Geoengineering refers to the large-scale manipulation of a specific process central to controlling and channeling the earth’s resources, such as those of the oceans, rivers, soil, and atmosphere. These techniques are undergoing rapid development primarily to achieve sustainable development in the fields of agriculture, water resource management, energy generation, navigation, connectivity, and climate change mitigation. Unfortunately, the use of these geoengineering techniques is not limited to such noble objectives; they can also be harnessed to dominate or subjugate other countries in a certain region.
China has adopted a strategy of hybrid warfare against countries that it considers hostile or potentially hostile. Geoengineering has the potential to become a game-changing tool for Beijing’s implementation of a hybrid warfare strategy, especially in China’s neighborhood. Various geoengineering techniques could amplify China’s grey zone capabilities in a given theater and shape its future strategy in regional geopolitics. There are three main geoengineering techniques that have bolstered China’s or hybrid warfare capabilities.
Weather Modification
According to a statement from China’s State Council, the country is committed to bringing about 5.5 million square kilometers of its land area under its weather modification program by 2025.
. Much of this involves the process of “cloud seeding.” China claims to have developed this technology to increase agricultural productivity and prevent natural disasters such as droughts and floods. However, the impact of cloud seeding can be seen beyond China’s borders, as it may disrupt the normal monsoon in neighboring countries such as India, Myanmar, Vietnam, etc. This would have an adverse impact on the agriculture in these countries, rising potentially to a form of “rain stealing.”
Weather medication may also be used to sabotage troop movements and logistics operations in border regions by artificially altering the rainy conditions, which would slow down the tactical movement of the adversary on a real-time basis.
Would it not be reasonable to assume that for China to have their goal reached by 2025, they have doing this for a very long time. And to think that China is the only country doing this ? Please.
A fleet of 100 planes making 4,000 worldwide missions per year could help save the world from climate change. Also, it may be relatively cheap. That's the conclusion of a new peer-reviewed study in Environmental Research Letters. ...
Dr. Gernot Wagner from Harvard University is an author of the paper. He said their study shows this type of geoengineering "... would be technically possible strictly from an engineering perspective. It would also be remarkably inexpensive, at an average of around $2 to 2.5 billion per year over the first 15 years."
But to reach that point, the study said an entirely new aircraft needs to be developed. Partly because missions would need to be conducted at nearly double the cruising altitude of commercial airplanes. The study's co-author, Wake Smith explained, "No existing aircraft has the combination of altitude and payload capabilities required."
Just because the high altitude equipment has not been developed doesn't mean that this has not already been attempted at lower altitudes would be reasonable to conclude, imho. Especially considering how inexpensive it is to do. But feel free to believe that this is not real nor already happening and not happening before this article was written.
I'll keep it simple, too. We agree that there is change. We disagree about the why part. Just for the record.
That's because you ignore the people who have the skills to perform the scientific investigations and understand the results. There is absolutely no evidence that non-human causes are the primary cause of climate change. Unfortunately, that goes against your desire to do nothing to mitigate the effects.
Back to the one part we can do something about but you don't want to.
I'll keep it simple. There is a massive change in climate going on that will be detrimental to our societies. There is one part of the cause that we can do something about. (Human impacts are the primary part to those who pay attention to the science)
I'll keep it simple, too. We agree that there is change. We disagree about the why part. Just for the record.
Your whole argument regarding global warming is that humans are the primary culprit and that natural cycles of nature have very little, if any affect.
So much for who is actually paying attention to science.
I'll now wait for the flogging and Richard's canned copy and paste responses for "Deniers."
I'll keep it simple. There is a massive change in climate going on that will be detrimental to our societies. There is one part of the cause that we can do something about.
(Human impacts are the primary part to those who pay attention to the science)
So, let's see... your whole argument against global warming is that there have been heatwaves in the past, will be in the future and (as a result) they aren't anything to worry about.
Your grasp of the situation... unsurprisingly... is almost as child-like as Trump's.
Your whole argument regarding global warming is that humans are the primary culprit and that natural cycles of nature have very little, if any affect.
So much for who is actually paying attention to science.
I'll now wait for the flogging and Richard's canned copy and paste responses for "Deniers."
Perspective. I am old enough to have been born when Truman was POTUS and the smoke from WW II was still in the air.
I'll just say that it is more than money. It's about power and control. Money is just the tool.
If you don't remember past 1997, there is a whole lot of understanding of the way things once were and how things have evolved missing to properly judge the present.
