Geo engineering our climate ???

[Just AnotherPerson]

So I read this really interesting article it is about geo engineering the climate. In the article it talks about scientists making possible plans to geo engineer the climate. https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ne...e-trump/113432 They are working on something called SRM Solar Radiation Management. This idea is something similar to what happens during a volcanic eruption, it releases aerosols such as sulfuric acid, and circulates it around the globe. http://www.srmgi.org/
The plan is to do something similar to spray sulfuric acid into the stratosphere, it will absorb and reflect sunlight and cool the planet. The article mentioned a host of human health hazards such as disease epidemic like that of the black plague, Sudden climate shock, and major crop failure.

What they didnt mention that I find amazing is vitamin D. We use vitamin D in every single cell in our entire bodies. If we do not have proper sunlight on our planet it could be catastrophic. Not just for us but for plant and animal life as well.

https://www.healthnutnews.com/vitami...-immune-cells/
http://eschooltoday.com/science/need...o-survive.html

It would be far easier and safer to just do the right thing. We are not too bright sometimes.
I hope that this particular thing never goes forward. Of course I will have no say so, but I do have an opinion and it is not a good one.

Here is a past link on Vitamin D deficiency in case anyone wants information on that it is thorough http://thepoliticalforums.com/thread...iency-epidemic

Here is an excerpt:
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ne...e-trump/113432 (same as link above)
The potential health dangers of geoengineering the climate

Inventing carbon capture technology and engineering our climate to prevent catastrophic changes might not be that far away, but might carry risks that outweigh the benefits. Anew article fromNature Climate Changeevaluates how the potential human-health complications from geoengineering might be more severe than what would be caused by climate change.
Geoengineering is the intentional intervention in the Earth’s climate, and the most frequently considered method is solar radiation management (SRM). The amount of incoming sunlight could be controlled, and subsequently cause less warming on Earth, by injecting aerosols into the stratosphere that absorb and reflect sunlight. Managing how much sunlight reaches Earth can help with the direct effects of climate change, such as abnormally high temperatures, and the indirect effects, such as slowing thespread of vector-borne illnesses due to expanding tropical ranges.
The direct economic costs of solar radiation management (SRM) deployment are estimated to be lower than decarbonizing the world's economy, but this form of geoengineering has potentially hazardous human health implications, such as negative effects on the respiratory system.

[Peter1469]

I think it is a bad idea.

[RadioGod]

It would basically be the equivalent of a volcanic winter. We have had mini ice ages in the past. They were devestating to the environment and civilizations. And I would think that proactively spraying sulfur dioxide in the upper atmosphere would eventually lead to more infrastructure aging and sinkholes because of acid rain intensifying. And this is proposed by an NGO, which means it is backed by a private group with an agenda, and that makes me suspicious already. I can imagine a huge taxpayer funded industry based on spraying sulfuric compounds into the air. I suppose they will tell us it will mean farmers will need less fertilizers or something

[Lummy]

It would basically be the equivalent of a volcanic winter. We have had mini ice ages in the past. They were devestating to the environment and civilizations. And I would think that proactively spraying sulfur dioxide in the upper atmosphere would eventually lead to more infrastructure aging and sinkholes because of acid rain intensifying. And this is proposed by an NGO, which means it is backed by a private group with an agenda, and that makes me suspicious already. I can imagine a huge taxpayer funded industry based on spraying sulfuric compounds into the air. I suppose they will tell us it will mean farmers will need less fertilizers or something

Brings to mind fluoride. Highly toxic, it is in the water of 3 out of 4 Americans and commercially sold in various toothpastes. Never proven beneficial except possibly to its target population, being those with poor oral hygiene, arguments against its use are many but remain largely ignored. The case for its use is riddled with holes. It is industrial waste being recycled and sold as a health benefit.

There are still real dragons to be slayed, and fluoride, IMHO, is one of them.

[Peter1469]

Brings to mind fluoride. Highly toxic, it is in the water of 3 out of 4 Americans and commercially sold in various toothpastes. Never proven beneficial except possibly to its target population, being those with poor oral hygiene, arguments against its use are many but remain largely ignored. The case for its use is riddled with holes. It is industrial waste being recycled and sold as a health benefit.

There are still real dragons to be slayed, and fluoride, IMHO, is one of them.

Also medications are supposed to be dosed based on several factors to include body weight and other factors. That certainly doesn't happen with fluoridated water. At least with toothpaste you spit it out.

[Chris]

Great idea. But, as Judith Curry and many other climatologists say, climate change is a wicked problem, probably to complex for man. And, how will you pay for it?

[Just AnotherPerson]

Brings to mind fluoride. Highly toxic, it is in the water of 3 out of 4 Americans and commercially sold in various toothpastes. Never proven beneficial except possibly to its target population, being those with poor oral hygiene, arguments against its use are many but remain largely ignored. The case for its use is riddled with holes. It is industrial waste being recycled and sold as a health benefit.

There are still real dragons to be slayed, and fluoride, IMHO, is one of them.

Oh yeah and not to mention that we also absorb fluoride through our skin, perhaps even more so than drinking it. So even if you put a filter on your tap water you will still get it in your shower. The only way around that is a very expensive whole house water filter. It is even said that Hitler had put fluoride in the water in the concentration camps to cause people to be sterile and to dumb them down. It is very toxic. There is no reason that it should be in our drinking water, No way no how. Thank god I have a well. But for most of my life I lived in the city and could not escape the fluoride. Although I do use bottled water. I am aware that they put fluoride in that as well. I buy one that says it comes from a natural source. But you never know. Hmm I wonder what kind of IQ's we would have if we had never drank fluoride?

[Captdon]

Damned if I want scientists screwing with the atmosphere. They can't see past their specialties. God knows what would happen and it might not be reversible if bad.

I believe that some problems shouldn't have one large solution. A lot of smaller ones we can control and undo.No scientist should ever be involved in a decision. They don't live in the real world. They don't even agree with each other a lot of the time.

When people start talking about doing something massive without doing it on a smaller, more controllable experiment I get nervous. Salk didn't just spring the polio vaccine on us. He spent years in a controlled lab making sure it worked and didn't make us grow a second head.

How do we find out if the solution isn't worse than the problem? We cannot find out in 12 years. We have the water. We aren't going to wake up some morning and be out of water. If it becomes a problem we will know about it sooner not later.

JAP, since you seem interested in this, look at the bee problem. They seem to be starting to die off in great numbers. No bees, no plants. No plants, no people. It wouldn't take more than two bad crops to wipe out 85% of the world's population. There's a more immediate problem.

[Captdon]

Brings to mind fluoride. Highly toxic, it is in the water of 3 out of 4 Americans and commercially sold in various toothpastes. Never proven beneficial except possibly to its target population, being those with poor oral hygiene, arguments against its use are many but remain largely ignored. The case for its use is riddled with holes. It is industrial waste being recycled and sold as a health benefit.

There are still real dragons to be slayed, and fluoride, IMHO, is one of them.

Fluoride is toxic in high doses, much higher than what we put into our water.

[Lummy]

Several years ago when I was looking into how to avoid fluorodated water, I called one of the bottled water companies and asked to talk to someone about whether the water contained fluoride. They transfered me to young woman who said they actually added fluoride to their water improve the taste. Now, this was not someone who sounded like they had a clue about it, but it was the best I could get on the phone.

You're correct, JA Person. Reverse osmosis is the only way I've read about to remove fluoride, and it is expensive, pretty much out of reach for many people. But then I got to reading about tea, which is naturally loaded with fluoride -- so much fluoride that one would expect Brits to be absolutely daft with teeth so brittle they break.