Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-05-2024, 03:50 PM
 
Location: Madison, Alabama
12,958 posts, read 9,473,611 times
Reputation: 8944

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cheka View Post
how do you feel about geoengineering to influence earth's weather? some famous rich guys are for it. would aerial spraying of reflective nanoparticles be something you would support? the theory being that reflecting some sunlight away from earth will cool it.

this strategy seems to be gaining support. where do you come down?
No, I'm not for it. You never know what results you will get. The atmosphere is a complicated entity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-05-2024, 08:03 PM
 
Location: Canada
14,735 posts, read 15,011,327 times
Reputation: 34866
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
Geo-enginering up til now has been local/small scale with little effect outside the target area.

Most of the damage to our riparian ecosystems with loss of significant portions of our fish,amphibian, aquatic mammals and brds has been caused by habitat disruption by the Army Corps of Engineers in their attempts to prevent flooding by dredging and building dams.

There is some data now that lage wind farms are disrupting precipitation patterns by extracting energy from the wind.

What the knuckleheads are proposing is world wide disruption weather patterns by blocking sunlight over the entire globe. How utterly stupid.
Well said. Knuckleheads indeed.

I'm totally disgusted that anybody is entertaining such an idea as is being proposed. I've never been a "protestor" type of person in my life but this proposal is something that would have me getting involved in protests against it.

.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2024, 08:30 AM
 
9,847 posts, read 7,712,566 times
Reputation: 24480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
Well said. Knuckleheads indeed.

I'm totally disgusted that anybody is entertaining such an idea as is being proposed. I've never been a "protestor" type of person in my life but this proposal is something that would have me getting involved in protests against it.

.
I agree with you. I would also actively protest this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2024, 09:38 AM
 
Location: Taos NM
5,349 posts, read 5,123,798 times
Reputation: 6766
Well, we already are geoengineering inadvertently - cutting down a forest reduces aerosols that trees put out and the transpiration they release. Irrigating increases transpiration where it wasn't before. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas.

They've taken cores of antarctica and realized that the reduction in smoke and soot from wildfires from the southern hemisphere (set by indigenous people) compared to what they used to be in pre industrial times was causing a good percentage of the global warming. Likewise the reduction air pollution from the horrendous levels they were at in the last 2 centuries is impacting both temperature and precipitation patterns.

I don't have data on this (it's not there cause we don't know enough), but I believe that land use and fire and air pollution changes have done more to alter temperature and precipitation than CO2.

So, the "should we geoengineer" question masks the impact we already do. But the critical things for global geoengineering going forward are:

1. The baseline that the geoengineers are using for "normal" is when the world was heavily chopped down and full of coal and woodfire soot. They don't know what normal was before human interference anyways.

2. The world has already adapted to todays temperatures to a large degree, going back down is going to cause as much disruption as going up as caused. The spruce and lodgepole pine are already dead in the Rockies and new things are growing in, going back to 1800 temps means this whole process has to switch again and would be very disruptive.

3. Warmer is not inherently worse. It's worse for the coastal locations people have happened to set up shop in, but it's not worse for inland and high latitude locations, which comprises many more acres than the human coastal belt. The ironic thing that geoengineering brings up is all the benefits of warming suddenly become costs when you move the other way, and those costs are huge!

The simplest best things to do are 1. Keep making the air cleaner by reducing wildfires, biomass burning, and pollution 2. Restore natural habitats so they can do their natural geoengineering 3. Deal with whatever climate changes result instead of trying to keep a climate fixed; that's artificial, it never stays fixed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2024, 02:20 PM
 
Location: Canada
14,735 posts, read 15,011,327 times
Reputation: 34866
Excellent post by Phil above ^^^. I think you're spot on with your analysis.

.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2024, 05:17 PM
 
9,847 posts, read 7,712,566 times
Reputation: 24480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P View Post
...

I don't have data on this (it's not there cause we don't know enough), but I believe that land use and fire and air pollution changes have done more to alter temperature and precipitation than CO2.

So, the "should we geoengineer" question masks the impact we already do. But the critical things for global geoengineering going forward are:

1. The baseline that the geoengineers are using for "normal" is when the world was heavily chopped down and full of coal and woodfire soot. They don't know what normal was before human interference anyways.

2. The world has already adapted to todays temperatures to a large degree, going back down is going to cause as much disruption as going up as caused. The spruce and lodgepole pine are already dead in the Rockies and new things are growing in, going back to 1800 temps means this whole process has to switch again and would be very disruptive.

3. Warmer is not inherently worse. It's worse for the coastal locations people have happened to set up shop in, but it's not worse for inland and high latitude locations, which comprises many more acres than the human coastal belt. The ironic thing that geoengineering brings up is all the benefits of warming suddenly become costs when you move the other way, and those costs are huge!

The simplest best things to do are 1. Keep making the air cleaner by reducing wildfires, biomass burning, and pollution 2. Restore natural habitats so they can do their natural geoengineering 3. Deal with whatever climate changes result instead of trying to keep a climate fixed; that's artificial, it never stays fixed.
Well said!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top