Hate? Would you celebrate if Russia nuked us to the stone age. Anyhow, good luck with your hatred. Although after a while, it is exhibiting crab potting.

I'm the same person I was when I lived in poverty as a child and my teens to early 20's. But now, I'm evil because I have a lot of money. And you couldn't be more obvious if you tried.

Good luck with that. You can feel better if you don't make it.

You wold consider me evil regardless, Your statement says that.

Why would you be concerned about how much money I have? But you do you. If your hate allows you to sleep peacefully, hate away.

Perhaps we have a different definition of center-left?

I've been center left most all of my life. I'm support abortion rights. I support trans rights if they transition after reaching the age of majority, I support gay rights and marriage. I support a strong military and space program.

My problem? I am a mature "white" male. There's no point in denying that there are groups who have declared me the enemy and the oppressor, because of my age, my skin color, and the fact that I have a functioning penis. I also believe in science based facts that DNA provides the fact that a person is male or female, with some intersex exceptions. And my opinion that we should not transition children apparently enrages some people. SO I'm called MAGA, despite holding the Republican party in utter contempt.

We must remember that a small group of academics had complete control of the Democrat party, and were very anti-free speech, and incredibly anti- science and biology. They were also exceptionally racist while claiming they were inclusive. They pushed very hard for disassembling the country, and I have no idea what their plan was after they did that, because of the nihilistic nature of their demands.

Despite their efforts, the country largely became exhausted by them, and that helped usher in whatever the hell it is we have now.

I'm not the only one who found them repulsive. I'm not the only one who finds their performing Mengele level medical experiments on children as a terrible crime. If you think I'm being facetious, here is exactly what they are doing in the US. Search Chloe Cole on Youtube,

You might be surprised at what some of us have thought about with all three at the same time!

Then again, maybe not - I could be preaching to the choir, yaknow?

Sigh, your class envy is showing.

I am placed solidly in the class you seem to hate. I've worked hard my entire life, saved money prodigiously, and have a skillset that is unique enough that I am paid very very well. So I'm apparently evil.

Then again I also spread my ill gotten gains around. I tip waitstaff at 100 percent, often more. Away from paid work, I am the CEO of a 501 (c)(3) charitable organization, focused on education, and emergency preparedness and help.

Even my hobbies are focussed on helping others, My woodworking and woodturning creations in exotic woods are donated to other organizations for their auctions, - for humans and animals, and fetch them money of their own. Enough of tooting my horn - that isn't my point

If you managed to get this far without rage, My point is that having such hatred for people with money is as repulsive as some people saying others are poor because they deserve to be.

There are people who are wealthy who are asshats. There are many who are good people. Same with poor people, Some are wonderful people, and some are horrible. Judging people by how much they have in the bank or what they are paid, especially in this weird wold where so many seem to believe that a person's wealth is inversely tied to how much money they have is silly. And it is wrong.

If only everyone were in poverty, we wouldn't have to worry about the millionaires and billionaires, who are all evil.

Since it is a proven fact that money is inversely tied to worth, which means you are more pure and worthy the less money you have, we need to work diligently to make certain everyone's net worth is 0.

You'll deny it of course, but that is exactly what you said.

Old Josef Stalin liked to punish families. Of course, poster probably like that sort of thing.

There is a reason why the US is vehemently hated by a lot of Slashdot users, and the US far left. Jealousy, and desire for a communist government.Hopefully they'll leave here. for a country that shares their beliefs and goals.

We need a center right, center, and center left. We do not need the far leftists who believe communism and racism is the way to destroy the country.

The far right is also a problem, but at least they don't want to end the US. The far left needs to emigrate to North Korea, where tehy will be happy living with the ype of government they love - and deserve.

Much reeeing will result from my post.

It was part of the conversation I was having with others. Sorry that you decided it wasn't supposed to be allowed here.

To bring you up on the matter at hand, Intentional aerosolization is one of the quick fixes proposed by people who are interested in quickly lowering the average temperatures on earth. They use two separate mechanisms. Aerosolization lowers the temps by utilizing increased reflectivity of injected Sulfur aerosols (in one proposal, Hydrogen chloride) until they drop out of the atmosphere, which happens rather quickly. At that point the standard radiative forcing effects of Carbon dioxide reassert themselves. It is a temporary thing that doesn't continue unless more aerosols are injected. That's the plan for that mode of lowering temperatures.

The method at hand is absorbing CO2 in the form of a carbonate, by grinding appropriate rocks into dust, then spreading them on fields. The increased surface area in comparison to the big rocks in an unground state increases the rate of bicarbonate rather dramatically. The effect is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, for a longer term solution - but not sequester it at geological time scales.

It. is interesting that you find that a comparison of the two methods is of no relevance, and that they should not be compared here. Perhaps this is the difference between people who. find Venture Capitalists irresistible, but reject the details that are based on actual chemistry and physics. That's okay. I am no expert myself, but have spent enough time around educated environmentalists who have studied these things for many years. So I've learned a lot via osmosis and research work with them.

Those two things are 100 percent relevant to each other. They both "work" after some fashion. It's pretty basic grade school chemistry. They are also fraught with real world problems.

My mistake is that a lot of people have a Greta Thunberg outlook on matters of radiative forcing and the energy retention characteristics of an atmosphere based on it's constituent gases percentages, and the intricate interactions of that atmosphere with the land and oceans when they try to alter the planet. Just say "HOW DARE YOU!?!? and the problem is fixed - for all the bluff and bluster, it's more theater than anything else, and people fall for it every time.

So you do you, homie - a lot of people believe every quick fix and then when it fails or proves impossible, move on to the next big fix without some investigation into possible catastrophic side effects. Many side effects known to people with knowledge of chemistry and have access to highly educated scientists. Your claiming that my relevant comparison of quick fixes as irrelevant is a bit telling regarding which group you reside in.

Consider if you will, the really big side effect. That attempting to utilize these fixes will permit the petrochemical industry to not only continue as normal, but to increase its emissions. After all, why stop when we have these so called fixes in place, so belching CO2 is absolutely no problem at all. Until it is.

Sulfur or hydrogen/chlorine aerosolization rains out of the atmosphere in a few days as acid rain which contains either sulfuric acid or hydrochloric acid. Here in my area, we inadvertently tried that experiment in the 1970's. It didn't work out well. Acid rain destroys forests, buildings, and harms wildlife and humans, as well as as harming or killing riverine wildlife and acidifying the oceans, which kills shell life - the acid destroys their shells.

This was exacerbated by oceangoing ships burning high sulfur fuels, which tended to create sulfuric acid rain, most of which landed in the ocean. Working to acidify the oceans further. It did have a moderating effect on global temperatures. which ended when we switched to cleaner fuels.

So the concept of aerosol injection to cool the planet would require thousands of years of constant injection - because it rains out so quickly, and has to be continued until the carbon cycle reduces the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Now for this latest quick fix. Using huge tracts of land to purposely alkalinize the soil is going to create issues with the land and riverine environment and local ecology. Crops that can be grown, and silicosis being an ongoing threat for wildlife and nearby humans. Very specific silicate rocks will have to be ground to powder, otherwise poisonous metals can leach out. And in areas where acid rain is present, quick reactions can release the Carbon dioxide right back into the atmosphere. Even the relatively weak Carbonic acid in normal rainwater will act to release CO2, as well as release Sodium carbonate which is highly alkaline. I reviewed the chemical process of that in another post.

Here's a list of veggies that like Alkaline soil https://farmfromhome.com/35-gr...

Alkalization at scale is my huge concern. Note that in my area, where there are acidic drainage issues, the alkalization would be a net positive thing. I have to lime my yard every year to grow grass instead of moss. I'd just let the moss grow - nothing like walking or laying on a thick moss carpet - but SO likes a grass lawn, so lime I must. 8^)

If you read the second link in the Summary, it doesn't quite share your lack of downsides. And it is optimistic. Carbonate overload in soils has long been considered a problem for growing crops, and even the huge amounts of powdered silicate rocks will probably add silicosis to the problems of wildlife and humans.

In the end, the basic chemical reactions are pretty well understood indeed. But the large scale effects of doing this stuff on a global basis are not. So we have to take parts we do know about and try to extrapolate, along with the possible unintended consequences.

A lot of information can be gleaned from acidic mine drainage, which can be treated with Calcium Hydroxide, Calcium Oxide, Sodium Hydroxide, Sodium Carbonate or even Ammonia. It works, but is expensive (we do a fair amount of remediation north of where I live in PA)

We're going to get in the weeds a bit here, so hang on...

One of the major differences between Sodium carbonate and bicarbonate is pH. The good news there is that bicarbonate has a lower pH. 8.2 vs 11.6 for the single version, carbonate (yikes!) Bicarbonate is also very soluble in water.

So if acidic rain (usually sulfuric acid) reacts with Sodium Bicarbonate, it releases Sodium Sulfate, Water and releases CO2 gas. There are still places where acid rain is an issue.

But even if it is just the carbonic acid naturally in rainwater, the reaction results are Sodium carbonate (not good) water, and release of CO2. So while there might be a sequestering effect, the normal acidic reaction tells us that a fair amount of the Carbon will be re-released, and the very high pH sodium carbonate will be produced. This is bad for the field, and then there are the runoffs into the creeks and rivers nearby. If in a creek contaminated with acid drainage, it will actually be good, if in a normal creek or waterway, perhaps not so good.

For other carbonates, the reactions are similar, in the end, CO2 is released.

Wonderful. Can you give me your analysis that this article is wrong? https://www.farmersweekly.co.z... This one https://citrusagents.ifas.ufl.... This one https://citrusagents.ifas.ufl.... Considering they are talking about accidental salting, what is the reason that large scale e salting of the earth is the fix for the earth, perhaps even making it better as the bicarbonates make things better.

It is wonderful that people who work with the soil are wrong, and that purposely salting a big portion of the earth is our path to salvation /s

Words of wisdom.

Some more words:

AGW is real, unless the laws of physics have been revoked.

Most of these fixed create more problems than they solve.

And the panicked responses of the Greta Thunbergs of the world "HOW DARE YOU?!?! do not help at all. Jeebuz k. Ryste, billions of gigatonnes?

People grasping at straws like aerosol injection which will acidify the land, waterways and oceans, making at least a many extinctions, but likely more than AGW would. And this brain dead solution of salting the earth makes for a real mess as well.

In the ultimate home made experiment, if we decide to both to aerosol injection and salting the earth, we'll have a gigantic vinegar and baking soda reaction (only with sulfuric or hydrochloric acid that will release all the "sequestered" CO2 back into the atmosphere atmosphere.

Back to reality. We do have an issue with rapid increases in energy retention of the atmosphere. These are fueld by de-sequestering CO2 and Methane. In my estimation, we passed the so called "tipping point" in the early 1980's, and have only accelerated the desequestering of CO2 and methane release since then.

And that ain't good. This is creating weather instability. It is shifting ecological zones. Some life forms will become extinct.

But at this point, the roller coaster ride has started the first downhill stretch, and we seem to want to remove the tracks halfway down with stupid "experiments".

We need to stop de-sequestering Carbon as quickly as possible. Without tossing the world into chaos, which will as likely as not lead to open warfare between nations. Will we do it? probably not. The pragmatist in me tells me that between developing countries who want to develop without restraint, and developed countries who wish to preserve the status quo, we are going to be like the plane that's almost out of fuel, and a passenger asks "How much fuel do we have?"

The pilot answers, "We have just enough to take us to the crash site."

I guess whatever good news there is, is that CO2 levels have been rather higher in the past.

Not only is it not a solution, it creates more problems. People who believe that the worst possible thing is global warming, and willing to turn to salting the earth, or in other cases having the whole planet endure 10 thousand years of continual acid rain in other brain dead solutions, are not thinking logically.

AGW is a bad situation, but salting the land isn't a solution, you are correct.