A few curious questions on cloud seeding

Faith & Science Conversation
,
21

And the fact that cape will increase whereas wind shear is expected by many to decrease. Some of the anecdotes in here were not the facts of science they were purported to be.

No one is hiding behind anything. You may have succumbed to alarmism and are inventing connections that aren’t there. Turning a dynamic atmosphere into flat talking points is the problem. We can deny human induced climate change or blame everything on it. Both are incorrect and uninformed statements about meteorology not backed by data should not be called the facts of science. It was stated plainly

  1. humans are warming the globe
  2. this is causing more severe weather events in some areas.

We have evidence of this. Actual data. What we don’t have is actual data linking every storm to humans driving cars. Some of us aren’t interested in virtue signaling on the internet as we eat our meat, drive our cars, take hot showers, have children (the absolute worst thing you can to the environment) use AI (amongst a million other things). @Bill_II is correct. The problem beyond any of our control to fix. Even if we decide to take a few small individual steps to limit our carbon consumption, I see it as shooting a bullet at an incoming meteor. The idea of an individual carbon footprint itself was popularized as a deflection from big oil to shift the blame to us anyways.

There will be mass civil wars and millions of deaths before people give up meat or hot water. People are not going to willingly plunge themselves back into the 19th century. Energy needs are only going to increase. AI just spiked them dramatically and will be infused into everything eventually. The equations are cold but they correspond to reality.

Vinnie

1 Like
22

Meanwhile, for the virtue signallers among us, check this out: https://biologos.org/conversations-for-creation

23

Until we can convince the Chinese to stop building coal fired power plants we are shooting peas at an incoming meteor that was dropped by our neighbor.

24

I prefer a pan of water with heat under it – add heat and you don’t just get warmer water, you get turbulence.

1 Like
25

China is working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It has done that mainly quietly, partly because providing energy is important for keeping people happy and China does not want to make promises it cannot keep. Another reason may be internal disagreements about the policy but such disagreements are kept out of media.

The overall trend appears to reach the point where the emissions of China start to decline. There are already enough of solar and wind energy plants to reduce emissions but the inflexible markets waste that energy. Chinese favor long contracts with trusted partners, which may lead to using fossil fuels even when renewable energy is cheaper. Renewable energy does not either flow between Chinese provinces because of the inflexible markets and long contracts.

That could change if the top leaders would order a change but so far, there has not been enough of political pressure to change the markets or remove the structural corruption that is probably involved in the inflexible decisions. China is not a free country and political orders could lead to rapid changes in a short time - ‘do as we order, or…’ is an effective way to make people obey.

3 Likes
26

Not to be pedantic but it depends on how much heat you add. Gentle heat creates gentle circulation. There is a tipping point where increasing heat generates turbulence, but that is determined by many other factors.

And a pan of water doesn’t have feedback mechanisms that tend to limit or even reduce the turbulence.

Not keeping promises seems to be the CCP’s normal mode of operation.

In an authoritarian form of government who exactly could apply “political pressure?” Displease the top leadership and you end up standing against a wall.

It is not the people that must obey it is the rich owners of the businesses that must obey and they have shown they do not always go along with the CCP leadership.

1 Like
27

In China, the communist party has the power and the leader of the party has very much power. When they use the power they have, I call that ‘political pressure’.

I have discussed with westerners that have visited and worked short periods in China, in various scientific and environmental projects. They have been surprised by the simplicity of the power use they have witnessed. When they have discussed and agreed about what needs to be done, the Chinese project leaders have been able to make it happen simply by ordering other people, ordinary citizens.

For example, in one case they discussed about forming a buffer zone around a small lake. Within the planned buffer zone, there were some inhabitants and cultivations. No problem, the inhabitants and farm owners were just informed that part of the land they used was now within a buffer zone and they cannot use those parts anymore. It just happened, immediately, without any compensations paid.

In another case, there was a decision to plant tree seedlings to form a huge buffer zone against desertification and dust storms. The people in the nearby villages and a town were simply ordered to do it. Thousands of people came and did the job, apparently without any compensation.

Not obeying can work for a short time if the person has good connections and protectors among the high officials of the communist party. When even higher officials want to make an example, those that do not fully obey can disappear for some time. If/when they are released, they have mostly learned the lesson.

Another way to tell a message is simple. I discussed with a Chinese researcher that worked with tigers. The tigers were endangered and their parts could be sold for high prices on the black market. The researcher was fully convinced that their way to treat poaching and selling of tiger parts was the only possible way in China. If someone was captured for killing a tiger or selling it, he experienced a neck shot. That sent a message, especially because in the Chinese court system, anyone prosecuted is by default guilty and needs to prove innocence to avoid a punishment.

In this kind of system, if the highest leaders of the party decide that something has to change, there happens a change.
Sometimes the way how the orders are implemented takes into account the possibility of public discontent. Preserving peace and order in the society is one of the priorities and the leaders may avoid acting in ways that cause too much discontent. Sometimes they just do not care about discontent because they can always send the police or army and arrest or kill the protesters. However it happens, a change happens as is ordered.

2 Likes
28

From what I’ve seen, people will now accept that the planet is heating, BUT it’s “actually a completely natural phenomenon that we cannot do anything to prevent and/or climate policy is actually trying to reverse the ‘oh so good effects’ that come from increased CO2 like more energy for plants.”

Often, they’ll point back to the Triassic Period and say “there was way more carbon dioxide back then.” What they do not understand is that the life that existed during the Triassic period and the periods after that were specifically designed to withstand those levels of carbon dioxide, which modern animals are NOT equipped to do. Also, the rate at which carbon dioxide levels are changing are NOT in fact a natural phenomenon:

IMG_6729
IMG_67291206×1029 162 KB

Yet, none of these people will address the fact that this sharp increase is not even remotely possible.

Worse, many theorists will try to”point out the scam” by either taking the claims of politicians (which shouldn’t be trusted talking about just about anything, so this is plain unfair) and pointing out their hypocrisy (what else is new; Trump touts America First but then announces support for Israel, does that make America First a scam?) or taking past scientific claims and showing that “THEY have always been lying.” The thing that always gets me is that, yes we are technically still in an ice age (which is why they say we are heating up, because we are leaving this ice age) and yes scientists previously said we would be entering another ice age. That should actually be very concerning, because astronomic models show that Earth really should slowly be going into another ice age. So, the scientists weren’t wrong, because the climate is actually changing in an unnatural way!

3 Likes
29

All agreed! Not sure where you thought my little analogy said anything differently. This is exactly what it was intended to illustrate. Apparently it didn’t work (assuming you read it).

3 Likes
30

Like reduced nutritional value in food plants? :thinking:

1 Like
31

I guess they are saying that since plants use CO2 to photosynthesize, and there is more carbon dioxide, yada yada, our pollination is actually good because it gives the plants more food, and then more plants grow and we end up even.

32

But plants also require oxygen to convert sugars to energy. More CO2 means less O2. So is the increased CO2 a net positive or negative for plant growth? As they say, the devil is in the details.

1 Like
33

Extra CO2 can boost plant growth but only if the plants have everything else they need for growth.

Especially a lack of water or nutrients may limit plant growth more than CO2. As the climate change increases droughts (or flooding), extra CO2 does not turn into increased plant growth in such conditions. Also a lack of essential nutrients may limit growth in such ways that plant growth does not increase.

Lack of oxygen does not limit plant growth in a similar manner because photosynthesis releases oxygen.

2 Likes
34

Plants use oxygen 24 hours a day and only use carbon dioxide when there is sufficient light for photosynthesis.

Oxygen is required for roots to take up water so the lack thereof can limit plant growth.

35

True. Lack of oxygen is often a problem in waterlogged soils (terrestrial plants) and eutrophicated (hypoxic/anoxic) waters (aquatic plants). In atmosphere, there is so much oxygen that a small reduction should not affect plants, as long as there is photosynthesis.

36

But we don’t end up even, we end up having to eat more food to get the same nutrition. I’m not clear on how that works, but I’ve read several articles from good sources that point out that faster growth due to CO_2 reduces nutrition in terms of both mass and volume.
Also, it’s a classic “Ignore the inconvenient data” ploy.

37

As Richard Feynman once commented after saying “All other things being equal”, “They never are, of course”.