Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by 4 weeks, 1 day ago
    Sounds like science fiction I know, but so were a lot of other things years ago that we now take for granted. Who would own the intellectual rights? Who would control the process and besides regulating geologic temperature, what else would they change? would it be weaponized? Politicized?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Radio_Randy 3 weeks, 4 days ago
      Some years ago, I read a great science fiction short story, about the issue of this kind of climate control.

      In the story, people had colonized several planets and each planet was climate controlled to mimic a different continent, like Africa, for instance. Then, only "Africans" populated this planet and everybody was happy...at first.

      The story continued with an African shaman doing something that ticked off the central government, who's main hold on the people was...you guessed it, control of their climate.

      I'll let you use your imagination, from there...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 weeks ago
    Their 'masters' would have the ultimate leverage to profit and force subservience.

    Consider (and this is already theoretically possible), It is thought by dropping ice crystals into the atmosphere in front of a hurricane the hurricane can be steered away from places. If the US used this capability and steered hurricanes away from the Gulf area and it instead struck Mexico, Mexico would sue for damages and any loss of life, no? Less severe, the US steers the hurricane into an area of vacant and open sea, those areas typical counting on torrential rains and the churned up sea beds could sue for loss profitability and damage to their ecosystem.

    As with many things theses days, just because we (conceive that we) can, doesn't mean we should.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 3 weeks, 4 days ago
    Don't worry. It can't be done (thank goodness.) It would cause chaos, and a civil war, not just between two sides, but from multiple directions, and endless war of "all against all", or something similar; perhaps then eventually, one gang would get in power and impose its will on every-
    one else. But don't worry. If two plus two could somehow be made to equal five, that would result in horrible consequences in banks, at cash registers, in medical prescriptions, and who knows what----but it can't be done, so you can rest easy on that score.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Stormi 3 weeks, 4 days ago
    They were able to temporarily change it for a limited area and time. HAARP and HAMP can cause disruptions, like bending the jet stream, but not worldwide. Since scientists don't seem to know about the Sun contorlling climate, and none of them mention the beginning switching of the Earth magnetic poles, don't think any of them are that good at science to pul it off yet, as the dumb them down with each graduating class.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CaptainKirk 3 weeks, 4 days ago
    First, it would be corrupted.
    Second, they would, in the "good intentions" spirit of STOPPING FOREST FIRES, cause some MASSIVE earth destroying event.

    Mans ignorance is ONLY EXCEEDED by his arrogance!

    The repercussions of such changes might not be understood for 1,000 years!

    Imagine the next society finding some of our buried cities, and their history, and FALLING out of their chairs laughing...

    "Then, they Proved they could control the weather, and decided to go for it!"
    [Laughing: OMG, such idiots. It's like giving a bunch of Chimps a nuclear device AND the detonator!]
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 3 weeks, 5 days ago
    To control the climate, one would have to control the sun, the earths tilt and our orbit around the sun...and of course...it would probably back fire.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CaptainKirk 3 weeks, 4 days ago
      Okay, simply not true. One would simply have to construct something that blocked the sun at will.

      Like those Fraggin' Flat Earthers who suggest the MOON is "man-made", but satellites aren't possible (ROTFLMAO)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 3 weeks, 4 days ago
        There is nothing that can block particle forcing from the sun nor the cosmos...there are particles that simply go right through you, right through the earth...not even monotonic gold. You can save yourself from cooking from radiation and block light but that's it. You still have the electromagnetics and quantum particles smaller than electrons to deal with.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 2 weeks, 3 days ago
    In Frank Herberts "Dune-ChapterHouse" novel goes into some detail of converting a planet into an extensive desert. According to Michu Kaku, Earth's civilization would have to be a Type 1 to be able to control the weather.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 3 weeks, 3 days ago
    Nightwings by sci fi writer Robert Silverberg,

    Centuries in the future humans found a way to control the climate.
    Exploration of the galaxy was the next step.
    The climate control worked well, at first, then there were global scale disasters.

    Fortunately, in space exploration some extra-terrestrial civilizations were contacted,
    they were friendly enough to lend money and resources to attempt remedies.

    Then, it turned out that that this friendship also came at a price.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DavidT 3 weeks, 4 days ago
    The law of unintended consequences would be seen in full force. The systems that control the weather on this planet are too vast and random for us to understand at this time and, as has been noted, while the weather my be beneficial for some, the energy, moisture, wind has to either come from somewhere or go to somewhere, leaving those places worse off.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CTYankee44 3 weeks, 4 days ago
    Stumbling isn't necessary! I could draft up a "Climate Machine" in just a few minutes. There is NOTHING in the design that we with out current level of technology can't implement. The ONLY deterrent is cost.

    Of course, the machine would begin to influence the climate long before it's completed. That said, the planet would compensate for the disturbance which would mean the effectiveness of the machine would be questioned. It would however provide an excellent demonstration of the effects of negative feedback at the planetary scale.

    Only by continuing to enlarge the machine would its owners be capable of dialing in the desired climate effects at will.

    FWIW said machine could probably be built for a few trillion dollars to demonstrate the process and several tens to hundreds of trillions to achieve the level of total control.

    -- In Liberty
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 3 weeks, 4 days ago
    Climate has been defined in the past by scientists as the weather patterns for a local area. As such, climate is measurements about weather in local areas. It is not something that can be changed and is not a causative existent. The measurements change as weather changes and not when climate causes them to change. When climate is changed to 'The Climate' for the Earth by averaging all the local climate measurements, one ends up in a fantasy dream world of believing that climate can cause some changes in the weather patterns. Again, climate cannot cause anything outside of the human body. It is a mental object, a concept in the brain which can only cause the body in which the brain resides to act or not act.

    As for changing the weather patterns locally, it is done easily by heating and air conditioning devices where one can keep the temperature in a comfortable range as long as the devices are mostly isolated from the outside weather.

    Measurements of all kinds are not reifiable, i.e., exist only in minds within brains and do not exist as objects in objective reality. Same for all concepts, they are not ideals in some Platonic reality but are a way of defining and knowing and acting with that which exists in objective reality.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 3 weeks, 4 days ago
    What scientists? You/Me scientist, or the collective Borg of socialist scientific protoplasm?

    Borg - government takes control, and a mess precipitates.
    Me - I become the world’s foremost climatologist, able to predict weather far more accurately than any others. Wealthy beyond measure from predictions and investments. Institutions and government supporting freedom are surprisingly met with benign and beneficial weather. Those that are totalitarian are dealt severe hands.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -2
    Posted by CircuitGuy 4 weeks ago
    I think it's not what if but when. Human activities are already causing global warming, which will be very costly. Reducing emissions and deforestation is all we have right now, but they're nothing compared to technology that would influence the climate deliberately in ways that are beneficial, not costly. We should be working on a engineering approaches to global warming, not waiting to stumble upon them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by lrshultis 3 weeks, 4 days ago
      The increase in average temperature at the about 1 degree Celsius per century is easily adaptable by living things just as they have little problem to live with temperature changes of tens or more degree changes in daily temperature ranges as well as yearly changes of a hundred or more degrees F in some areas.
      Actually, the more prosperous countries have the cleanest atmospheric environments. Certain emissions should be reduces, but not CO2 unless one wants to cause wholesale death with the reduction in food production. The world could use at least a doubling of atmospheric CO2 just to keep up with population increases. That would increase the average world (?) temperature by about 1.5 degree C. The most prolific life increase was with much higher CO2 in the atmosphere.
      At present there is one CO2 molecule per 2500 molecules of atmosphere. Even at one per 1000, the CO2 molecule cannot exchange the average energy of the other molecules to increase by energy exchanges. The atmosphere is heated mostly by conduction with convection and advection with radiation doing most of the energy release to space through CO2 rather than the heating of the Earth, while O2, N2, and Ar do not radiate well in the infrared.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo