@SlicerDicer@feld I think enormous wind farms are a retarded waste of resources but maybe the least offensive way of manipulating local weather. I prefer it over spraying metal particles into the air. They also sometimes mix air around airports with helicopters for fog dispersal which is essentially cloud seeding but for purely economic purposes. I know it works, that doesn't mean cloud seeding is without consequences either way when done on long enough of a timescale.
I think the point I am making by this, the water vapor is there. The windmills show how it can be disturbed and turned into clouds. That shows that simply dumping shit in the air is not going to create clouds for one. This is mixing air layers, and two the vapor is there where it does mix. If you want it to release? Boom cloud seeding.
@white_male@SlicerDicer@feld the trusting government part was about government funded gmo mosquitos and whether or not they are a good thing. I say naw.
It really does apply to just about anything though including wind farms which kill birds and take a good bit of resources to build.
@SlicerDicer@feld I don't combust cubic miles of fuel and fuel products per year. what are you talking about? I also think there are many ways we manipulate the weather other than "road flares" as you say, including co2 which is funny considering we turn around and say that we need to be carbon neutral.
I don't think combustion is bad. I think some people who want me to limit the combustion energy I use tend to like to fly around on jets to tell people how they feel.
I think people (c|sh)ould consume less. I don't have a private jet or a yacht. I also try to consume resources that are closer to home as much as possible. I don't think it's my place to control how other people live as long as they respect my choices in return. I would prefer more people leaned on local resources more which would result in less overall wasted fuel spent on transport, but I wouldn't want to force that on people.
I mainly just don't think government or business should get to decide where it should rain and when.
I think that when they do no one is really looking too hard at the side effects. I think the potential long term side effects could look a lot like some of the effects commonly attributed to global warming because natural weather patterns are being disrupted. I also think it's funny that for a long time it seems as though people were content just mocking people who noticed seeding but maybe didn't fully understand what they saw.
>> trusting government part was about government funded gmo mosquitos and whether or not they are a good thing. I say naw.
Yeah so you know what they did right? Cause they could not do that? They developed this shit that makes them explode in their larval stage. I have talked to the people. That is the best way to find out.
@SlicerDicer@feld@white_male it says it's approved for use in 2 states. I'm not even saying whether or not it is in current use.
> In the United States, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has authorized use of OX5034 GM Ae. aegypti mosquitoes for release in counties in Florida and Texas.
A "county" is a pretty big "lab", and I doubt it's just one county. Anyway, the original remark was just me making a joke about gmo mosquitos in response to your deet joke[s] and then you were all "I support the gmo mosquitos" right before saying they didn't make such a thing. It doesn't have to be used everywhere to be a problem. I know it's still early. It's been on my radar for a few years. I just don't really like people fucking around with things that can blow up on everyone else.
It does not disrupt local weather patterns, they have not been doing it in NM till maybe this year when they finalize it. This is a misunderstanding they did testing. No one authorized it so its highly illegal unless authorized. Anyone who thinks they have been doing it is sniffing glue.
This is a response to lack of rain, not modification done during the vietnam era and before.
@SlicerDicer@feld who's talking about NM? I think I mentioned the redirection of western us water into Nevada and California the other day, but it's also worth mentioning that there are corporations sucking water from the ground and bottling it up all over the country.
@feld@SlicerDicer yes and there is space for reduction in areas. I'm not opposed to people choosing to use less oil. I am opposed to the idea of paying a tax to the government for my right to emit carbon. Having IRS agents show up at a family barbecue could really ruin the mood.
I also think tax breaks in the opposite direction are really only going to help people in a certain wealth bracket, and the size of that bracket seems to be shrinking.
I think you should compare the Folsom water use for grass against the nestle bottling before you decide whats a greater evil. California needs serious people. This la la land shit will come home to roost.
@SlicerDicer@feld I don't like lawns either. That's why I am building a food forest and I wish more people would do the same. I still think that corporations getting special privileges on state land to the point where they're draining creeks dry, and then turning around and saying there's no water so we have to seed clouds is just some weird logic but whatever.
@feld@SlicerDicer > thinking you can and therefore have to solve everyone's problems
hubris
I don't have all the answers. Neither do you. Neither does anyone. It also doesn't matter what I think because we're going to seed clouds and make gmo mosquitos with or without my approval. We're going to continue pretending that every bad thing that happens is a result of climate change caused by our beef consumption and not at all anything to do with directly manipulating weather or states granting rights to corporations that they don't give to their citizens.
> I mainly just don't think government or business should get to decide where it should rain and when.
Ok, so we don't permit the government to replenish our freshwater storage which is the primary purpose of domestic cloud seeding.
Should the government get to decide how much water you can pull from the rivers or the local water table? Did you know we don't even know where all the wells are? Can't audit them, don't have the data.
What's your plan for the farms when the rivers run dry and they can't irrigate? How about major cities in the southwest? (or even Midwest -- Joliet/Chicago is looking really bad -- 2040 and the wells heads go dry -- happy to send the data if you care)
What is your plan? Let it all play out and watch our domestic food chain collapse and entire cities fall apart?
@feld@SlicerDicer no my thesis is that when you start running experiments in ways that allow the experiment to interact with the global population and no one has any option to opt out it's a fucking problem. Pretending a person's rights over my world are some how extended because they are an "expert" is technocratic babble.
> I don't have all the answers. Neither do you. Neither does anyone.
Nobody has ALL the answers, but some people have the answers to specific problems and we should pay attention to them
"even people with expertise in the field shouldn't be allowed to provide their expertise because I don't think they're really experts in the field in the first place" is your entire thesis here.
@thatguyoverthere@feld If it has worldwide consequences that can harm everyone? Then I’d say we all lose our right to opt out. As such physics and chemistry do not lie. Technocratic babble aside.
Take CO2 and increase its concentration. Apply that to a aquarium with coral. The skeleton will dissolve depending on temperature, water quality and more. So it’s not hard to do this. You can melt coral skeletons with co2 gas being equalized with water at elevated rates. 420ppm is terminal decline. 2000ppm is in ideal water that never happens. As you add nitrogen, salinity differences, upwellings the problem becomes magnified.
At base level you can test this in your house. So like the nothing stopping you is a reef tank and a bottle of co2 (and a couple more things) and you have easily tested what I warn of.
maybe. that isn't actually clear to me. As I've said this month is usually the absolute hottest month, but for me it's been incredibly mild. Last month was pretty bad. I was really dreading August.
I do agree that there are global issues that need addressing, but I think a number of the issues are exacerbated by excessive government subsidies empowering large scale operations that wouldn't normally be possible with private money. You can't just do more large scale operations with government subsidies to fix that.
Some of the problems are so large, it is going to require global work and support. So it really is not just down to one person or one group. It will be down to us finding the alternative disagreeable. Then all groups will say, lets fix this. Just the world is smaller and the problems are bigger. It makes old things seem less important when you think of it that way. The problems are global, it requires all of us to decide.
I think that is what is missing, its not just this person or that person. This is the whole planet that must decide what the future is.
No NPP would've been built if the operators were to pay the cost of care for the longterm storage and decontamination.
Not even gonna tell you to go into a Uranium Mine and drink some ground water from it's vicinity, cuz that would wishing harm upon someone else and I think that'll make me a bad person...
@SlicerDicer@feld you think you understand the scale of the problem. I posit that most people know far less than they like to admit, and people in positions of authority speak with authority even when they are less confident in their actual knowledge. Just attend an executive IT sales pitch if you need an example.