Seeding The Earth’s Atmosphere To Halt Global Warming

Post Reply
solutions
Site Admin
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:38 pm

Seeding The Earth’s Atmosphere To Halt Global Warming

Post by solutions »

.
---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Seeding The Earth’s Atmosphere With Various Substances To Halt Global Warming
From: Solutions
Date: Sat, February 20, 2021 10:13 am PST
To: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear John,

I have just finished reading your Suggested Answers to the Short Quiz including Question 12 of Part D which referenced the 6/10/2019 Letter to the Moderators of the first Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate in Miami, attached to which was the 4/5/2019 letter sent to each of the candidates.

[For your convenience, attached to this e-mail is a copy of the 6/10/2019 Debate-Moderator letter and attachment, which were also sent to the moderators of the next four debates in Detroit, Houston, Westerville OH and Atlanta.]

As you might recall, the 4/5/2019 letter to the candidates, a copy of which was attached to the letters to the moderators of all five debates, had a PS which read –

********** 4/5/2019 Presidential Candidate Letter Postscript **********

“It is well known that large volcanic eruptions will throw into the atmosphere gases and dust particles whose shading of incoming solar radiation can cool the earth for months and even years.

“[This has caused some wags to remark (however, true) that Global Warming can be solved by occasional, small nuclear wars which, of course, will be much more likely if a nuclear-arms race occurs between “The World’s Greatest ‘State Sponsor of Terrorism’” (The U.S. State Department’s long-standing legally-required description of Iran) and “The Gulf Cooperation Council” (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, The United Arab Emirates, and Oman).]

“In a similar vein, there has been research on seeding the earth’s atmosphere with various substances to achieve the same effect as volcanic eruptions or small nuclear wars. Such an approach (vs., for example, merely adopting the most economical energy source which happens to have no carbon emissions) is likely, at the very least, to incur legal liability. After all, The Russian Federation refused to ratify The Kyoto Protocol for many years because Global Warming would increase Siberia’s growing season -- until the European Union finally agreed to subsidize Russia’s economic loss. [Similar economic disparities were bridged in the Paris Climate Accord by the U.S. promising to adopt uneconomic measures virtually immediately in return for the world’s other great carbon polluters’ adopting uneconomic measures in the distant future.]”

******************** End of Postscript ********************

With respect to the research referenced in the third paragraph of the postscript, who was conducting it?

Why didn’t you mention it in an additional section to your Short Quiz and your Suggested Answers?

Your friend,

Solutions


---------------------------- Original Message -----------------------------
Subject: Re: Seeding The Earth’s Atmosphere With Various Substances To Halt Global Warming
From: ReadingLiberally-SaltLake@johnkarls.com
Date: Sat, February 20, 2021 2:04 pm MST
To: Solutions
Attachment:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Solutions,

Reur first Q, more info about the research than you probably want is contained in my 4/28/2019 Status Report to our Thorium Working Group (which was copied to all of our then-150 members) which is available at viewtopic.php?f=546&t=1778&p=2420&hilit ... 5350#p2420.

The portion of that Status Report relating to that research appears immediately below.

Reur second Q, I probably should have mentioned it in the Short Quiz and Suggested Answers.

Except the approach seemed so UNPROMISING for the reasons stated in the PS and in the 4/28/2019 Status Report, that it slipped my mind.

Mea culpa!!!

BTW, this approach was NOT mentioned by Daniel Yergin in “The New Map: Energy, Climate, and the Clash of Nations.”

Your friend,

John K.

*****************************************************************
The portion of the 4/28/2019 Status Report Relating to the Research Described in the PS

The PS Issue

You may recall that during Jan/Feb of 2018, IAW our long-standing position on Global Warming and Thorium Fission I contacted Prof. Michael B. McElroy, Harvard’s Gilbert Butler Professor of Environmental Studies and the Chair of its University-wide Committee on the Environment.

Because he was scheduled to give a presentation to the Harvard Club of NYC on 2/8/2018 on the topic of “Climate Change: Real or Hoax.”

[A thorough report of my contacts with Prof. McElroy are available at viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1700.]

The problem???

Not only did Prof. McElroy fail to respond.

Harvard appears to have gone down the DEAD END described in the PS to our April 5 letter to the Democrat presidential candidates.

On 3/27/2019, the PBS Newshour presented a lengthy interview of David W. Keith, Harvard’s Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics at Harvard’s Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS, where Prof. McElroy also hangs his hat) and a Professor of Public Policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. He is also Executive Chairman of Carbon Engineering, a Canadian company focusing on the commercialization of capturing carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere.

[The transcript of the PBS Newshour interview of Prof. Keith regarding seeding the earth’s atmosphere with various substances to achieve the same effect on Global Warming as large volcanic eruptions and as occasional, small nuclear wars – is available at https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/as-pl ... pheric-co2.]

Additional Issues With The Harvard Approach

The PBS Newshour interview made clear that Prof. Keith has been a pariah in the scientific community for several decades for pursuing his research on this approach.

But that the Global Warming “establishment” is now becoming desperate.

The PS in our April 5 letter suggests one problem with Prof. Keith’s approach – that taking affirmative action to affect the earth’s atmosphere (vs. merely adopting the most economical energy source which happens to have no carbon emissions) will entail legal liability (if not worse).

Citing the Russian Federation’s refusal to adopt The Kyoto Protocol for many years because Global Warming would increase Siberia’s growing season – and the European Union’s finally having to subsidize Russia’s economic loss.

But the stupid PBS interviewers!!!

And we often lament about how stupid are the news media upon whom we are forced to rely!!!

[Which, when we focus on news media incompetence per se, we always discuss in terms of the “lynching” of Tom Brady so that by putting the issue into a sports context, nobody feels her/his “ox is being gored.” The most thorough discussion of the “lynching” of Tom Brady is available at viewtopic.php?f=442&t=1447&p=1951&hilit ... d168#p1951 in a posting labeled “Indictment of the Amn News Media - Tom Brady = Exhibit A” and the two postings that immediately follow it entitled “Indictment of the Amn News Media - Krauthammer vs. Brady” and “Original NFL Report Proved Scientifically Tom Brady Innocent.”]

The interviewer and Prof. Keith obviously worked out in advance inserting into the interview the concept that seeding the earth’s atmosphere with various substances is like “turning down the global thermostat”!!!

Without it occurring to the interviewer the NEXT OBVIOUS QUESTION!!!

What happens if, in the future, the “global thermostat” has to be turned up???

Is what they have done irreversible???

And getting into the weeds a bit, most of us will recall from our high school and college science courses the concepts of solubility and specific gravity.

For example, most of us know that the earth’s atmosphere comprises many different gases – approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, and various other gases (such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone) comprising trace elements that compose the remaining 0.1%.

First question = Would the substance that Prof. Keith proposes to use combine chemically with any of these other gases to create a molecule that blocks some of the sun’s rays??? Or would it remain intact and be suspended in the atmosphere’s solution like its other components are suspended???

Second question = Would the new substance have such a high specific gravity that it would eventually sink to the earth’s surface??? Or would it have such a low specific gravity that it would remain in the earth’s atmosphere forever???

Third question = If the new substance will remain in the earth’s atmosphere forever, how do we either remove it or counteract it if we need, sometime in the future, to turn up the earth’s “global thermostat”???

Enough already (for now) on the Harvard approach!!!

Except who is going to pay Russia for using it???

And for any inability to rein it in, if that proves necessary???

Post Reply

Return to “Participant Comments – “The New Map: Energy, Climate & the Clash of Nations” by Pulitzer-Prize Winner Daniel Yergin – March 10”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest