A solar shield could save us from climate change. But its sudden collapse would doom the planet

[rangerrebew]

A solar shield could save us from climate change. But its sudden collapse would doom the planet

By Katie LanginJan. 22, 2018 , 11:00 AM

Last year, the planet was plagued by powerful hurricanes, blistering fires, and temperatures that ranked as some of the hottest on record—ratcheting up concern that we’re already knee-deep in climate change. To stave off the heat, some scientists have proposed blanketing Earth in a sheet of sunlight-reflecting particles called aerosols. This solar shield could cool the planet and buy us time, but a new study suggests that if politicians turned off the hypothetical cloud, they could plunge the planet into a sudden ecological Armageddon.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/01/solar-shield-could-save-us-climate-change-its-sudden-collapse-would-doom-planet

[rangerrebew]

This seems to be a tacit admission that the real culprit in "global warming" is the sun and not carbon dioxide.

[driftdiver]

Gee what could go wrong.  Fools

[Joe Wooten]

Yep, now they are trying another angle to get their hands on more of our money.

[240B]

This seems to be a tacit admission that the real culprit in "global warming" is the sun and not carbon dioxide.

Exactly as I have alway said.


First: Climate Change, as it is called, has been happening forever, since the Earth was first formed. Have these idiots ever heard of the ice age?


Second: The primary driver in global changes to the Earth's climate is normal and natural variations in the Sun.


Compared to the sun, volcanoes, forest fires, and other completely natural events, the impact man could have on the world's weather is minimal.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Exactly as I have alway said.


First: Climate Change, as it is called, has been happening forever, since the Earth was first formed. Have these idiots ever heard of the ice age?


Second: The primary driver in global changes to the Earth's climate is normal and natural variations in the Sun.


Compared to the sun, volcanoes, forest fires, and other completely natural events, the impact man could have on the world's weather is minimal.

There are some who feel so arrogant in believing the effects of man on the weather can be anything but minuscule.

[Suppressed]

This seems to be a tacit admission that the real culprit in "global warming" is the sun and not carbon dioxide.

Not at all.

The Clean Air Act removed particulates that we'd previously been putting into the air, which was causing the cooling trend earlier. After the CAA, warming took over.

This would simply reduce one variable in the equation to offset another.

[driftdiver]

Not at all.

The Clean Air Act removed particulates that we'd previously been putting into the air, which was causing the cooling trend earlier. After the CAA, warming took over.

This would simply reduce one variable in the equation to offset another.

@Suppressed
The CAA doesn't seem to be helping in China

[Joe Wooten]

Not at all.

The Clean Air Act removed particulates that we'd previously been putting into the air, which was causing the cooling trend earlier. After the CAA, warming took over.

This would simply reduce one variable in the equation to offset another.

However many particulates we and the western Europeans put in the air at our worst in the late 50's and early 60's, the Russians, Chinese and Indians are much, much worse now. If you check the undoctored records, the hottest decade in the modern era was the 1930's, when industrial output was way down worldwide for almost the entire decade  worldwide.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

However many particulates we and the western Europeans put in the air at our worst in the late 50's and early 60's, the Russians, Chinese and Indians are much, much worse now. If you check the undoctored records, the hottest decade in the modern era was the 1930's, when industrial output was way down worldwide for almost the entire decade  worldwide.

Which basically means our efforts amount to zilch.

Which means why spend the money?

[driftdiver]

Which basically means our efforts amount to zilch.

Which means why spend the money?

@IsailedawayfromFR

Just because it's not a cause of global warming doesn't mean it's not bad.   Reasonable efforts to reduce pollution is highly beneficial.    Not sure about you but I like to breathe.     India and China have major issues with respiratory problems.

[Joe Wooten]

@IsailedawayfromFR

Just because it's not a cause of global warming doesn't mean it's not bad.   Reasonable efforts to reduce pollution is highly beneficial.    Not sure about you but I like to breathe.     India and China have major issues with respiratory problems.

I don't mind cleaning up our messes, but the global warming climate change climate chaos spending proposed would do NOTHING to clean up the air. Most of the money would go to propping up another government bureaucracy with whatever is left over going to billionaire cronies.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@IsailedawayfromFR

Just because it's not a cause of global warming doesn't mean it's not bad.   Reasonable efforts to reduce pollution is highly beneficial.    Not sure about you but I like to breathe.     India and China have major issues with respiratory problems.

Of course I like to breathe like everybody. 

The libs want us to believe the earth is so fragile that man is so responsible for destroying it, maybe even just a few short decades left here on earth.

Well, if it is so fragile, ANY pollution of the air will affect any other place on the earth, so it seems obvious cleaning our air means nothing if we get polluted from India or China.

[The_Reader_David]

There are some who feel so arrogant in believing the effects of man on the weather can be anything but minuscule.

Be careful with such assertions.  There are very clear instances of human activity having significant effects on weather (and thus, aggregated and averaged over time and place climate):  urban heat-island effects, and the effect on the climate of the American Great Plains of the Corps of Engineers constructing a lot of small lakes (both winters and summer here were historically more extreme before that program, and are less so now).

Part of the corruption of science that supports the CO2-driven AGW hysteria is precisely a deliberate distortion of data based on failing to adequately correct for the urban heat-island effect, and preferring data from urban measurements (where the need to correct for this effect allows for more fudging) over rural measurements. There is good documentation of how centuries long data sets from rural weather stations in Russia were ignored in favor of extrapolating from "corrected" data from urban stations. 

Personally, I suspect that the empirical fact of arctic warming, from which the AGW believers extrapolate global warming, is explained by human activity:  changes in albedo from soot (thanks China, India and Russia for burning so much coal).  There are empirical papers showing that all the AGW models understate the change in arctic albedo, and observations on the ground of a great deal of soot and other dark particulate matter in runoff.

Of course a problem that can be solved by getting the ChiCom Central Committee, the Russian State Duma and the Indian Parliament to adopt and enforce analogues of the American Clean Air Act doesn't give the Feds or the UN or the EU an excuse to seize control over the energy sector and extend meddling in the the whole economy on the basis of curtailing all hydrocarbon burning.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Be careful with such assertions.  There are very clear instances of human activity having significant effects on weather (and thus, aggregated and averaged over time and place climate):  urban heat-island effects, and the effect on the climate of the American Great Plains of the Corps of Engineers constructing a lot of small lakes (both winters and summer here were historically more extreme before that program, and are less so now).

Part of the corruption of science that supports the CO2-driven AGW hysteria is precisely a deliberate distortion of data based on failing to adequately correct for the urban heat-island effect, and preferring data from urban measurements (where the need to correct for this effect allows for more fudging) over rural measurements. There is good documentation of how centuries long data sets from rural weather stations in Russia were ignored in favor of extrapolating from "corrected" data from urban stations. 

Personally, I suspect that the empirical fact of arctic warming, from which the AGW believers extrapolate global warming, is explained by human activity:  changes in albedo from soot (thanks China, India and Russia for burning so much coal).  There are empirical papers showing that all the AGW models understate the change in arctic albedo, and observations on the ground of a great deal of soot and other dark particulate matter in runoff.

Of course a problem that can be solved by getting the ChiCom Central Committee, the Russian State Duma and the Indian Parliament to adopt and enforce analogues of the American Clean Air Act doesn't give the Feds or the UN or the EU an excuse to seize control over the energy sector and extend meddling in the the whole economy on the basis of curtailing all hydrocarbon burning.

I do understand and appreciate your thoughts on this.

What I agree some localized affects can take place caused by man's endeavors, we have been talking about the earth itself.

Heat island effects caused by a major city in this country does not have any material effect with the weather patterns in Calcutta, for example.

The earth is not as fragile as these people keep saying it is.