is there a way to engineer the climate

[freepcrusher]

so that the siberian express doesn't happen anymore (link below for those not in the know)? If you could re-engineer the climate so that arctic air doesn't get much further south than the prairie provinces, it would make a lot of the united states more habitable.
One place I remember going to on vacation as a teenager was Door County Wisconsin. Somewhere like that could be a place to live year round if they could stop the arctic blasts from reaching the states.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Express

[Meclazine for Israel]

The NASA rocket systems that produce water vapour as a byproduct of burning H2 and O2 make clouds.

It produces so much steam that this eventually forms clouds which then rain on you.

NASA Test Rockets

https://youtu.be/BIpeNs5OWbo

[Mr. Smith]

Climate Change already does this.

[dead0man]

eventually, yes

[Rand]

Farmers pray for rain. Seems to work as there’s never been a drought in this country. Try that.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Yes

Human-made climate change is in fact climate engineering. It's just that the side-effects are not really considered desireable, whereas with geo-engineering, it would be done for the purpose of having desireable effects.

Is it possible, definitely so.

The weather itself probably not (unless it's about artificial cloud production, changing albedo and reflection or reducing rainfall by cutting forests). But not in a sense of "you want the sun to shine tomorrow, here you go". That's not really possible yet. The other way around (with producing rain) however is more realistic.

A lot of human constructions do have an impact though, large solar panel fields would change regional climate impactfully in a desert if done so (ironically reducing amount of sunshine), due to the shadow and positioning. However, there are ways to place them in such a way that it would be less impactful, if that's what is desired (tilted or not tilted). However stuff like this would be megaprojects. It's possible, i mean humans did construct a ton of impressive stuff like cathedrals and pyramids in the past, but a lot of stuff like this would require a megaproject, something i feel we're less good and effective in nowadays.

Lots of greenhouse gasses do impact climate. But for cooling also sulfur dioxide or greenhouse removal are possible options.

I consider it very likely that the only way we can effectively stop, reduce or mitigate climate change is through geo-engineering. People aren't going to produce less anyways. That's never going to happen (or not in a meaningful way). There'll always be demand for cheap energy sources that might be polluting, until green energy is cheap.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Climate Change already does this.

The short answer, yes.

But it's true.

It's not science fiction, it's happening right now.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

It's also what the greenhouse gas / oil gigants are advocating for, like atm at COP. Relying on technology to deal with climate change is their position.

And i tend to agree because mostly out of a defaitist / pessimistic POV (or call it realistic). Not enough is happening if you don't want to rely on geo-engineering. It'll have side-consequences as well, as a "you give something from there and take something from there-kind of equation)." It's not as clear-cut and simple, and preferrably should be avoided since there are associated dangers with this.

For instance, you could reduce Atlantic hurricanes by dramatically reducing rainfall in North Africa & Sahel, but this would create massive megadroughts and cause mass emigration of millions of people, just for hurricane seasons in the Atlantic to become less active.

Increasing rainfall would also probably create more droughts in Brazil because of rainfall in Brazil relying on Saharan dust. There's usually a trade-off as the planet seeks a balance.

Tbh, when you hold your climate conference in Dubai out of all places, last year Sharm-El Sheikh, you lose all credibility as the global climate movement. The current chair of Climate COP is in an elite circle of oil gigants and has been privately advocating for more use of oil.

I don't really believe in these global climate conferences. Usually, there was the "it's five before twelve" kind of saying. It's no longer five before twelve, it's long past twelve. The damage is done. It's all about mitigating of damage, but really, even in that regard little is happening. We are already over 1.5°C and 2°C isn't realistic, even if we do everything right starting from today given it takes some time to stop and revert climate change just like a car needs time to brake. Even 2.5°C isn't even very realistic anymore tbh. It's more like 3-3.5°C if we start taking action right now, which isn't even happening (or in a meaningful way).

I don't care anymore. I don't have the energy. But i think future human generations will look at us very negatively (similarly to how we today look at nazis), and there won't be any nuance just like we don't think of "good nazis". They might even cancel all of us.

It's blah blah blah, all about the talk but as long there's no action coupled to it, i frankly couldn't care less about someones, or some ideology their position on the climate & environment, because blah blah blah.

There's no difference between being "anti-environment" and climate change denial, except for either general idiocy or being a pathetic and sociopathic liar, and being pro-environment and pro-climate change action in theory but eventually as long no actions are coupled to it, words at the end of the day are simply words and meaningless.

Words aren't gonna save the climate.

[freepcrusher]

i think you guys are misunderstanding my post. What I'm saying is that global warming is actually something that might be desirable. Somewhere like Door County, WI would be a more desirable place to live year round.

[Progressive Pessimist]

'Snowpiercer' warned us about this.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Hail Cannon

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0hzLkdLfui/

Never knew that was a thing.

[Donerail]

i think you guys are misunderstanding my post. What I'm saying is that global warming is actually something that might be desirable. Somewhere like Door County, WI would be a more desirable place to live year round.

Interesting thesis. How do you think climate change would affect places other than Door County, Wisconsin?

[politicallefty]

i think you guys are misunderstanding my post. What I'm saying is that global warming is actually something that might be desirable. Somewhere like Door County, WI would be a more desirable place to live year round.

Do you really want a derecho every couple weeks in the summer? There are also wildfires to contend with, as the eastern part of the US got to experience firsthand in the early part of summer. We're literally breaking the charts on the AQI left and right, exceeding the threshold for hazardous far too often.

[freepcrusher]

i think you guys are misunderstanding my post. What I'm saying is that global warming is actually something that might be desirable. Somewhere like Door County, WI would be a more desirable place to live year round.

Do you really want a derecho every couple weeks in the summer? There are also wildfires to contend with, as the eastern part of the US got to experience firsthand in the early part of summer. We're literally breaking the charts on the AQI left and right, exceeding the threshold for hazardous far too often.

1) would this cause a derecho every few weeks in the summer?
2) assuming the answer is yes, aren't they a lot more survivable than tornadoes?