• Geoengineers Will Release Tons of Sun-Reflecting Chemicals Into the Air Above New Mexico
    94 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Squad;36846255]I work in the scientific community and I can tell you that [B]the consensus of the scientific community on the matter is mixed[/B]... I have seen LEGITIMATE scientist RESPECTED in their field promote this kind of information. That was just the first google result I found on it so I didn't waste time making the graph myself.[/QUOTE] It's not mixed. There is a 97% consensus that climate change is happening and an 84% consensus that we are causing it.
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;36846359]It's not mixed. There is a 97% consensus that climate change is happening and an 84% consensus that we are causing it.[/QUOTE] That's because there is money involved.
[QUOTE=DeanWinchester;36846320]CO2 goes off the charts, which is to be expected as we're adding the human caused CO2 emissions. Temperature variation stays the same however. Conclusion? So far it seems that the temperature variation is not affected by the non-human CO2 emissions but the other way around, the CO2 is above normal because we have the human factor added into the equation but SO FAR there is no influence from the CO2 observed ON the temperature variation, not on that graph at least.[/QUOTE] [B]good lord look at the scale on the graph[/B] there hasn't yet been enough [B]time[/B] for the temperature effect to be noticed. [editline]20th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Bob_Namg;36846375]That's because there is money involved.[/QUOTE] [citation needed] seriously do you have any idea how far-fetched the conspiracy you're proposing is? do you know [B]just how many[/B] people there are researching climate change? their salaries aren't that great - they could make a fucking killing if they could convincingly show that the whole thing was a sham.
[QUOTE=DeanWinchester;36846207]Again, I ask you to point at any time where I denied that the CO2 is rising above normal, I said so in my post, unless you're denying also the fact that the temperature variation (should I place an emphasis on BLUE since everybody here can only see RED apparently) is about the same as the correspondent other warm cycles the earth has had previously, so explain to me how this graph proves that human CO2 output has a direct relation to temperature increases (attention I'm not denying that it does but that it doesn't have as much of an impact as everyone here is claiming). Sure, they are both related, every time the CO2 goes up so does the temperature variation (either that or the other way around) but right now that graph isn't proof of anything other than the normal CO2 emissions + the human CO2 emissions have taken it to a whole new level, however nowhere in the graph does it show an influence on temperature variation even after the CO2 levels rose above their correspondent levels on other periods. I admit I might be wrong, but trying to counter an opinion with ridicule and misreading my posts on purpose won't take you anywhere.[/QUOTE] I think it's when you say that 380 ppmv is almost the same as in all other warmth periods. Notice the "other than the temperature". [quote]you notice in that graph other than the temperature variation going up and down at regular intervals it's almost on the same level as it was on the last warm period the Earth had[/quote] I get what you want to say though and you got a point but I hope you also see that the simple "what came first" game isn't really working here. For all we know, the sea might be the most important factor in temperature, hence back in ye old eras CO2 always kind of "followed" the temperature. Maybe the Earth is just catching up, maybe the rise in CO2 USED to be a delayed effect where a small change meant a HUGE rise in temperature, it could e hidden in our data since we can't date precise enough. Now maybe(a lot of maybes) the CO2 levels rose SOO FRIGGIN' fast, the CO2 even managed to overcome the temperature effect it had or maybe once rising fast enough it actually triggered a temperature-buffer effect, the same one that saved the planet from becoming a hot CO2 hell. We don't know. What we know: In the last 100 years CO2 rises as fast as never and that is undenieably our fault. In the last 100 years Temperature rises as fast as never . Our link: CO2 is known to change light wavelenth into less reflectable(longer) ones and reflects "warm"(infrared) light better than "cold"(UV) light.
[QUOTE=Bob_Namg;36846375]That's because there is money involved.[/QUOTE] Oh wow. Are you a comedian?
[QUOTE=DeanWinchester;36846320]And here we go again, you can keep at it and I'm still gonna laugh it off because I never denied the CO2 levels are above normal, however there is no relation between the levels above normal and an influence on temperature variation, as we can see on the other cycles, maybe you should look at the other part of the graph and not only the part that interests you. I'll put it simple: There is relationship that goes one of two ways: - Temperature variation rises as a result of CO2 increase. - CO2 rises as a result of temperature variation. From looking at what has happened for 90% of the graph we can't be sure but then (wait for it we're getting to your favorite part of the graph): CO2 goes off the charts, which is to be expected as we're adding the human caused CO2 emissions. Temperature variation stays the same however. Conclusion? So far it seems that the temperature variation is not affected by the non-human CO2 emissions but the other way around, the CO2 is above normal because we have the human factor added into the equation but SO FAR there is no influence from the CO2 observed ON the temperature variation, not on that graph at least. May I also note that the temperature was already rising before we came into the equation.[/QUOTE] The entirety of our modern existence is in the last few pixels on that chart. Our CO2 spike is notable but there hasn't been enough time for it to make a noticeable shift in temperature on that scale. Give it [i]a few hundred years.[/i]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36846390][B]good lord look at the scale on the graph[/B] there hasn't yet been enough [B]time[/B] for the temperature effect to be noticed. [editline]20th July 2012[/editline] [citation needed] seriously do you have any idea how far-fetched the conspiracy you're proposing is? do you know [B]just how many[/B] people there are researching climate change? their salaries aren't that great - they could make a fucking killing if they could convincingly show that the whole thing was a sham.[/QUOTE] Jesus christ you're attacking people on purpose at this point. Shut the fuck up. That aside, it could be either way. Some scientists say one way, other say another. It is a THEORY, not a proven statement. Whether or not one or both sides have proof doesn't make it any more or less of a theory.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36846390][B]good lord look at the scale on the graph[/B] there hasn't yet been enough [B]time[/B] for the temperature effect to be noticed.[/QUOTE] Actually there is, small but there is, what seems to be happening is that the temperature variation is freaking out (going up and down in very short intervals) but not increasing above the normal for an equivalent cycle (and the same pattern can be observed at some other times in the graph so it might not be that unusual), honestly I can't say for sure that I'm right and that other people are wrong or the way around, I'm trying to look at it from an overall point of view instead of just looking at the alarming end of the CO2 graph, by looking at the pattern we can see that the temperature variation is almost always above the CO2 level so in theory it should follow the rising CO2 levels instantly, however for some reason it isn't. (what I'm trying to say is that the blue graph should have already gone up along with the CO2 graph by looking at the rest of the graph, but it hasn't)
[QUOTE=Fish_poke;36846429]Jesus christ you're attacking people on purpose at this point. Shut the fuck up. That aside, it could be either way. Some scientists say one way, other say another. It is a THEORY, not a proven statement. Whether or not one or both sides have proof doesn't make it any more or less of a theory.[/QUOTE] congratulations you are literally on the level of a creationist at this point [url]http://www.notjustatheory.com/[/url] do a find-replace on "evolution" to "climate change" also read these two things [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation[/url] [url]http://lesswrong.com/lw/mm/the_fallacy_of_gray/[/url] just because two people disagree doesn't mean that one person can't be overwhelmingly more likely to be correct given the evidence
[QUOTE=OvB;36846416]The entirety of our modern existence is in the last few pixels on that chart. Our CO2 spike is notable but there hasn't been enough time for it to make a noticeable shift in temperature on that scale. Give it [i]a few hundred years.[/i][/QUOTE] People also tend to forget that the earth is a closed system, energy can get out and in, matter can not(speaking in climate models). Hence there are many many more factors that can delay or speed the effect something has on the temperature(sun-earth distance, sun activity, water-vapor) while measuring gas levels is a pretty direct method .
[QUOTE=DeanWinchester;36846465]Actually there is, small but there is, what seems to be happening is that the temperature variation is freaking out (going up and down in very short intervals) but not increasing above the normal for an equivalent cycle (and the same pattern can be observed at some other times in the graph so it might not be that unusual), honestly I can't say for sure that I'm right and that other people are wrong or the way around, I'm trying to look at it from an overall point of view instead of just looking at the alarming end of the CO2 graph, by looking at the pattern we can see that the temperature variation is almost always above the CO2 level so in theory it should follow the rising CO2 levels instantly, however for some reason it isn't. (what I'm trying to say is that the blue graph should have already gone up along with the CO2 graph by looking at the rest of the graph, but it hasn't)[/QUOTE] if you don't know what the fuck you're talking about then why do you think you're in any position to disagree with the scientific consensus?
[QUOTE=Killuah;36846399]I think it's when you say that 380 ppmv is almost the same as in all other warmth periods. Notice the "other than the temperature". I get what you want to say though and you got a point but I hope you also see that the simple "what came first" game isn't really working here. For all we know, the sea might be the most important factor in temperature, hence back in ye old eras CO2 always kind of "followed" the temperature. Maybe the Earth is just catching up, maybe the rise in CO2 USED to be a delayed effect where a small change meant a HUGE rise in temperature, it could e hidden in our data since we can't date precise enough. Now maybe(a lot of maybes) the CO2 levels rose SOO FRIGGIN' fast, the CO2 even managed to overcome the temperature effect it had or maybe once rising fast enough it actually triggered a temperature-buffer effect, the same one that saved the planet from becoming a hot CO2 hell. We don't know. What we know: In the last 100 years CO2 rises as fast as never and that is undenieably our fault. In the last 100 years Temperature rises as fast as never . Our link: CO2 is known to change light wavelenth into less reflectable(longer) ones and reflects "warm"(infrared) light better than "cold"(UV) light.[/QUOTE] OK, I should apologize because I didn't mean to say other than temperature but other than CO2, my bad for not going back and re-reading what I wrote, it was an innocent switch between words and I can see why I might have seemed like a moron. However I must agree with you, it's too early to say what's going to happen because there never has been a situation like this, so the Earth could just (to put it simple) "deal with it" or ir could be a cause for concern, it's still too early to tell.
[QUOTE=Fish_poke;36846429]Jesus christ you're attacking people on purpose at this point. Shut the fuck up. That aside, it could be either way. Some scientists say one way, other say another.[B] It is a THEORY[/B], not a proven statement. Whether or not one or both sides have proof doesn't make it any more or less of a theory.[/QUOTE] Umm a theory never stops being a theory. [url]http://www.notjustatheory.com/[/url] (It's about evolution but it applies here as well) [B]Edit:[/B] God dammit DainBramageStudios! >:(
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36846495]if you don't know what the fuck you're talking about then why do you think you're in any position to disagree with the scientific consensus?[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure I'm entitled to disagree with anything and express my point of view, I'm sorry if I don't care about what other people think of my opinion (in regards to being agressive towards it, not because they oppose it), I'm much more interested in having a productive discussion about the subject than just calling people dumb because I deem myself more important or more intelligent than them, points of view on both sides are always good unless they lead to wars, and so far the only war I've seen emerge from this thread is a flame war from the people who think they are right and everybody else is wrong (yes that includes you). So I'm not even going to bother anymore, climate change threads always end up like the religious ones, with a lot of people getting banned and nothing productive coming out of it.
I suggest the people of this thread watch Potholer54's excellent video series on climate change. [url]http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA4F0994AFB057BB8&feature=plcp[/url]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36846467]congratulations you are literally on the level of a creationist at this point [url]http://www.notjustatheory.com/[/url] do a find-replace on "evolution" to "climate change" also read these two things [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation[/url] [url]http://lesswrong.com/lw/mm/the_fallacy_of_gray/[/url] just because two people disagree doesn't mean that one person can't be overwhelmingly more likely to be correct given the evidence[/QUOTE] Reading "The Fallacy Of Gray" feels a bit like reading Galts Manifest from Atlas Shruged(which, by the way, is a great piece of philosophical work) [editline]20th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=DeanWinchester;36846500]OK, I should apologize because I didn't mean to say other than temperature but other than CO2, my bad for not going back and re-reading what I wrote, it was an innocent switch between words and I can see why I might have seemed like a moron. However I must agree with you, it's too early to say what's going to happen because there never has been a situation like this, so the Earth could just (to put it simple) "deal with it" or ir could be a cause for concern, it's still too early to tell.[/QUOTE] Peace. You made a mistake and I didn't take the time to see what you actually meant and jumped to conclusions. I hope we both go out of this thread a bit more educated. Me on dealing with posts more calmly, you less clumsy in posting :D [editline]20th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=chunkymonkey;36846579]I suggest the people of this thread watch Potholer54's excellent video series on climate change. [url]http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA4F0994AFB057BB8&feature=plcp[/url][/QUOTE] Didn't know about the dimming. Actually the graph I showed would explain why our temperature stays roughly the same while CO2 rises fast.
Now, I've read through most of this thread, and I want to know whether I'm the only one missing the big picture here. If I'm not mistaken, here's how global warming works: Chemicals like Aerosols and Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere contribute to global warming by allowing the atmosphere to absorb rays (and heat) from the sun, but not permitting those rays, or that heat, to escape as easily, because they provide a reflective coating for solar radiation (This is why Venus, and NOT Mercury, is the hottest planet in our Solar System). Eventually this leads to a net raise in global temperatures, and human-made emissions are contributing massively to this. So this article is saying that scientists, just to see what'll happen, are going to put 'thousands of tons' of the stuff into the air in one go. If this doesn't seem like such a bad idea to you guys, maybe I'm missing something.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36845753]I actually went and found that [url=http://download.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/PIIS0960982212003296.pdf?intermediate=true]paper[/url] (funny how journalists never actually cite them) 1) The author is not a climate scientist. 2) The paper barely makes mention of modern methane emissions. That emphasis was added afterwards by journalists. 3) The journal it was published in was about biology, not climate science. 4) It was cited by only one later paper, which was not about climate science. It was about the digestive tract of ostriches. 5) The journalists that picked up on it also had no background in climate science. Also compounding this whole issue is that methane eventually (~12 years) oxidises in the atmosphere to make carbon dioxide and water anyway. [/QUOTE] Well supposedly something like 20% of our greenhouse gases comes from cattle flatulence.
