Outrageous $200 trillion climate hack proposes blasting diamonds into the atmosphere

dbCruzer said:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/planet-earth-has-more-trees-than-it-did-35-years-ago/

The other thing to note is that this compares 1982 to 2016, not say 1900 or whatever date you want to apply to the start of deforestation by industrialized lumber harvesting. Since the stone age, mankind has been cutting down large areas of trees for whatever reason. The people of Easter Island completely removed the tree cover of their island using stone axes before they ever had contact with European explorers. The plains of the American midwest in states like Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio wer covered by oak forests before American settlers came in from the eastern seaboard and cleared the forest for crops over 200 hundred years ago. 1982 is likely close to the peak of deforestation, so what the article describes is not even a bandaid on the problem.
Click to expand...

LOL! You skipped my post about using Google. Aside from their algorithms being designed to reflect their personal views and opinions, they're also designed to exclude anything contradictory to said views.

As for the facts from the US Forestry Service, rather than some think tank with and axe to grind, somewhere around 1910 was the low point in forests, about 700 million acres. 1982, or so, was when it dipped near there a second time. Right now, we are at the same recent history peak number that we were at around 1950-1960, about 750 million acres.

Not to worry, I'm certain they are the sill the wrong type of trees/forests to count in you totals.
 
While wer at it, a few fun facts. About 28% of goods in the U.S. use forestry products. The variance in forest levels has only varied by just under 7%, while the number of people in the U.S. that use these goods has steadily increased at a much faster rate than the turn of the last century.

The TLDR version: The U.S does a damn good job managing their forests and natural resources, and has managed to keep up with it despite a growing population using these goods.
 
People believe this nonsense because their views of "history" typically start from when they were born. Most "weather" history is tracked to the 1800's. Well, 200+ years of data is how much, with regard to the age of the Earth? Maybe a few seconds. The ice core data and other things, show the Earth was warmer a LONG time ago. And it was colder a LONG time ago. I remember one story from the 90's when all of the "global warming" hysteria started, the melting ice in the Nordic area uncovered an abandoned settlement. They dated it to around 1200-1400 AD. Not once did anyone ask how was it so warm back then, to support a village settlement, that had been under the ice for around 400-500 years? Also I remember in the 70's, the hysteria was the "upcoming ice age" and would humanity survive.
It gets hot, it gets cold. It doesn't happen over night. It takes hundreds of thousands of years for the cycle.
 
Wonder how long they would last up there because we don't want them up there once we hit another ice age that's for sure. Might have to look into buying some shares in diamond mining I think. But at the end of the day it just seems like another stupid idea in these crazy as times.
 
The largest amounts of electrical energy are consumed in electrical charges for resistors to produce heat and warm people in winter. If the planet is artificially cooled, heating energy consumption will increase along with greenhouse gases. In addition, diamond molecules are heavier than air molecules, so they will fall to the ground under gravity, polluting agricultural land and air quality (do you like air with glass in it?).

Another less "impressive" approach would be to improve the efficiency of the resistors used to generate heat. Electrical resistors have ~15% better efficiency when they receive alternating current in a trapezoidal form (instead of the usual sinusoidal). Therefore, a simple and inexpensive passive filter in any device that uses electrical resistors would significantly improve their efficiency and thus reducing electricity consumption and greenhouse gases.
 
Dimitriid said:
You know, I bet you could go an order of magnitude lower and use 200 billion to just build *@#* trains everywhere and slowly but surely start making cities walkable and getting rid of suburban sprawl would probably help at least as much as all these magical tech ideas floating around.
Click to expand...


Don’t underestimate the ability of our government(s) and municipalities to do *literally nothing* with the hundreds of billions of dollars they have already received for infrastructure projects…
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhoCaresAnymore
Win7user said:
There is NO such thing as climate change by human beings, to the degree these whack jobs are spewing.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Green means $$$.. That's all it has ever meant. I'm all for Solar, when it's affordable and we can get away from Lithium battery storage. Until then, it's worse for environment.

Nuclear is still the way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Win7user
I didn't see any evaluation of the pollution and energy consumed by mining such huge amounts of diamonds. Might make an interesting factor to consider.
 
I think this would negatively affect all solar power. It seems the dumb just keep getting dumber. We cannot control the climate. Mother nature is gonna do what mother nature does. Death and destruction when she wishes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Win7user
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

zohaibahd
Aliens could be driving themselves to extinction with climate change, study suggests
Replies
18
Views
339
Q Wales
Q Wales
A
Moon's thin atmosphere likely created by constant micrometeorite impacts
Replies
2
Views
208
trieste1s
T
zohaibahd
Florida hospital deploys $860K air-to-water generator in wake of Hurricane Milton
Replies
9
Views
107
Hotlynx16
H

Latest posts

Back