate scientist.

I take it then you are refusing to answer my simple questions.

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?

The problem is that your questions are not genuine, could be easily googled, and are simply meant to muddy the waters of the discussion by confusing people who don't know about these things already.  If you have a point then make it but don't pretend to ask questions. CO2 is the root cause of all things we need to be worried about in the context of climate change.  Yes there are other GHG but CO2 is the main one we are releasing that will stick around causing much of the additional water and methane to end up in the atmosphere.

There is absolutely no scientific basis for global cooling that is made up. Even if we pretended Earth wasn't warming, CO2 emissions would still be an emergency situation. There are many effects but ocean acidification by itself would still be a global emergency.  

I have said all along in this thread that the goal is not to put the temperature back to a certain place.  The goal is to limit carbon emissions.  It is smart to treat causes not symptoms.  

https://climate.nasa.gov/
Good place to start

^^^ CO2 is the root cause of plant growth. It is the root cause, when combined with water and nitrogen and sunlight why there is enough food for people around the world. When food is abundant, more people are fostered into being by parents who have more time to "play."

Even though the Earth isn't warming other than ups and downs that have always happened, we need more land. Global warming would open up cold lands for habitation. Warmer weather in general would cause more moisture to be evaporated into the air, some of which would be deposited onto the deserts of the world, opening them up for easy habitation.

More crops could be grown on the lands that were opened up, to feed the larger populations of the world.

The whole false notion of global warming as a bad thing, is being fostered by people who don't what you to have a fun life with your pet wife/husband, so that you can have and raise more kids in more security, so you have more support in your old age.

You climate change jokers are completely missing it.

8)

Climate change deniers take advantage of snippets of what climate scientists say, disregarding the rest. The whole idea that there isn't consensus on climate change in the scientific community comes from the responsible peer reviewing process where other climate scientists question every part of any findings for the sake of academic honesty. The biggest excuse used right now is that our data set is too small to make any scientifically significant judgement. Thats sort of true, but not so much in a way that supports the denial of climate change. If we saw a 20 degree shift in a matter of a single day, the same argument would stand. Academic honesty prevents real climate scientists from saying, we have calculated that in 9.17549 years the average temperature of the earth will increase by 0.19123 degrees. It allows them to say, we predict that in 9.17549 years considering the data that we've collected over the past 100 years, the average temperature of the earth will increase by 0.19123 degrees.

People then say, yeah but thats like just your prediction man, and then we end up with the problem we are in. Its not as critical of a matter at this time as some try to make it sound, but reversing climate change gets more difficult the further we keep spurring it on. We've got a handful of groups all fighting against each other right now. Real climate scientists, advocates for climate science who are making it worse by trying to appeal by sensationalizing and misinterpreting data to make it look more extreme, and climate change deniers who argue against the climate science advocates.



Nope, they cannot. You'll need teams of thermo/astrophysicists and engineers (to make the data interpretable) for that. We know the temperature of the universe to its creation with an error of 10^-35 seconds. Telling you exactly what temperature the earth should be is cake, you just need a team of people in the correct fields.



Global cooling is a real thing, its just localized and improperly described by nearly anyone that has a half understanding of it. The area that I live in is technically experiencing global cooling due to equilibrium conditions modeled by adiabatic/isotherm curves resulting from emission shielding from atmospheric debris (dust mixing with vapors). Essentially just how weather forecasts are predicted but with corrections that allow them to be stretched out longer term. Taking a guess here, but I'd say that less than 1/10,000th of the world's population is being effected by global cooling. Its kind of one of those fringe cases.

NASA is probably one of the worst places to start considering the the High Priest types that they hire (e.g., James Hansen.)

What is it now, '12 years' before climate catastrophe?

It's time to face up to the fact that you guys have become a doomsday cult.  I honestly wouldn't be surprised if a good number of you could be convinced to take cyanide because the Hale-Bopp comet was relatively close to earth's orbit.

Factually Incorrect.

https://principia-scientific.org/norwegian-scientist-global-cooling-beginning-due-low-solar-activity/

Scientists are increasingly tuning out the claims that the Earth’s temperatures are predominantly shaped by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, or that future climate is destined to be alarmingly warm primarily due to the rise in trace atmospheric gases.  Instead, solar scientists are continuing to advance our understanding of solar activity and its effect on the Earth system, and their results are progressively suggestive of robust correlations between solar variability and climate changes.

For example, in 2016 alone, there were at least 132 peer-reviewed scientific papers documenting a significant solar influence on climate.  Among them there were 18 papers that directly connected centennial-scale periods of low solar activity (the Little Ice Age) with cooler climates, and periods of high solar activity (the Medieval Warm Period and the Modern Warm Period [20th Century]) with high solar activity levels.  Another 10 papers warned of an impending solar minimum and concomitant cooling period in the coming decades.

And this trend of scientists linking climate changes to solar forcing mechanisms — and bypassing an anthropogenic explanation — continues to rage on in 2017.A Seminal New Paper Unveils The ‘Cause Of Causes’ Of Climate Change

In their groundbreaking New Astronomy paper, Norwegian professors Harald Yndestad and Jan-Erik Solheim indicate that the modern (1940-2015) Grand Maximum of very high solar activity — the highest solar activity levels in 4,000 years — has just ended.




I don't think your answers are genuine. If you can't explain why what you propose is actually good, and you can't show the effect of your proposals, you have nothing except a massive control freak scheme.

Yes, they should be able to, if the model they have been taught is accurate. Because they would have been told during class the answers found by those teams, and they would parrot them back on the quiz without understanding much.

What I've noted as questions do nicely show the problems of climate science as promulgated. You have suggested an appropriate technical team could easily find the "correct temperature." It says volumes that that is not done.

By ignoring heat content, characteristic behavior of gray bodies, and multiphase environments, a false "social good" is promulgated that "co2 BAD", "more co2 VERY BAD."

I've read this entire thread so far.

The most insightful thing in it was:


The geoengineering fixes in question, are unlikely to work.

Take converting CO2 back to fuel.

Think of all the air you need to push through your reactor to do that. And then all the energy needed to convert that CO2 into fuel. And then add the fact that if you convert it into fuel rather than burying it you're releasing the CO2 right back into the atmosphere.

So even if the process is carbon neutral, with current technology setting up the infrastructure certainly isn't. This technology would be viable in a fantasy land with ample zero-carbon energy production, but it's not going to magically save us in the next 10-20 years.

Take throwing salt into the atmosphere:

There is the problem that even if the temperature is reduced, CO2 stays the same. The climate can still be different despite the temperature being the same.
Then there is the global conflict such geoengineering could spark. What if the temperature can only be reduced if Russia's or The United State's crops have to fail for one year?
Where is the clear proof that this actually works as intended? Then there is the simple fact that you're throwing more water in with the salt particles, water vapor is a greenhouse gas.


The take ocean greening

The article itself debunks it and points to another article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7959570.stm

I'd also like to add that iron ore isn't free and that it would probably sink to the bottom, requiring us to keep adding it to the ocean for eternity.



I believe that we'll totally wreck this planet's ecosystems and climate. The glaciers will melt, the sea levels will rise, millions will lose their homes, incomes and food stability. But we'll probably survive it. We'll just be living in a different planet earth.

And one day, the history books will have a chapter on the time we could have saved millions of species of animals and plants, and prevented human suffering equivalent to many world wars, but instead we chose to drive gas guzzlers, build tanks and bombs and destroy ourselves in the process.

I believe that if we try nutty geo engineering quackery, we'll totally wreck this planet's ecosystems and climates.

If we listen to greenie pseudo-scientific wackos, we'll totally wreck this planet.

If we build a thousand nuclear power planets, we'll probably do okay.

Oceans will rise and fall, and man does not have a Right to put huge population centers dangerously close to the oceans and stay safe. Oceans can rise and fall naturally, or through man's actions.

For example, the Western Peninsula of Antarctica is weakly held to the continent, and it could come loose and over time, melt. Sea levels would rise. Tsunamis happen, period. And then there are asteroid strikes, most of which will occur in the oceans, with effects on land masses. To focus on carbon dioxide and emissions dangerously ignores these various factors.

I tried to look it up again, not sure if this is the same article I read before or if that was a mention in a book but yes this is the guy and yes, it turns out they'll use sulfuric acid, which is supposed to turn into sulfates or something high up there and reflect sunlight.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/ (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/)

Turns out they've already started testing last year, albeit with calcium carbonate first.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07533-4 (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07533-4)

It's interesting that we disagree on the importance of combatting global warming and climate change, but are 100% in agreement on these ridiculous pseudo-scientific schemes. Maybe there is some hope after all!

Imagine how much more difficult controlling the weather would have been without 3 decades of 'education' about the menace of global climate change.


http://www.green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html (http://www.green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html)


https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong)

Contrary to the simplistic understandings of those starting to catch on, these people are not 'Communists'.  They'll use 'Communism' when it suites their goals, but in reality they are something much worse.  Probably not as bad as the Talmudics though who are fellow Lucifarians, and there is some evidence that this group is making a bid to snatch the prize.

I believe it is possible to turn CO2 back into fuel. These methods arent exactly cheap, or easy, however. Furthermore, CO2 as fuel is still no match for liquid fuel in terms of efficiency and power output. However, according to an article writen on ScienceMag.org, here is one way it can be done...

CO2 is a very stable, unreactive molecule. Chemists can force it to react by pumping in electricity, heat, or both. The first step in this process is usually ripping off one of CO2’s oxygen atoms to make CO. That CO can then be combined with H2 to make a combination known as syngas, which can be converted into methanol, a liquid alcohol that can be either used directly or converted into other valuable chemicals and fuels. Massive chemical plants do just that, but they make their syngas not from air, but from plentiful and cheap natural gas.

This article was written back in 2015, so I would like to assume even more advancements have been made since then.

+40 years of degrading basic education and funding of bird-cage-liner like ScienceRag.org, and this is what you get; a nearly complete inability to understand the most basic elements of chemistry and physics!

I cannot call our society and Idiocracy because the idiot class are not running things.  But clearly they were not running things in the movie either.  There was a 'hidden hand'.

Ok so you just posted a link from a known pseudo-science website.   The papers they reference either don't say what they are claiming or are outright lies.  Authors have actually spoken out about their papers being misquoted or used out of context to push your anti-science agenda.

I am sure your intentions are good. However, this is basic chemistry. There was nothing "new" in 2015 and there have been no "advancements" since 2015 that change the laws of thermodynamics.

Co2 is created in a process that gives off energy.

To convert it back to something else, more than that amount of energy must be put back in, because of inefficiency in the conversion.

I sure hope the climate-change scientists have a big bunch of their group working on anti-aging. Why? So that they live the hundreds of years that it will take to figure out how to change the climate even a little.

 :D

These comments attempt to discredit many papers by solar physicists suggesting that we may be approaching a solar minima, with consequences in weather such as the Little Ice Age.

You are not qualified to discredit these people or their work, however you are welcome to present scientifically sound arguments on the subject.

I fail to see any reason a climate alarmist would be against global cooling. After all, those guys telling you what to think and say have already changed their grammar to "climate change," so they could encompass the possibility of global cooling as well as the tired, worn out Global Warming mantra you are on.

No one is discrediting the work of scientists.  I am discrediting the use of principia-scientific because it is a fake site.   Being able to find reliable sources is the key to being able to obtain knowledge from the internet.  I can point you in the right direction.
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/claim-in-the-express-that-low-solar-activity-is-bringing-cold-weather-is-false/
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/metros-claims-of-coming-mini-ice-age-have-no-basis-in-reality/
https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/ian-plimer-wrongly-claims-that-carbon-dioxide-emissions-do-not-cause-climate-change/


Someone else said it and I didn't bother correcting them but global cooling implies the whole world (global average) is cooling .  Global warming implies the opposite and does not suggest that every specific location is warming.  Global warming is happening and was not changed to climate change.  Global warming causes ice to melt and flow into the ocean which affects ocean currents.  Currents affect wind patterns and overall climate. The warming itself is not a global concern as its just a few degrees.   its all of the things that result from the warming.

Climate change is a result of global warming NOT an alternative to it.  

