U. of Chi. Professor and "Scientist" Wants to Block Sunlight to Cool Earth

[JBG]

The print edition headline of the New York Times apparently (from a Replica Edition which is part of my subscription) is "Scientist Wants to Block Sunlight to Cool Earth" (link). The online edition's headline was apparently edited to say "Meet the Scientist Who Wants to Alter Earth’s Atmosphere." Both have a line underneath the banner saying "Critics say even researching the idea is dangerous." I wonder if the editing was to make the idea seem less maniacal. I wondered if there was a "Satire" section on which to post this as I have seen those on other boards. Excerpt below:

I had come to Chicago to talk to Keith about this proposed technology, which is known as stratospheric solar geoengineering. While it can seem like the stuff of science fiction, ambitious proposals to alter the planet’s climate are increasingly being taken seriously as the effects of global warming grow more acute.
There are already major efforts underway to suck carbon dioxide out of the air. Experiments to brighten clouds to deflect the sun’s energy are also being carried out.
Keith is a leading intellectual figure in the geoengineering movement.

Apparently, people have become so wrapped up in the religion of climate change that they are willing to basically play with very dangerous forces. The article references his remembering the short term effect of the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. Did lead to a cooling in 1992. Apparently he wants to replicate this idea.

Even with the more mainstream efforts to deindustrialize people are playing with very dangerous forces. There seems to be little regard for the impact upon the average person while the Elites either want to make heroes of themselves or immiserate the middle class and the lower class. This would appear to almost be in the category of psychological derangement, but some very serious people are involved in this. People should really think about what they are potentially doing By upending a functioning industrial society. An Op Ed in the July 31, 2024 Wall Street Journal, Polar Bears, Dead Coral and Other Climate Fictions (link), written by Bjorn Lomborg lays out a view to which I adhere. Excerpt (article may be paywalled):

Whatever happened to polar bears? They used to be all climate campaigners could talk about, but now they’re essentially absent from headlines. Over the past 20 years, climate activists have elevated various stories of climate catastrophe, then quietly dropped them without apology when the opposing evidence becomes overwhelming. The only constant is the scare tactics.

About a month ago, the New York Times finally shared what it called “surprising” climate news: Almost all atoll islands are stable or increasing in size. In fact, scientific literature has documented this for more than a decade. While rising sea levels do erode land, additional sand from old coral is washed up on low-lying shores. Extensive studies have long shown this accretion is stronger than climate-caused erosion, meaning the land area of Tuvalu and many other small islands is increasing.
Today, killer heat waves are the new climate horror story. In July President Biden claimed “extreme heat is the No. 1 weather-related killer in the United States.”

Recently I OP'd

Climate Frauds Under Review; 112° in the Saudi Desert? (the Horror) and The Vanishing Islands That Failed to Vanish and ...​

, which referenced the "vanishing islands."

People need to think for themselves!

Climate Frauds Under Review; 112° in the Saudi Desert? (the Horror) and The Vanishing Islands That Failed to Vanish and ...​

 

[1srelluc]

Oh a trillion should do it.....Half of which will end-up kick backed into DNC coffers.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The print edition headline of the New York Times apparently (from a Replica Edition which is part of my subscription) is "Scientist Wants to Block Sunlight to Cool Earth" (link). The online edition's headline was apparently edited to say "Meet the Scientist Who Wants to Alter Earth’s Atmosphere." Both have a line underneath the banner saying "Critics say even researching the idea is dangerous." I wonder if the editing was to make the idea seem less maniacal. I wondered if there was a "Satire" section on which to post this as I have seen those on other boards. Excerpt below:

Apparently, people have become so wrapped up in the religion of climate change that they are willing to basically play with very dangerous forces. The article references his remembering the short term effect of the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. Did lead to a cooling in 1992. Apparently he wants to replicate this idea.

Even with the more mainstream efforts to deindustrialize people are playing with very dangerous forces. There seems to be little regard for the impact upon the average person while the Elites either want to make heroes of themselves or immiserate the middle class and the lower class. This would appear to almost be in the category of psychological derangement, but some very serious people are involved in this. People should really think about what they are potentially doing By upending a functioning industrial society. An Op Ed in the July 31, 2024 Wall Street Journal, Polar Bears, Dead Coral and Other Climate Fictions (link), written by Bjorn Lomborg lays out a view to which I adhere. Excerpt (article may be paywalled):

Recently I OP'd

Climate Frauds Under Review; 112° in the Saudi Desert? (the Horror) and The Vanishing Islands That Failed to Vanish and ...​

, which referenced the "vanishing islands."

People need to think for themselves!

Climate Frauds Under Review; 112° in the Saudi Desert? (the Horror) and The Vanishing Islands That Failed to Vanish and ...​

I saw that in a James Bond movie once.
Evil scientist plotting the destruction of the planet.

 

[shockedcanadian]

 

[Natural Citizen]

They've already experimeted with this in some American states.

California was one, predictably.

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/california-climate/2024/04/04/a-secret-climate-experiment-in-alameda-00150705

 

[ReinyDays]

Jet engines spew soot in the lower Stratosphere blocking sunlight ... otherwise the oceans would be at 175ºC by now ... so I voted "other" and that would be fly more commercial aircraft ... and have a cow while we're at it ...

 

[ding]

If the objective is to kill off all life, it's a wonderful idea.

 

[jackflash]

The print edition headline of the New York Times apparently (from a Replica Edition which is part of my subscription) is "Scientist Wants to Block Sunlight to Cool Earth" (link). The online edition's headline was apparently edited to say "Meet the Scientist Who Wants to Alter Earth’s Atmosphere." Both have a line underneath the banner saying "Critics say even researching the idea is dangerous." I wonder if the editing was to make the idea seem less maniacal. I wondered if there was a "Satire" section on which to post this as I have seen those on other boards. Excerpt below:

Apparently, people have become so wrapped up in the religion of climate change that they are willing to basically play with very dangerous forces. The article references his remembering the short term effect of the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. Did lead to a cooling in 1992. Apparently he wants to replicate this idea.

Even with the more mainstream efforts to deindustrialize people are playing with very dangerous forces. There seems to be little regard for the impact upon the average person while the Elites either want to make heroes of themselves or immiserate the middle class and the lower class. This would appear to almost be in the category of psychological derangement, but some very serious people are involved in this. People should really think about what they are potentially doing By upending a functioning industrial society. An Op Ed in the July 31, 2024 Wall Street Journal, Polar Bears, Dead Coral and Other Climate Fictions (link), written by Bjorn Lomborg lays out a view to which I adhere. Excerpt (article may be paywalled):

Recently I OP'd

Climate Frauds Under Review; 112° in the Saudi Desert? (the Horror) and The Vanishing Islands That Failed to Vanish and ...​

, which referenced the "vanishing islands."

People need to think for themselves!

Climate Frauds Under Review; 112° in the Saudi Desert? (the Horror) and The Vanishing Islands That Failed to Vanish and ...​

$ound$ like they are fi$hing for another generou$ federal grant.

 

[JBG]

$ound$ like they are fi$hing for another generou$ federal grant.

IIRC the "Inflation Reduction Act" makes such grants available. Another Federal black hole for money or money pit.

 

[Crick]

Jet engines spew soot in the lower Stratosphere blocking sunlight ... otherwise the oceans would be at 175ºC by now ... so I voted "other" and that would be fly more commercial aircraft ... and have a cow while we're at it ...

You should be a little more clear about it when you exaggerate for dramatic effect.

 

[ding]

View attachment 990037

You should be a little more clear about it when you exaggerate for dramatic effect.

Don't you find it odd that the sun isn't shown as much of factor while you have been arguing that the way the planet orbits around the sun is the cause for abrupt climate changes such as glacial periods and interglacial periods?

 

[ding]

View attachment 990037

You should be a little more clear about it when you exaggerate for dramatic effect.

How much heat did the ocean absorb just from sunshine striking it from 1750 through 2019? Why isn't the heat in the ocean included in this?

 

[ding]

View attachment 990037

You should be a little more clear about it when you exaggerate for dramatic effect.

It looks like they are saying that no natural causes exist to cause warming or cooling trends. That's odd considering the geologic record is littered with such events. How do you explain that?

 

[there4eyeM]

After blowing up so many bombs in the atmosphere and spouting leaded exhaust into the atmosphere for so long, what could be surprising about such another stupid thing to do?

 

[Crick]

Don't you find it odd that the sun isn't shown as much of factor while you have been arguing that the way the planet orbits around the sun is the cause for abrupt climate changes such as glacial periods and interglacial periods?

How can you BE this stupid? What are the periods of the three motions of the Milankovitch cycles? 26,000, 41,000 and 100,000 years. What time period does that fucking graph cover? 1750 - 2019

 

[ding]

How can you BE this stupid? What are the periods of the three motions of the Milankovitch cycles? 26,000, 41,000 and 100,000 years. What time period does that fucking graph cover? 1750 - 2019

It super odd that you believe orbital cycles are so powerful that they can cause the planet to freeze and then thaw but you never need to consider them.

Ignore ocean currents. Orbital cycles control the planet's climate. Wink. Wink.

Ocean currents drive the planet's climate, dummy. Not the atmosphere, not orbital cycles. The oceans. They distribute the heat and they establish climate. Say it with me.

 

[Crick]

It super odd that you believe orbital cycles are so powerful that they can cause the planet to freeze and then thaw but you never need to consider them.

Are you ever going to admit one of your mistakes? You just suggested that a chart covering the last 269 years should have shown a factor that varies of periods of tens of thousands of years. That was a mistake.

Ignore ocean currents. Orbital cycles control the planet's climate. Wink. Wink.

You keep trying to suggest I said something I did not because the fact that I'm cleaning your clock over and over and over again is something you find intolerable. I have a suggestion. Instead of lying about what I've been saying, admit that you made a mistake and stop pushing your twaddle.

Ocean currents drive the planet's climate, dummy. Not the atmosphere, not orbital cycles. The oceans. They distribute the heat and they establish climate. Say it with me.

"I, ding, am an ignorant liar and lack the tiniest fraction of the testicular fortitude necessary to ever admit I made a mistake."

 

[ding]

Are you ever going to admit one of your mistakes? You just suggested that a chart covering the last 269 years should have shown a factor that varies of periods of tens of thousands of years. That was a mistake.

You keep trying to suggest I said something I did not because the fact that I'm cleaning your clock over and over and over again is something you find intolerable. I have a suggestion. Instead of lying about what I've been saying, admit that you made a mistake and stop pushing your twaddle.

"I, ding, am an ignorant liar and lack the tiniest fraction of the testicular fortitude necessary to ever admit I made a mistake."

No mistakes. You use orbital cycles when it suits you. You use changes in solar intensity when it suits you. But when you list components that can affect climate, neither of those are material. But even worse, you assume no natural climate fluctuations can occur even though the geologic record is littered with them. That's fraudulent.

 

[Crick]

No mistakes. You use orbital cycles when it suits you. You use changes in solar intensity when it suits you. But when you list components that can affect climate, neither of those are material. But even worse, you assume no natural climate fluctuations can occur even though the geologic record is littered with them. That's fraudulent.

Pack sand, asshole

 

[ding]

Pack sand, asshole

Says the guy who can't explain how orbital cycles initiate glacial periods and then ends glacial periods. Your arguments are fraudulent.