Hi again, Luck.
I began typing a larger post but I'll try to keep it short instead.
Instead of focusing on the political game, I've been moving toward being more independent and shifting what my time, attention, resouces and energy supports toward things more immediately important to myself. I can't say I've gotten nothing from basically being a "nice guy" but the return on investment hasn't been great and I've gotten tired of doing my part to support the rat race. It's hard to build something enjoyable and stable for the future when the rules keep changing.
I order to skip past a lot challenges, I've been focusing more on being self reliant and need less and less of "the system" to get by. Also, after bumping in to a few people who've been willing to stoop pretty low in trying to get what they've wanted I've realized there are times when it's appropriate for a bit more hardball approach, especially when reality puts you between a rock and hard place - in those cases there's really no choice, but there's also nothing (else) to lose, and though it can be rather sad and humbling on one hand, it can also be very liberating. If life has consequences no matter you do, then the flip side is that everything opens up as an option and it's more a matter of weighing those options than being restricted to having few or none.
On the CO2/Global Warming hype:
1) I was beginning to compute what the average temperature would be if 100% solar radiation (about 1000 watts per square meter) was absorbed and it was continually reradiated as largely infrared radiation into space by blackbody radiation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation - that's how parabolic heaters work, but I found someone else had already done that computation and the result was an average of 55 degs fahrenheit, which seems pretty close to what we have - it's colder at night and at the poles, but much hotter toward the equator and at day time.
In fact, I just had the thought that the temperature underground would be better representative of the average and CHECK THIS OUT!
There are often talks of ground temperature being a constant 55F at 6ft or so.
Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/temperature-for-3-or-4ft-underground.826193/
It's practically sad to consider how much time, energy, resources, concern etc. have be wasted on the CO2 subject.
I actually think the smog reduction and clean air pressures are what caused some of drought in California and increased snow and hailstorms elsewhere. I'm not saying the reduction in air pollution is bad but when cars and factories were changed to burn emissions more cleanly, this resulted in less soot and ash, which is largely carbon being burned as well. When carbon is burned it becomes carbon dioxide (CO2) - no biggy, the plants love it (Global greening
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth/ - in fact most the other emissions regard nitrogen, phosphorus and organics which are all used in fertilizers, so pants don't have a problem).
One concern though is that burning those fuels with catalysts and at unnaturally high temperatures converts it to gases with little soot or ash like fires naturally produce. This reduces the ability for water vapor to condense into raindrops
It is important to note that particulate matter (very tiny particles made up of dust, soot and salt) play a very important role in the formation of water droplets. They serve as a nucleus around which the water will settle.https://www.eschooltoday.com/water-cycle/what-is-precipitation.html
CO2, nitrous oxides etc. are gases that are soluable in water, including water vapor and most natural fires produce smoke or soot which allows that water vapor to condense into rain, which returns those gases to the earth and thus tending to limit the quantity if those gases in the atmosphere. I don't think there's really much of a problem but if taken to extremes - we got rid of most all dust/soot/carbon/ash etc. and required fires to burn cleanly etc. then we'd (ironically? or is it just something about government being predictable?) end up with little of any rain and the density of those gases increasing over time. I seriously have wondered in the focus from carbon dioxied to carbon itself was intentional (considering how the failing global warming debate quickly switched to climate change instead, I wouldn't be surprised).
Also note that when "acid rain" is referenced, these would be a combination of largely carbonic acid (basically very diluted soda water) as well as phosphoric acid (which interestingly enough is also added to sodas to give the coke flavor!) and nitric acid, which could be more of a concern but nitrogen is not normally very chemically reactive and many plants aren't able to extract much nitrogen from the atmosphere and rely upon other sources of nitrogen to survive
https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/garden-how-to/soil-fertilizers/nitrogen-nodules-and-nitrogen-fixing-plants.htm otherwise fields can go fallow for years until nitrogen levels (as well as likely other elements becoming slowly available due to erosion or slowly deposited by rainfall).
I remember telling some people at work these ideas and a few weeks later there was a large brushfire near there. I was thinking that if the ideas were true we should see a lot clouds in the area soon or get some rain. The next day I came into work and there were flood warnings with the air smelling like a forest after a fresh rainfall. I mentioned it to a coworker and he said he'd already been thinking the same thing. There was another larger fire some months later and though it didn't rain it was interesting to see the brown smoke from the fire rise and slowly change into grey and white clouds. I did some searching on the net and found quite a few similar observations though usually phrased in a more negative way like "mountains near cities have less snowfall." (with the unspoken comment that it would instead rain more at lower altitudes with less humidity remaining to freeze as hail or snow elsewhere) or "clouds form downwind of cities" (makes sense).
Cloudseeding is a related subject. Also, the subject of chem or contrails is related because if the're fewer particles in the atmosphere for water vapor to condense, the humidity would increase and cause the atmosphere to be closer to its condensation point (Cloud chambers are a related subject
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber) and any disturbances or exhaust emissions would be more likely to cause condensation and have the trails persist for longer. (Also, with increased humidity, even without increased temperatures it could feel warmer
)
In California we used to have a thriving agricultural industry (anyone remember California oranges ... seems like a thing of the past now) but with less rainfall and likely a reduction in soil fertilization. Another issue could be that with mass irrigation and transportation a lot of minerals, including rarer elements (boron, selenium and such - take a look at the ingredients in Miracle Grow ) are extarcted by growth locally and then transported, likely to a coastal city and the flushed into the ocean whereas prior to that those same resources would have been continually "recycled" locally by nature.
An interesting side idea is that rain will continually leech soluable materials from the ground as well as erode other materials into the ocean. The ocean is actually a great source of many minerals and some people have used ocean water or seaweed as fertilizers. Some plants can grow in highly saline environments (barley and potatoes). Some plants are even capable of semi encapsulating salts making them chemically inert and effectively performing desalinization. It could be interesting to discover a bit of value to sort of "returning" some of the ocean back to the mountains.
Well, once again I failed to make this short and not ramble. If you made it this far, mucho congrats man!
Once again, these are just some more ideas to kick around. Have fun.
