Scientists propose firing moon dust into space to solve climate crisis

[JamesBlond]

First of all, if you believe the BS of the Climate Crisis they should fire moon dust up your nostrils so you can get some brains.

Technology at stage 30 out of 1000 in 1969, put a man on the moon
Technology at stage 3000 out of 1000 in 2022, cant put a man on the moon because its too dangerous

Climate scientists who disagree spoil the chance of the ones making this **** up from losing trillions for their plans failing. Over 200 Climate specialists already said its a money making scam... so will the moon dust bs be. Just need your tax payer dollars to save the planet baby...yeah baby, give us your hard earned money so we can buy new Yachts.. no we are not planting more trees... cause it will prove we lying.

 

[Avro Arrow]

When scientists start coming up with crackpot ideas like this, we be very afraid because it means that the situation has gone from dire to desperate.

 

[JamesBlond]

It's so weird that all the anti-science nuts on here are congregating on a tech site that tells stories about things that science created.

Just in case you think science created something, let me show you what science is because I know most people who think they know science doesn't know the difference between their *** and nose

Meaning : / science
/ˈsʌɪəns/
Learn to pronounce : noun
1.
the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.
"the world of science and technology"
Similar:
branch of knowledge
area of study
discipline
field
2.
ARCHAIC
knowledge of any kind.
"his rare science and his practical skill"

 

[JamesBlond]

Now lets get to changing the moons mass by 22Billion pounds....Tides change, weather change, more storms

New research by Prof Ed Hawkins and colleagues at the University of Reading looks at the regular 18.6-year cycle during which the moon’s orbital plane shifts in relation to the Earth’s equator. This cycle has been known since prehistoric times, and can be observed by slight changes in where the moon rises and sets. The cycle affects tides and how warm water from the surface of the ocean mixes with colder water below. This in turn influences how rapidly the sea absorbs heat.

According to Hawkins’ paper, these lunar cycles can heat or cool the globe by about 0.04C at their extremes. That’s imperceptibly small to humans, but enough to influence climate change modelling. In particular, the effect may help explain an apparent slowdown in warming in the 2000s, and could fractionally increase warming in the 2030s.

So...the big brains guys only work on a 18.6yr cycle, not like the guys who actually are the most educated in the field who refuse to make predictoins with less that 150yrs worth of data just so they are accurate.

Maybe you just want to hear and hope that the people who know the truth will be proved wrong at least once in the next 1000 yrs

 

[mbk34]

It seems like a very human solution to a human problem: polluting space to try and cure the problems caused by polluting the planet. If you were going to take that route then you think you'd do better positioning something like a large umbrella much closer to the sun - I'm not sure how you'd keep the orbit aligned though. It might make a fun sci-fi comedy either way.

 

[Avro Arrow]

"Scientists" you say? Yeah I am going to press X for doubt on that one: 10 to 1 says those scientists either didn't just say that as a solution, work directly for an oil company or one of their many think tanks, or likely both.

Just start build some railroads and use trains ok? Just using trains and really investing heavily on infrastructure to get everybody to stop using cars or planes all of the time for no good reason 90% of the time would already solve things 1000x faster but instead the only other news is how oil companies are pushing to increase their spending and production even more every year.

You could be 100% correct and I definitely understand your sentiment but the situation may only appear to be that way. Remember that climate scientists have said loooong ago that if we were to reduce our emissions dramatically, it would be helpful, but that was, like, twenty-five years ago. It's too late for emission reduction alone to mitigate the situation. These scientists could simply be getting desperate because even if we were to completely eliminate all carbon emissions tomorrow, it's already too late and the damage has been done.

I think that this idea gained traction because they're not looking for ways to eliminate our emissions because we already know what must be done, we're just too lazy and/or stupid to do it. They're not going to keep harping about something that is too late to work anyway. I absolutely agree with your take on using trains and I've been saying for over a decade that our logistical infrastructures should be primarily be made up of electric high-speed maglev trains powered by geo-thermal, hydro or nuclear generating stations. The thing is that we're long past the point that it would undo what has already been done. There is going to be a climate catastrophe that cannot be avoided because of what already has been done.