Global warming is a result of GHG emissions and so is ocean acidification.  

there are certain news that say the atmosphere and the ozone layer are now healing, this is a great news but the problem on global warming is too huge that they need to fix it.

You are no climate scientist, although you claimed to be. You don't even know the definition of climate change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

Climate change occurs when changes in Earth's climate system result in new weather patterns that last for at least a few decades, and maybe for millions of years.

And you'r just pointing to a wacko website.

The actual articles on solar physics are readily available though.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10509-019-3500-9

https://link.springer.com/article/10.3103/S1062873817020411

https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/about-us/our-staff/z/professor-valentina-zharkova/

If you deny the science, you are a climate science denier, pure and simple.

None of the things you just got off of wikipedia conflicts with what I said but I'm not even asking you to trust that I am a climate scientist or anything I say for that matter.  I'm just asking you to trust the known consensus amongst climate scientists who you are calling wackos. 

You are taking all of those papers out of context and using them out of context to support a conclusion you made prior to even reading them.  That is why its pseudo science.

The "wacko" website has 19 climate scientists explaining the misconception you hold.  It is something that is designed specifically to help people with this sort of thing.  Imagine a guy with a random guy on a bitcoin forum reading a paper and noticing something that has fooled almost every pHd for their entire career.

Please explain why what solar scientists say about the Sun entering a quiet period, and it having effects on climate, is something you or anyone else should disregard.

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/claim-in-the-express-that-low-solar-activity-is-bringing-cold-weather-is-false/
Its all explained in there.  I'm not going to summarize it for you to miss the full context but here are a few important quotes.

We are moving to Mars and the Moon soon enough, who cares about climate change, if we really want to think about the future, we should focus on conquering more planets instead. An asteroid impact or other catastrophic accidents can happen at any time here, even nuclear wars.

Please do not attempt to misdirect any more. I am not referring some NOAA press release (which you don't even quote a link for.)

First of all, this.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/news-articles/solar-minimum-is-coming

Grand Solar minima is coming.

The last time this happened it was accompanied by some rather serious cooling. Ice skating on the river Thames in England.

Does that conclusively show cause and effect? Nope. But it's enough for serious concern. Global cooling is and will continue to be a subject of concern, because of the devastating effects an ice age would have. Or even a "mini ice age."

You and your links appear ignorant of the relationship between space weather and our climate. Probably because "climatefeedback" is some semi-religious climate nonsense. It certainly isn't a peer reviewed scientific article, is it?

The CERN CLOUD experiments looked at this issue.

https://home.cern/science/experiments/cloud

You are either able to think your way rationally through these facts, experimental data and observations to a conclusion or you are not. If not, you certainly seem to be a denier.

Any rational person can see that some amount of warming of the planet by humans might be occurring and at the same time, other things could well be happening with opposite effects. Of course, a great many climate alarmists are not rational.

It's beyond me why a fair sized group of people would obsessively focus on "climate change," and ignore many other serious threats to humanity, of which asteroid impacts may be the #1 threat.

Techniques exist to nudge space rocks away from hitting the Earth, but there is virtually no hardware or budget to do this. A rock that is inbound could kill a billion people or all of humanity, yet these fools babble about "climate change" and waste their time.

A rock that is nudged will have a 100% predictable orbital change. There is close to zero uncertainty as to orbits and what happens when one is changed.

No one's disputing anything about solar minimum coming.  The problem is that you have created your own link between that and global cooling which is fake and based on things you don't completely understand (starting with the difference between the upper atmosphere and the troposphere).  Peer reviewed studies aren't being cited in this thread because scientific papers don't rebuke conclusions that were not made in the first place and only state what is supported by evidence.  Peer reviewed articles are written with the field as the main audience and no one in the field would take them and jump to these wild conclusions because they have a good understanding of all of the basics.    You are adding a connection that was not made which is exactly why the misconception site was created.

The whole purpose of the climatefeedback site is to explain why these pseudo-scientific claims about little ice age and global cooling have no basis.  Everything you have written in bold is explained in the three links I posted above from a total of 19 experts.

I have not made any statements or opinions that I cannot back up. Solar Minima is a regular occurrence. Grand Solar Minima is an entirely different thing!

