Hundreds of documents show how researchers failed to notify officials in California about a test of technology to block the sun’s rays — while they planned a much huger sequel.
We have technology to reflect heat into a wavelength that goes out into space. I would much rather we subsidize getting that on surfaces than something like this. Also just insulation. I mean there is a lot less controversial stuff that will be more effective.
There is no surface-level equivalent to cloud seeding. You seed clouds as high up as you can and hope they spread and persist. The equivalent on Earth is to spread white ceiling paint over a majority of all land.
Im not saying these things are direct analogues but more that we have plenty of proven ways of mitigating and preventing global warming and if we have extra cash for things like this they would be better put towards those.
It is if it involves using fossil fuels to run aircraft to do it or the cost would result in better returns elsewhere like with insulation or if the process is putting chemicals in the air not naturally there or if it increases we bulb temperature. etc. etc. fucking with things in hopes of effect as not as effective as doing things with known actual beneficial effects. Its like carbon capture. If it produces more co2 than it captures it is a non starter.
8 billion people nudging the thermostat will have a much greater effect than artificially increasing clouds and won’t cost any energy and cause more global warming as part of the process. Its a one and done. Even at 1 billion and even at 100 million.
We have technology to reflect heat into a wavelength that goes out into space. I would much rather we subsidize getting that on surfaces than something like this. Also just insulation. I mean there is a lot less controversial stuff that will be more effective.
There is no surface-level equivalent to cloud seeding. You seed clouds as high up as you can and hope they spread and persist. The equivalent on Earth is to spread white ceiling paint over a majority of all land.
Im not saying these things are direct analogues but more that we have plenty of proven ways of mitigating and preventing global warming and if we have extra cash for things like this they would be better put towards those.
“More clouds” should not be controversial.
It is if it involves using fossil fuels to run aircraft to do it or the cost would result in better returns elsewhere like with insulation or if the process is putting chemicals in the air not naturally there or if it increases we bulb temperature. etc. etc. fucking with things in hopes of effect as not as effective as doing things with known actual beneficial effects. Its like carbon capture. If it produces more co2 than it captures it is a non starter.
Guy pushing chemical-industry paint subsidy performatively strokes chin.
The fuck is insulation supposed to do for greenhouse gases?
insulation reduces energy usage for heating and cooling and I assume the first part was sarcasm.
My guy. Nudging your thermostat is not gonna make the wiggly line in the sidebar go back down.
Stopping sunlight from reaching the ocean, will.
8 billion people nudging the thermostat will have a much greater effect than artificially increasing clouds and won’t cost any energy and cause more global warming as part of the process. Its a one and done. Even at 1 billion and even at 100 million.
Increased cloud cover could cause another ice age.
If we stopped all human energy use, immediately - the climate’s still in deep shit.
and if everyone put a foot down on one side of the earth and took their foot up on the other the earth would spin out of orbit.