[QUOTE=archangel125;36846680]Now, I've read through most of this thread, and I want to know whether I'm the only one missing the big picture here. If I'm not mistaken, here's how global warming works: Chemicals like Aerosols and Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere contribute to global warming by allowing the atmosphere to absorb rays (and heat) from the sun, but not permitting those rays, or that heat, to escape as easily, because they provide a reflective coating for solar radiation (This is why Venus, and NOT Mercury, is the hottest planet in our Solar System). Eventually this leads to a net raise in global temperatures, and human-made emissions are contributing massively to this. So this article is saying that scientists, just to see what'll happen, are going to put 'thousands of tons' of the stuff into the air in one go. If this doesn't seem like such a bad idea to you guys, maybe I'm missing something.[/QUOTE] CO2 decreases the OUTPUT of heat radiation. These guys try to decrease the INPUT of heat radiation.
[QUOTE=Killuah;36846727]CO2 decreases the OUTPUT of heat radiation. These guys try to decrease the INPUT of heat radiation.[/QUOTE] Well, yeah, but would that not also decrease the output? The reflective particles don't have a single face that always points right at the sun.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36846723]Well supposedly something like 20% of our greenhouse gases comes from cattle flatulence.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure about the numbers but a good percentage of it does come from industrial farming of cattle.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;36844893][citation needed][/QUOTE] I hope I'm not late in responding to this, but it's a verifiable fact that we are still coming out of the previous ice age. We're not [I]causing[/I] the warming trend, but we do appear to be accelerating it.
[QUOTE=Fish_poke;36846429]Jesus christ you're attacking people on purpose at this point. Shut the fuck up. That aside, it could be either way. Some scientists say one way, other say another. It is a THEORY, not a proven statement. Whether or not one or both sides have proof doesn't make it any more or less of a theory.[/QUOTE] a scientific theory is not a laymans theory you are objectively, scientifically wrong. science does not work on viewpoints, it works on data.
[QUOTE=archangel125;36846743]Well, yeah, but would that not also decrease the output? The reflective particles don't have a single face that always points right at the sun.[/QUOTE] The thing is though, less heat from the sun would be able to enter the atmosphere. So what solar heat that's already beneath it at the time they pump the shit into the sky will eventually cool to an average level. (while still bumping around under the atmosphere like you're suggesting) If that makes any sense... I have to leave in a bit so I'm sorta rushing the explanation.
[QUOTE=DeanWinchester;36846567]I'm pretty sure I'm entitled to disagree with anything and express my point of view, I'm sorry if I don't care about what other people think of my opinion (in regards to being agressive towards it, not because they oppose it), I'm much more interested in having a productive discussion about the subject than just calling people dumb because I deem myself more important or more intelligent than them, points of view on both sides are always good unless they lead to wars, and so far the only war I've seen emerge from this thread is a flame war from the people who think they are right and everybody else is wrong (yes that includes you). So I'm not even going to bother anymore, climate change threads always end up like the religious ones, with a lot of people getting banned and nothing productive coming out of it.[/QUOTE] you're certainly entitled to disagree and express your point of view, but that doesn't make you any less wrong. maybe if people were receptive to data it wouldn't be a shitfest. different points of view are not good at all when one is based on misrepresenting, falsifying, or not understanding the data presented.
[QUOTE=archangel125;36846743]Well, yeah, but would that not also decrease the output? The reflective particles don't have a single face that always points right at the sun.[/QUOTE] They are blocking incoming UV. The stuff that goes out is IR. [editline]20th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=OvB;36846749]I'm not sure about the numbers but a good percentage of it does come from industrial farming of cattle.[/QUOTE] There is a very nice article in the latest "GEO" that the permafrost soil in Siberia hold thousands of times the amount of Methane we would be capable to produce and is about to thow(right word?), that would suggest that in ancient times this very soil accumulated methane by freezing everything dying in winter and building a new protecting layer of gras and stuff in spring/summer. So there's one of your greenhouse gas buffers. [editline]20th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36846754]I hope I'm not late in responding to this, but it's a verifiable fact that we are still coming out of the previous ice age. We're not [I]causing[/I] the warming trend, but we do appear to be accelerating it.[/QUOTE] However, we are causing the trend to be faster and eventually that it will not stop as it used to.
[QUOTE=OvB;36846781]The thing is though, less heat from the sun would be able to enter the atmosphere. So what solar heat that's already beneath it at the time they pump the shit into the sky will eventually cool to an average level. (while still bumping around under the atmosphere like you're suggesting) If that makes any sense... I have to leave in a bit so I'm sorta rushing the explanation.[/QUOTE] Well, if it actually works that way, it sounds like a good idea :)
We don't know who struck first, us or them. But we do know it was us that scorched the sky.
question, possibly a dumb one at that. why are they doing above new mexico? isn't new mexico a city? what if something goes wrong then wouldn't the whole city be affected?
[QUOTE=Badballer;36849615]We don't know who struck first, us or them. But we do know it was us that scorched the sky.[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=285649&dateline=1302181528[/img]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.