Skip to comments.Scientists Want to Synthetically Create a Volcanic Winter – Are they Just Nuts?
Posted on 11/27/2018 10:39:35 PM PST by Tilting
Believe it or not, pretend Scientists are actuall proposing to create a synthetic Volcanic Winter by spraying sun-dimming chemicals into the Earths atmosphere the same as a volcanoe when it erupts. These pretend research scientists at Harvard and Yale universities have published in the journal Environmental Research Letters proposing to inject an aerosol (SAI) to reduce the rate of global warming. They have propsed a completely unproven attempt to alter the planet using a technique involving spraying large amounts of sulfate particles into the Earths lower stratosphere at altitudes as high as 12 miles. They argue to deliver the sulfates with specially designed high-altitude aircraft, balloons or large naval-style guns. To accomplish this they want $3.5 billion, with annual costs of $2.25 billion a year over.
This is exactly as the chemtrail conspiracy theory which is based on the belief that long-lasting condensation trails are chemtrails consisting of chemical or biological agents are left in the sky by high-flying aircraft that are sprayed for undisclosed reasons. It seems that the pretend scientists have taken the chemtrail theories to a new level. They say they are only dimming the sun. Guess they have no clue about weather history and volcanic winters, Guess shattering 150 year cold records for thanksgiving is still too warm for these people.
Climate Change is not just simply that there is a unusual cold storm or heat wave. Yet these people harp on each individual event as proof of their theory. Real climate change has to do with shifting patterns of weather and the progressive long-term trend. Their forecasts are based upon assuming whatever trend is in motion will remain in motion. That is a fatal flaw in analysis if we are talking about markets or weather. They really need to understand that there are cycles to start with.
They have propsed a completely unproven attempt to alter the planet using a technique involving spraying large amounts of sulfate particles into the Earths lower stratosphere...
If a private company did that it would be fined for air pollution.
Armstrong doesn’t write very well does he?
I mean, did he proofread even once??!!?
Important article and important information deserve proper grammar and syntax!!
Here is my theory about those pushing for this, but first some initial assumptions:
1. They know the sun is cooling
2. They know Global Warming caused by CO2 is bunk
3. They have an endless thirst for political power
So you say we need to fly these particulate injection missions to cool off the earth. They start them and spray the stuff, they only spray around .01% of what is really needed to actually do this, they fake the rest of the flights on only use the stuff they spray when they have media go on their flights... They claim it is working and lo and behold the temps slowly start to NATURALLY drop ( as the sun itself dims naturally ) and they pat themselves on the back and tell us plebes that IN SPITE OF YOU CO2 SPEWING LOWLY WORMS...WE FIXED THE EARTH! We can’t come this close to disaster again, therefore we need to be given MORE POWER OVER YOUR EVERYDAY lives to PREVENT US FROM HAVING TO TAKE SUCH DRASTIC MEASURES!!!
Power Play, pure and simple!
I could never understand how a computer programmer (Armstrong) can’t at least get the spellings right let alone sentence structure. Oh well, maybe he is to busy to proofread.
Apparently they are unaware we are heading into a rather nasty super grand solar minimum.
Dr. Teller, I think it was, wrote an article a couple of decades back arguing that the climate change guys were overly hysterical, and that there were a number of mitigation strategies that were far cheaper than the anti-carbon route. His suggestions for possible cheap solutions included this one.
Here’s a reference: https://www.wired.com/2008/06/ff-geoengineering/
“Geoengineering schemes sound like they’re pulled straight from pulp sci-fi novels: Fertilize the oceans with iron in order to sequester carbon dioxide; launch fleets of ships to whip up sea spray and enhance the solar reflectivity of marine stratocumulus clouds; use trillions of tiny spacecraft to form a sunshade a million miles from Earth in perfect solar orbit. They all may seem impractical, but among a small but growing set of climate scientists, one idea that Wood and Teller started pushing in the late 1990s (before Teller’s death in 2003) is gaining acceptance: Inject sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to reflect a portion of the sun’s rays back into space, thus cooling the planet.”
Haven’t you heard?
Proper syntax and grammar are racist. /s
They know, they just want to take credit for cooling the earth and saving us from global warming.
A few decades ago “environmentalists” were panicing about sulfates in the atmosphere from industrial activity causing acid rain and destroying the oceans.
The end is near, we're all going to die. Unless, that is, we empower government to control more of the economy and our lives. It's a standard trick of the left - predict doom and gloom in the future in an attempt to scare the Hell out of people while promising to avoid it if we let them get their way. While this could apply to nearly anything Democrats are pushing on any given day, this week it's about global cooling. I mean, global warming. Er, scratch that, climate change...
pretend research scientists at Harvard and Yale universities...
.....in two weeks, another story will be published claiming it’s “settled”
Gramerly is supposed to be good for he ill educated
SO2 was reduced in the atmosphere to combat acid rain and it blocked sunlight.
I remember when Saddam’s threat to burn the Kuwaiti oil fields was enough to make Carl Sagsn wet himself for fear that we’d be plunged into nuclear winter.
This is at best a hypothesis, not a theory. A theory is developed as a contextual framework that explains the known data and allows the development of testable hypotheses. A hypothesis is a highly educated guess based on the existing data and which fits into the theoretical framework; it must be testable and always is paired with a null hypothesis. Theories are refined as the body of experimental evidence grows; hypotheses are accepted or rejected.
I find this sentence ironic in a post commenting on another's lack of proofreading.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.