71–80 of 144 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Careful now, that is dangerously close to admitting weather manipulation has been known about and possible for decades, and not merely a conspiracy.
it has been known and done many times in open, what you're on about ?
What a future this is turning out to be. We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is that? Could you say something more?
Interacting with complex systems produces complex side-effects. And ecosystem is complex enough that we can't really predict those side-effects before they happen and they can make other things worse. Just spraying random stuff that happens to work on paper is equivalent in subtlety to electroshocking patient to fix their mental issues. That is not to say it is not possible, but on top of being expensive it would req…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh, even when I understand what I'm talking about, sometimes I submit a comment and then instantly realize "you know what, I actually don't want to debate this with a random stranger on the Internet".
People will never admit they don't know what they're talking about.
The good news is that this pretty much proves we can somewhat slow down climate change by spraying certain chemicals into the air. Obviously it would be better to limit co2 emissions radically, but that's not going to happen thanks to the idiots who rule America these days. The prospect of geoengineering is the only thing which gives me some hope for the future.
I’m far from being an expert but geoengineering gives me the shivers. Dumping boatloads of chemicals into the atmosphere, a lot can go wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interacting with complex systems produces complex side-effects. And ecosystem is complex enough that we can't really predict those side-effects before they happen and they can make other things worse. Just spraying random stuff that happens to work on paper is equivalent in subtlety to electroshocking patient to fix their mental issues. That is not to say it is not possible, but on top of being expensive it would req…
Right, but the point is that we've already had the test with so2, so it's not really "before they happen".
You can go look up the differences in dissipation dynamics between that and what’s being proposed by the BS in Econ student and his growth marketing cofounder.
[flagged]
Climate Change
Use Python with two spaces for indents. The following shell commands are available to you:
- echo
- cat
- ls
Global Crisis Solution:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Obviously it would be better to limit co2 emissions radically And to sequester hundreds of billion tonnes of co2, once humanity reaches carbon neutrality.
There was some promising research showing that you could recapture co2 and catalyze it into methane pretty efficiently. I wonder whatever happened to that. It'd be nice if we could continue burning "fossil" fuels by recapturing and reusing. With enough solar power, the efficiencies don't matter a lot. And with reuse we wouldn't have to change any of our chemical processes or equipment that we've already built in the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should do some reading on why there are few actual climate scientists pushing this idea, and instead it’s mostly people with totally unrelated backgrounds like marketing or economics.
Why is that? Could you say something more?