Looks like the cover pic of a 1940′s Popular Science Magazine.
The Copenhagen Consensus Centre—a respected European think tank which used to be skeptic on climate change—is now advising that we should spend $9 billion in building 1900 cloud-generating ships like the one above. Why? To cool down Earth:
When you spray saltwater into the air, you create nuclei that cloud condenses around, creating bigger and whiter clouds, thus bouncing more sunlight back into space.
That’s what David Young, a member of the panel that created the report, says. The fully automated vessels will cross the oceans absorbing water and spraying it into the skies. They say this will help the formation of big, whiter clouds, which will make the sun light bounce, lowering temperatures.
Found by Dylan Newstead.
#39, Bob,
so the solution to global warning is to increase the atmospheric Volume of Water Vapor, the numerically strongest and effect strongest Greenhouse gas.
No. Maybe if you read the article you would know what this man’s suggestion is.
The salt in the water causes vapor to condense around it. This causes water droplets, which in turn, create clouds. The clouds would reflect a sizable amount of IR back into space and emit IR during night time.
A novel idea that is inexpensive and controllable. The water could also be used to bring rainfall to parched areas.
considering we and many other already have the ability to control weather via HAARP array type setups..i find this a huge waste.
(produce positive ions and clouds will form. produce negative ions and clouds will disperse. this is a fact that has been in practice for several decades in several countries)
-for instance, mexico has had one for quite some time.
weather is strictly an electrical phenomena, contrary to what we are taught.
on top of that, given that it’s the sun and solar wind that drives our weather this would be just another huge waste waste of time (and money)
-more likely they will use our current pseudoscience to sell it to the idiots in congress, so they can fund more black projects using “real science”
this BS can be filed under other hugely financed pseudoscience myths like the big bang theory and black holes…
ho hum
-s
#36 I see nothing wrong with indoctrination. You seem to have been properly programmed and you turn… boy, it’s really wrong!
#41, soundwash,
this BS can be filed under other hugely financed pseudoscience myths like the big bang theory and black holes…
Which is exactly where I put your comment.
Weather is caused by more than one thing.
Lets further isolate those factors that we can actually DO something about.
I’ll start the list: reduce CO2?==probably not. World is hooked on burning sequestered CO2. Nice idea. Will “never” happen. Reduce rates of increase—yes, but not the same thing.
OK. How bout reflecting light by painting roofs white? I like it. Why not try it?
Not enough? What else is on that list? How about increasing cloud cover? Don’t like it?====whats on your list of things we could actually DO, or is your action plan non-existant????
In life, ITS NOT ENOUGH to poo-poo a plan, you gotta come up with something else to be relevant.
Other issue: CO2 as “the” driver of global change has its detractors. Any studies showing increased atmospheric CO2 isn’t killing the ocean?
i will be making the ships…
#43: Mr. Fusion
::sigh:: …you really don’t like to learn, do you?
here, this will give a clue on *current* use of weather control:
http://rbth.ru/articles/2009/03/25/250309_weather.html
this guy has a pretty quick explanation how “real” weather
works:
http://weatherwars.info/?page_id=23
–lastly, observe the electrical (and magnetic) characteristics of the water molecule in this wiki of the water molecule:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_%28molecule%29
i have many more clues for you if you dare to open your eyes..
-s
#44 bobbo..
how about not wasting our time (and money) with trying to control a force that mainstream science claims to know very little about and instead, preparing ourselves as best we can for the changes that are coming?
if you look under the surface of much what we are taught, a lot does not add up.
if you have the time, take a gander at the synopsis of the Electric Universe model here:
http://holoscience.com/synopsis.php
(if you have electrical knowledge, you will be even more stunned at the revelation)
-after that, here is a one hour video
put out by the same body of scientists
and physicists that explains the electric universe model quite handily
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374
-again, having electrical knowledge will make this easy to grasp and equally, blow your mind that much more.. however it is all written/explained with simplicity in mind.
with any luck, you will come to understand the cyclical nature of the universe (and our weather) on a grander scale and realize the futility
in trying to change what is part of a large cycle of weather on this planet.
-add this brief “enlightening” look at weather..
http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=9
trust me, events soon to unfold will almost force mainstream to drop the charade and embrace the electric universe model..no doubt (sadly) the U.S. will be the last to do so..
-s
Soundwash==I will read your links with interest later tonight. I hope/believe it will be interesting, valid in some way, informing.
I doubt and will send you my left nut covered in chocolate in the mail if it is dispositive of anything.
Why do so many even intelligent people want complex, little understood, layered, conflicted issues settled by the application of just ONE idea?
More likely to fit on a bumper sticker – - – - but really!
#19, Fusion, low level clouds have a global cooling effect, so they don’t need to send the water high up. Plus,even if it rains, for the short duration of the clouds, they had a cooling effect.
Really, all you have to do is sacrifice environmental virgins to volcanoes.
Or the next best thing – environmentalists.
The constant harping on our environmental sins would subside quickly.
Awwwwh SOUNDWASH!!!!! I have overestimated your input to this blog. I think your “electrical universe” is about as valid as anything else that isn’t valid.
From Page 12 “So What”, First Paragraph:
“We know nothing of the origin of the universe. There was no Big Bang. The visible universe is static and much smaller than we thought. We have no idea of the age or extent of the universe. We don’t know the ultimate source of the electrical energy or matter that forms the universe.” /// Just WRONG on every point except for the concept of “ultimate.” Like most of metaphysics==irrelevant. I don’t think the Borg will be utilizing this technology. Your planet is safe.
#48 bobbo…
-i eagerly await your
chocolate covered nut in the mail.
-as you will find the EU model answers many questions with sound, established physics.
i would dare say things were made to *appear* complex for a reason.. -a debate for another time, however.
(you need to discover the actual (and potential) simplicity of life first..
-of which i found almost impossible at first, -until i unlearned the “expectation of complexity” that has more or less programmed into me since childhood)
easiest way i can put it:
you have to learn to see with “child’s eyes”
-s
#51 bobbo..
::sigh:: (i still await your left nut)
nonetheless, i see your quoting out of context, one of the final summations that rely on the reader to have read the prior bodies of the synopsis to make sense.
taken out of context your ridicule finds support.. in context it betrays that you either did not read the synopsis in its entirety, or that you did and have no desire to ever give credence to anything but the status quo, or, you read it and are a mental midget.
The precise reason why the EU model is practically flawless in it’s description of the mechanics of
the universe (and more) are that it uses NO metaphysics to explain anything.
It is entirely based on the known engineering principles of
electricity and plasma physics.
It leaves nothing to *chance* or some unproven metaphysical theory, -like Blackholes.
Converse to your metaphysics comment,
-our current model of the universe relies heavily on metaphysics to describe most all of it.
at this point i would give up on you
since it’s obvious you care not to learn anything.. or, for some reason are stricken from admitting it public.
last chance for a clue:
you can see the EU model applied to many modern day events chronologically here:
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/00archive.htm
or by subject matter here:
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/00subjectx.htm
careful though, you may end up a Unic
-peace, love and froot loops.
-s
Isn’t water vapor a greenhouse gas?
#54 Yes..Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere…
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html
#44, Bobbo,
In life, ITS NOT ENOUGH to poo-poo a plan, you gotta come up with something else to be relevant.
Hell, you’d make a lousy Republican with that attitude.
#46, soundwash,
As your second link points out, “Ionization is highly unconventional and in my realm of experience, I have seen no concrete evidence published in a refereed journal, not have I seen sufficient credible eyewitness verification that the technology works as touted” says George Bomar.
The difference between science and garbage is science allows the experiment to be repeated. Apparently this experiment has only anecdotal verification. Come on back when there is something that may be properly demonstrated and repeated.
Honestly, “Holoscience? Do you and Alphie take the same drugs? No such things as black holes? Then please explain the gravitational forces exerted by the center of each galaxie.
I don’t accept that holistic medicine works. I don’t accept the concept of a supreme being. I don’t accept that Tooth Fairies or Santa Claus exist. I don’t accept the end of the world next year or whenever the Mayans said so. I don’t accept that Obama Health plan has “Death Squads”. And I don’t accept your unqualified bullshit either.
Bobbo, if a plan clearly does not work, why is it necessary for someone to come up with their own plan before they point out the flaws?
Maybe their only expertise is running numbers and evaluating the effects of other peoples’ plans.
Plus, I’m not convinced that reducing CO2 is impossible, at least for the long term. People are not addicted to CO2. They will drop it in an instant when a cheaper alternative is produced. Moore’s law applied to solar power could produce something in a few decades.
My fear is that even cheap clean power will be bashed by envirocrazies. If the current world economy had developed around cheaper solar and wind power, these people would be complaining about how we are changing the natural state of things by pulling power from the wind and the sun, that should be going to the ecosystem. They would be promoting getting energy from ancient dinosaurs,as a form or recycling, and talking about how great this more expensive energy is, because it would have a side effect of producing CO2 which is good for plants. Rush Limbaugh would be talking about how some scientists say this would warm the planet, and those scientist would be called stooges of Big Sun and Big Wind.
#58–Mike==”if a plan clearly does not work” /// Well, in the fair sense you are using this concept, I would counter that “all plans work.” They may not achieve their goals as stated, but in this twisted rebuttal to your concern–all plans are an attempt to change the status quo, to WORK TOWARDS something better.
Saying “no” and nothing more, does nothing. No progress, only failure to move.
“why is it necessary for someone to come up with their own plan before they point out the flaws” /// Because “flaws” are usually well known, often pointed out, and are in fact the challenge that is being addressed. No body needs help in pointing out the obvious. How about some help on whats not obvious, like solutions?
Repugs don’t like Universal Healthcare so they point out all the flaws in order to mass opinion against it. They are incapable of making healthcare universally available ((as in every other civilized country on this earth)) and that is not their goal. They have theirs, screw everyone else.
If you are “against” something philosophically, that is fine. Thats democracy. Just don’t go offering criticisms alone as if that is all they are. Red Herrings all.
“Plus, I’m not convinced that reducing CO2 is impossible, at least for the long term. /// Hah, hah. Ok. Yes, Forever is a long time, I’m only being short sighted.
“My fear is that even cheap clean power will be bashed by envirocrazies. If the current world economy had developed around cheaper solar and wind power, these people would be complaining about how we are changing the natural state of things by pulling power from the wind and the sun, that should be going to the ecosystem. /// No. Thats silly. Too vague. I agree they would be, and should be, concerned about dead bird, bats, etc. As in all things, those valid concerns to be balanced against opposing valid concerns.
You went further off the tracks thereafter. Being rational for the first 70% is pretty good though. At least you didn’t propose electronic plasma as our energy future.