Such as the current heat wave we are experiencing here right now is nothing compared to one we had in the late 80's where we had temps averaging 100 F for about a week. A whole lot of trees were killed as a result. Over the next 10 years or so these dead or weakened trees came down during storms and caused a whole lot of damage to infrastructure, homes and power lines. That the heat wave killed the trees and made them weak and vulnerable to coming storms was long forgotten. Instead, other reasons where blamed for all the damage. The storms were not more powerful; the trees were weaker and more vulnerable. Life and nature is cyclical. You need time to see these cycles play out to understand how things work. Without the knowledge of the way things cycle over time, events can be labeled as the worst ever and used by fearmongers to advance an agenda.
And now we A I to contend with in the manipulation of the masses. It will likely be more powerful than money.
You need time to see these cycles play out to understand how things work. Without the knowledge of the way things cycle over time, events can be labeled as the worst ever and used by fearmongers to advance an agenda.
Don't be coy now Kurt. Just flat out say it: the "fearmongers" are the scientists who have studied and proven the presence of global warming. Or are the fear mongers the "ignorant people" who listen to the scientists and support trying to address it?
So, let's see... your whole argument against global warming is that there have been heatwaves in the past, will be in the future and (as a result) they aren't anything to worry about.
Your grasp of the situation... unsurprisingly... is almost as child-like as Trump's.
Oddly enough the subtitle of the graphic is that the world's population is getting older. In 1950 44% of the world's population was younger than 20. Of course WWII had ended five years earlier, so that may have had something to do with a reduction in the population which was born before 1930.
I kind of doubt the premise though. Percentages can skew the perspective. How many people are having kids and how many couples are having more than 2? The cutoff points make a big difference too - how many of those under 20 are toddlers? how many in the 40-59 are still potential parents? I'd be curious to see a chart with 5 year brackets.
And to my other point: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-by-density if you look at habitable regions in the world. We have a lot of room and resource available. A lot of other places are looking pretty stuffed. If people start running out of food and water locally, we're going to look pretty tempting. China and India combined have us outnumbered 10:1, and support from Canada doesn't help at all.
Yeah, this isn't really surprising, 1997 was a LONG time ago and most people weren't around or at least old enough to have meaningful memories. I doubt most people (other than Kurt) have memories of who was president when they were 2, much less the 'settling smoke of the wars from previous decades'.
That chart is astonishing. 4.9 billion people under the age of 39 and more than half of those under the age of 20. 25% of the people in the use are in the 60+ bracket, and our total population vs. the world is staggeringly small. If resource management is not implemented soon we'll simply be invaded in the next decades. Immigration won't even be a topic.
Oddly enough the subtitle of the graphic is that the world's population is getting older. In 1950 44% of the world's population was younger than 20. Of course WWII had ended five years earlier, so that may have had something to do with a reduction in the population which was born before 1930.
Yeah, this isn't really surprising, 1997 was a LONG time ago and most people weren't around or at least old enough to have meaningful memories.
I doubt most people (other than Kurt) have memories of who was president when they were 2, much less the 'settling smoke of the wars from previous decades'. That chart is astonishing. 4.9 billion people under the age of 39 and more than half of those under the age of 20. 25% of the people in the use are in the 60+ bracket, and our total population vs. the world is staggeringly small. If resource management is not implemented soon we'll simply be invaded in the next decades. Immigration won't even be a topic.
Perspectives change as well as priorities over time.
Priorities decide what is important and what is not.
Once global war and then large regional wars were commonplace. Here in the US we also had a draft, or conscription.
That made geopolitics and history more important and people generally knew who was POTUS when they were 2 because it mattered. That and history and things like Civics were still universally taught, at least in the US. We also had things like shop and home ec. People were more well rounded and broader based. They were taught how to be independent.
Today, there are people walking our streets who don't even know who is the current POTUS. Don't know or care that we once had people walking on the moon.
And then there are those who don't care because they got theirs and are all set. They just pretend to care so people will hold them with higher accord.
Apparently about 33% of the world's population are 20 or younger; about 62% are 39 or younger. That may explain the 1997 cut-off to some extent.
Yeah, this isn't really surprising, 1997 was a LONG time ago and most people weren't around or at least old enough to have meaningful memories. I doubt most people (other than Kurt) have memories of who was president when they were 2, much less the 'settling smoke of the wars from previous decades'.
That chart is astonishing. 4.9 billion people under the age of 39 and more than half of those under the age of 20. 25% of the people in the use are in the 60+ bracket, and our total population vs. the world is staggeringly small. If resource management is not implemented soon we'll simply be invaded in the next decades. Immigration won't even be a topic.