I live in Southern Ontario and yesterday it was +7 degrees. I don't remember ever seeing it that warm here before in February. Normally, if we have any days above 0 in February, one day might hit +2. I remember days in February that were colder than -30.

Now, it may have happened once or twice that it did reach a similar temperature here but I think that the biggest change has been in my overall attitude towards the situation. I used to absolutely dread the coming of February because, in Canada, February winds should normally feel like razor blades cutting your face. Now we only get that once in a blue moon.

I don't dread February anymore. That's a definite change.

 

[Tantor]

Hey there Mr. Triggered. I thought the moon dust idea was dumb too. But not as dumb as your claim that there is no climate crisis. The science is settled there.

Well... no. The science is not settled. The technical issues go far beyond CO2 or computer projections.

The 'global warming crisis' can be broken down into a series of linked questions.

- Is the earth warming?
- Is warming dangerous?
- Does human activity have an effect on the climate?
- Is the human contribution even significant?
- Is it possible to change the climate by changing human activity?
- Is it even reasonable to change the climate by changing human activity?
- Will anything that YOU do have any effect on the climate?

According to Warmists, the answer to these questions are all yes. However, if even one is determined to be no, the chain is broken and the argument for personal action falls apart.

Take, for example, is warming dangerous? The entire Warmist argument hinges on portraying warming as a dystopian desert blanketing the Earth. The reality is far different. CO2 is a GREENHOUSE gas. Plants love CO2. It's widely used in agribusiness. For example, this site explains how they maintain 800ppm CO2 to grow tomatoes, etc. Note that 800ppm is WAY higher than any global warming projections.

"To control the CO2 level in the greenhouse, an NDIR sensor is typically used. The target set point will generally be 800 ppm of CO2. When the sensor detects a reduced CO2 level in the greenhouse it will activate the CO2 dosing system. When the required CO2 level has been achieved, the measured value will increase, and the control system will shut off the CO2 supply." https://www.envirotech-online.com/a...-control-of-growth-conditions-and-safety/2492

NASA has a website which shows that the Earth has been greening dramatically. Greening actually cools the earth due to increased cloud cover.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates-surface-warming

A good case can be made that Warming creates a greener, more lush world.

This is why the science is not settled.

 

[BigRedPDX]

This is just a proposed idea and the science isn't fully there to back it up. My question is... how much of the moon's dust do we need and should we really be messing with the moon which determines our tide and tilt? We don't want solutions that will speed up the process in which we are killing our planet.

 

[BobHome]

"Scientists" you say? Yeah I am going to press X for doubt on that one: 10 to 1 says those scientists either didn't just say that as a solution, work directly for an oil company or one of their many think tanks, or likely both.

Just start build some railroads and use trains ok? Just using trains and really investing heavily on infrastructure to get everybody to stop using cars or planes all of the time for no good reason 90% of the time would already solve things 1000x faster but instead the only other news is how oil companies are pushing to increase their spending and production even more every year.

"Think Tank" = ChatGPT?

 

[rsmith222]

F*ck yeah, let's do another Ice Age.

It would be far better for the long-term prospects of life than the runaway greenhouse effect. Ice ages end.

It would certainly put a crimp in humanity's mad population expansion rate, of course, though.

 

[rsmith222]

Plants love CO2. It's widely used in agribusiness. For example, this site explains how they maintain 800ppm CO2 to grow tomatoes, etc. Note that 800ppm is WAY higher than any global warming projections.

Intensive agricultural plants, especially single species, hardly speak to the functioning of the entire ecosystem.

Excessive CO2 has detrimental effects on many plant species, despite the layman assumption that more CO2 = better for plants.

The key to ecological quality is the rate of change. Humanity is exceeding the safe rate of change, drastically. When the rate of change is exceeded, species don't have time to let evolution adapt them. They die out. While it is true that recovery does happen, humanity really wouldn't be in a good position if the Earth were to experience another 'rise of fungi' period due to massive climate change (which happened due to dust in the air from meteor strike, the one that vanquished the dinosaurs and gave rise to mammalian domination). Recovery is unbelievably slow, from the point of view of human lifespan. If the runaway greenhouse effect can happen then no recovery will ever happen, too.

The only sane way to manage Earth's ecosystems is to have a small human population. The more people there are, the more resources must be plundered to satiate their technological advances.