Climate Change and Geoengineering
YouTube decided to show me a DW documentary about Geoengineering. Why YouTube does this to me, I don’t understand. I hate DW. It takes topics that need to be covered and discussed, and puts the most…I don’t know, retarded? The most retarded spin to it.
I am pretty surprised to see them covering geoengineering, though.
WTF is Genengineering?
Remember in 1997 when you first started learning about chemtrails and cloudseeding, and the long history of weather manipulation? You told you friends, and family, because it was really interesting, and no one believed you. They got angry at you, started calling you a conspiracy theorist. Started asking questions with answers they didn’t like.
Information about chemtrails has actually always been available. Not -easily- available, but it was there. And like most things that sound super sensational, to which contrarians propose a drastically less impacting reality, there’s a sort of interesting kinda boring middle of the road explanation. An explanation which also applies to the reality and challenges of climate change.
I’m consistently amazed by how many topics in mainstream media platforms used to be considered wild conspiracy theories by those same platforms. And yet they continue to distort the truth, even when they’re telling the truth.
So basically the way we manipulate the environment is spread specific particulates throughout different layers of the atmosphere. Or maybe just the stratosphere. There’s a thing they do with “heating” the ionosphere, so I get it all kinda mixed up. Not important, for this purpose. Point being, we put stuff in the air to affect the weather.
I mean, it’s really not much different than burning coal. Except instead of putting carbon in the atmosphere, we' put iodine or aluminum or silver. Different materials produce different results. So what are the effects?
We know how to make it rain. Actually that’s been being done for several hundred years, believe it or not. However, even modern ground-based delivery systems are pretty inefficient, so we needed the power of flight to really see results.
What they’ve been doing in the past 30-40 years is dispersing stuff in the atmosphere to try to reflect back UV rays, to compensate for the hole in the ozone and such. Different materials have different efficacy levels, and different side effects. We know that aluminum fallout can kill forests, for example. We know also that if we start using sulfur on a wide-spread scale, it’ll deteriorate the atmosphere to the point of becoming reliant on artificial manipulation to survive.
Okay, so for that last one, the theory is that our options are either: the planet gets hotter, or the planet can be kept cooler so long as we don’t stop, or it’ll get hot enough to extinct us.
Seems like that should be a no-brainer. Why they have this guy pushing the idea like it’s our only hope is just… ugh, I hate DW.
Here’s the thing…our planet doesn’t really care much about us. One volcano has a far more drastic effect overall than all of China’s coal-burning. We just don’t exist on a long enough timeline to be able to observe actual changes in weather patterns. Basically, we aren’t going to break the Earth’s habitability.
That said, we ARE affecting the conditions required for life as we’ve come to know and love it. We are making it harder for ourselves to survive. We should probably not start with a last ditch effort as our first option. Nor should we do nothing. I don’t think you need a degree or even to be very well educated to figure out that polluting the air and water is bad.
And you also don’t need to be Elon Musk to realize that if you can bridge the gap between industry and environment even just a little bit, you can gain a lot of economic leverage.
