Climate change: Scientists test radical ways to fix Earth's climate

[coins4commies]

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.

This headline (and the article below it, as scientists who reviewed the article detail below) misrepresents a NOAA press release by inventing a claim that appears nowhere in that source—the idea that a coming minimum in the Sun's natural 11-year cycle of solar activity will cause cold weather around the world. There is no evidence supporting this.

The very top of Earth’s atmosphere (the thermosphere, 250 km up and above) is certainly influenced by solar activity. This is important for factors like orbital decay of satellites but has no implications for surface weather at all. It is a space weather effect not a terrestrial weather effect.

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.

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.

Climate feedback is a website that fact-checks media coverage of climate change.[1] The website seeks out top climate scientists in relevant fields to assess the credibility and accuracy of media stories related to climate change.

each reviewer has to hold a PhD and be published in top-tier peer-reviewed science journals.[5] The website has identified errors in content published by outlets, such as Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, Mail on Sunday and New York Magazine.[3][4] The website is included in the database of global fact-checking sites by the Reporters’ Lab at Duke University.

[1713978602]

1713978602

[1713978602]

1713978602

[1713978602]

1713978602

[1713978602]

1713978602

[Spendulus]

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.

This headline (and the article below it, as scientists who reviewed the article detail below) misrepresents a NOAA press release by inventing a claim that appears nowhere in that source—the idea that a coming minimum in the Sun's natural 11-year cycle of solar activity will cause cold weather around the world. There is no evidence supporting this.

The very top of Earth’s atmosphere (the thermosphere, 250 km up and above) is certainly influenced by solar activity. This is important for factors like orbital decay of satellites but has no implications for surface weather at all. It is a space weather effect not a terrestrial weather effect.

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. This has NO similarity to the solar minima which is a standard part of every 11 year solar cycle

The last time a Grand Solar minima happened it was accompanied by 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.

No one's disputing anything about solar minimum coming.  

The problem is that you have created your own link between that and global cooling. ...starting with the difference between the upper atmosphere and the troposphere....
....

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.

[davidwilson17]

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?

[Spendulus]

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.

[LUCKMCFLY]

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.

[BADecker]

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.

[Astargath]

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.

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.

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.

[tvbcof]

From back in 2013:

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

[Spendulus]

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

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

[TimeBits]

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.

[Spendulus]

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.

[TimeBits]

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.

[Spendulus]

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.