Making links and connections between phenomena is called "Thinking."
Please don't just go do a quick Google and repeat some words and phrases that you don't understand, in an effort to make argument.
I've shown the connection between solar weather and Earth weather, quite concisely.

It is what it is. Deal with it.

You appear to be A DENIER of cosmic ray effects on Earth's climate, as established by CERN.

Why? Science isn't your enemy or your friend.

People seriously have that short memory?
Anyone remembers the ozone hole?
Did you already forget the "global cooling" and "new ice age" that was being pushed all over media not that long ago?
But wait.... We ware wrong! We had 50/50 chance and we ware wrong. OK... So man made "global warming". Boom! Problem solved.
But wait... We don't have enough data to prove that and temperature difference is within statistical mistake so...
I know! Climate change! Now we are covered. No one can say that climate doesn't change. Science is solid here! ;)
It doesn't matter that there are natural cycles. It doesn't matter that we had much higher CO2 levels in the past.
It doesn't matter that higher CO2 level means better vegetation. Why would anyone increase CO2 level in their greenhouse?
It doesn't matter that weather manipulation is a common thing and you can find companies offering it online!
But who cares - you are a conspiracy theorist. If that was true it would be on the news... because science is solid!
It doesn't make mistakes and in the whole history of humanity science was never used as excuse to push an agenda or just make $.

Have you ever walked in winter and created hundred meter long line with your warm breath? ;)

Very perceptive.

A Global Warming Alarmist is actually not with the current trend in Totalitarian Takeover Using Climate Science as an Excuse.

"Climate Change" includes BOTH global warming and global cooling.

It seems to me that these cycles are real, and the research gives a lot to say, but it is true, I think we should act now, it is in our hands to be able to solve this, besides the nations should worry more, leave their political and monetary interests to focus in what reality matters that is our planet earth.

The effects of a possible thaw is terrible, it can not be solved once it happens, but there are many opportunities now, there must be many global strategic plans for this, in fact the UN, the OAS and all the organizations that are supposed to function to improve the world, they should focus on these issues, leave aside all the economic benefit that gives them belong here and stop sharing the money in their things, to focus the money towards environmental recovery projects, estmaos on time, but I think there is very little left to fix it, and later it will be impossible, and the worst that can end with humanity is a super environmental pollution.

Climate change in big cities might involve smog. The answer might be to go electric rather than gasoline/diesel cars.

Worldwide climate change can't be effectively changed by mankind at this stage of the development of science and engineering. Any such attempts will cause worse damage than natural climate change would have.

8)

Exactly, there are other catastrophic possibilities too including nuclear leaks or bombs. That could literally happen tomorrow and i dont see them trying to stop the development of nuclear weapons.

From back in 2013:

  https://www.corbettreport.com/geoengineering-the-real-climate-change-threat/ (https://www.corbettreport.com/geoengineering-the-real-climate-change-threat/)

Climate change has caused penguins to mutate, now they are headed south.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dfWzp7rYR4

People always say go solar, but they do not realize how much carbon they make when they are making the solar panels, probably even more than if we just used the fossil fuels.

We should just be running on hydrogen cars also (this could keep sea level in check) although in the future if we use to much water it may fuck up out orbit.
There is enough thermal energy on our planet to sustain every city a billion times over, clean thermal energy that is being created by nature.

also, if we start burning up hydrogen from the oxygen it only takes 4% of  oxygen to burn all the hydrogen, so you are left with oxygen in the atmosphere, perhaps we can use that on mars.

We won't be changing the Earth's orbit with anything we do.

Nobody has really demonstrated fuel cells to be cost effective or practical.

I think Lzar has
If they stopped getting killed they could to, it cost effective trust me, take a car battery and electrify the water inside of a tub, light that shit it is more explosive than fossil fuels and safer because you do not create more than you burn so no bombs can be created, even safer in a car crash.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjeM2IBhtlc
I don`t know if this is troll of not, but I know you can run a lawnmower on hydrogen I did it was I was 12.

Practical, low cost automotive fuel cell power does not exist.

Storage of compressed hydrogen is a problem.

Gasoline really has a lot of advantages.