56
Why is there no "controversy" about destroying the planet, ongoingly with petroleum products?
It’s the WaPo. They report to you the republiQan talking points in their best liberal-npr-radio voice.
Because we're being wise enough to question if this might have unintended consequences. For example, it might just shift the problem elsewhere and cause more severe draughts for someone else. Just a hypothetical to point out why people might not be immediately onboard with this.
Tho, fun fact, California has been doing this kind of stuff since at least the 60's. It's called cloud seeding and we've had numerous programs running. They just never got much attention. But technically, the chem trails conspiracy is based in a bit of truth. It's just not every airplane, but it's happening. A quick Google search will give you tons of government pages about it. It's not a secret.
Genuine answer: This is controversial because it is to intentionally alter the climate. We use fossil fuels for energy, not to alter the climate. The climate stuff is a negative side effect of fossil fuels.
Once you know the side effects of something, if you continue doing it, that's intentional. So I don't think that distinction makes much of a difference.
It makes a massive difference. It's the reason why one of them is considered a controversial new technology.
Yes. There's no possible way this could go wrong.
/s
Starts frantically building a train to house what's left of humanity.
*Trolley.
Pretty sure Snow Piercer is a train...
Your train will rust away in the salty rain..
I agree that the focus needs to be on cutting emissions, and I share the concern for unintended consequences. But I don’t know if that concern justifies shutting down an experiment that would help identify those consequences.
Sounds like someone got confused with seasons and seasoning.
Watch it work and cool the planet...but then we get salt water rains and it kills all vegetation that it touches resulting in an even worse fate.
First thought I had reading that article was "soil salinity."
That's not how precipitation works.
Didn't that just happen with the Tonga eruption? I guess they wouldn't be adding all the water though.
Tonga pumped water into the stratosphere, not just the troposphere.
Well, they've pulled the plug on it. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/05/us/alameda-cloud-brightening-climate-change.html
Well no. But… it would kill all plants so thats a bonus
The idea is to increase the amount of salt in the air over the ocean. It probably won't kill all plants.
Clouds move ya know. I'm not exactly sure why, but I've heard people on the television call it 'weather', or something like that.
Things you put in clouds or water will come down to earth
They do. And done right, it'll come down over the ocean, and have a rather minimal impact in the amount of salt being transported to land.
There are other reasons this is a really bad idea; this is one where the harm is probably limited.
And done right....
See, we don't have the best track record on that particular aspect of this.
That actually sounds good, I just dont know how they will spread salt periodically over the millions of square kms needed to make a difference on the Pacific's albedo without a huge carbon footprint.
Aizoaceae has entered the chat..
this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2024
56 points (93.8% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5186 readers
850 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS