The US Government Has Approved Funds for Geoengineering Research (technologyreview.com) 150
The US government has for the first time authorized funding to research geoengineering, the idea that we could counteract climate change by reflecting more of the sun's heat away from the planet. An anonymous reader writes: The $1.4 trillion spending bills that Congress passed last week included a little-noticed provision setting aside at least $4 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to conduct stratospheric monitoring and research efforts. The primary aims of the program would include improving our basic understanding of stratospheric chemistry, and assessing the potential effects and risks of geoengineering. But it's controversial: There are concerns that using such tools could have dangerous environmental side effects, and that even suggesting them as solutions could ease pressure to cut the greenhouse-gas emissions driving climate change.
Yeah, that'll work out great (Score:2, Insightful)
Regardless of upon which side of the AGW debate one lies, the fact that the warmth from the Sun is what keeps the planet and its various residents alive is universally agreed upon. Even taking on faith that we'd be able to affect the climate in any way, this way seems so monumentally stupid that only the hubris of Government would deem it worthy of further study, as the too often ignored Law of Unintended Consequences would very likely rear its ever-present head and turn Good Intentions into Bad Policy.
Re: (Score:2)
this way seems so monumentally stupid that only the hubris of Government would deem it worthy of further study
Telling citizens to reduce their CO2 output is political suicide, so... this is the way it's going to go at government level and it shouldn't surprise anybody who's been paying attention over the last 20 years.
Anybody who thinks politicians or the public will do anything to save the planet is monumentally stupid.
The only thing that can save Planet Earth now is new technologies. Something has to develop that's so compelling that everybody will demand to use it, not because it's good for the future.
No, I have
Re: (Score:2)
"Telling citizens to reduce their CO2 output is political suicide,"
That's funny... I hear politicians doing this all the time and from all sides... they have been in office for many years and I see no blood in the water.
"Anybody who thinks politicians or the public will do anything to save the planet is monumentally stupid."
That is too negative... if you were right we would never have created society to being with. Sure we are going to fuck it up all over the place on the way there, but we did in fact bui
Re: (Score:2)
"Telling citizens to reduce their CO2 output is political suicide,"
That's funny... I hear politicians doing this all the time and from all sides...
Sure but what's the schedule you hear from them? In ten years time? Twenty? "By 2050"...?
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem is not the schedule, though that's horrible, but the mechanisms they choose. They pick mechanisms that are designed to be cheated. "Carbon credits" is basically a scam. A carbon tax is much more reasonable, and could be harder to cheat.
Re: (Score:2)
Because those initiatives are mostly taking the wrong approach.
Take the simple idea of the CO2 scrubbing.
https://science.howstuffworks.... [howstuffworks.com]
The problem with most of these technologies is that natural sequestration is being defeated. Life on Planet Earth is carbon based. We can greatly benefit from using the abundant CO2 in the atmosphere to grow back areas that are turning into desert but because meat is now being vilified we are instead accelerating that cycle by trying to reduce meat production.
Of course
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, I am optimistic... because once we fuck it up bad enough... a lot of dumb and stupid humans are going to die. The intelligent ones will survive because we all know to keep the fuck out of the way of the massive throngs of idiots and to let them kill themselves.
Almost right...
The rich will also survive, ie. the ones who are running the show and caused the problem in the first place.
A lot of the dumb and stupid ones have a lot of guns and ammo and spend time in the woods. They're not going to die off either.
Re: Yeah, that'll work out great (Score:2)
The rich will also survive, ie. the ones who are running the show and caused the problem in the first place.
A lot of the dumb and stupid ones have a lot of guns and ammo and spend time in the woods. They're not going to die off either.
Your decription of the "elite" makes them sound like upper middle-class gun-nuts with hunting leases..."Those are not the rich you're looking for."
Re: (Score:2)
a lot of guns and ammo and spend time in the woods. They're not going to die off either.
Until there's nothing left to hunt. Then they'll die off. Mother nature can only provide so much. Of poaching was a problem in Europe in the middle ages imagine what millions of poachers with modern weapons will do to the fauna.
Re: (Score:2)
a lot of guns and ammo and spend time in the woods. They're not going to die off either.
Until there's nothing left to hunt. Then they'll die off. Mother nature can only provide so much. Of poaching was a problem in Europe in the middle ages imagine what millions of poachers with modern weapons will do to the fauna.
I'm sure they'll steal all the food from the intellectuals before they die though.
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't you noticed what climate changes are doing to the woods? Expecting them to survive much more warming is foolish. Some probably will, perhaps on mountain tops. But expect "the woods" to be wiped out by droughts and fires. Abetted by migrating insect pests, like the pine beetle and the gypsy moth.
You can't be spending much time in the woods or you would have noticed the changes even in the last decade. The California fires aren't solely the fault of PG&E, it's more because the woods have been
Re: (Score:2)
and don't forget, the green measures are "letting the forests develop naturally" results in fires, as has done for thousands of years, but because we build cities in the middle, we shouldn't be taking that appropach. nobody cared about Austarlain bush fires when nobody lived here, it was normal. But now we do, we have to manage it.
Similarly, we're cutting down forests to build more houses all the time, those ancient woodlands are irrelevant when it comes to property profits. Or, cutting down vast areas of r
Re: (Score:2)
It's much worse than that. Letting the current forests develop naturally means allowing them to become desiccated fire traps. The climate has been changing, and forests that used to fit, and only burn occasionally, have become too dry to survive. It isn't only that there were decades of "fire suppression", though that's part of it too.
I really suspect that many places that currently have forests should currently be turned into prairies. They're probably still too moist for Joshua Trees, but that may be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Barring the appearance of some miraculous greenhouse gas free form of energy production,
Like nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, biofuel, or hydropower? Yeah it's a shame none of those things exist. If they did we could even try BECCS.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't trust most artificial carbon storage systems. Most of them look to me like short term "solutions" that, in the long term, *ONLY* increase the cost. And some of them aren't even short term solutions, because the thing that absorbs the CO2 was made by processing a material that contained CO2 to remove it.
Biofuel is, at best, neutral. And usually isn't that good. There are special cases where it might be acceptable, such as a way to produce oil for lubrication rather than as a fuel.
Hydroelectric is
Re: (Score:2)
I don't trust most artificial carbon storage systems. Most of them look to me like short term "solutions" that, in the long term, *ONLY* increase the cost. And some of them aren't even short term solutions, because the thing that absorbs the CO2 was made by processing a material that contained CO2 to remove it.
There are a multitude of ways to store carbon, which ones do you trust or distrust? Large-scale artificial carbon sequestration will be necessary to address global warming, so we need to pick some that work.
Biofuel is, at best, neutral. And usually isn't that good. There are special cases where it might be acceptable, such as a way to produce oil for lubrication rather than as a fuel.
Neutral is a massive improvement over fossil power, and BECCS could be negative.
Solar still requires better batteries. Ditto for wind.
Not any more, the batteries are good enough now, solar or wind with batteries are now at least as cheap per kWh as fossil power, even though fossil power often has the subsidy advantage.
Nuclear is more expensive than renewabl
Re: (Score:2)
As to which failure modes I expect carbon storage to have, that depends on the proposed method. It varies a lot. And most of the articles on them don't provide useful cost estimates.
Biofuel can actually never be better than neutral because of thermodynamics. But with proper care it can probably be nearly neutral. You've got to remember to count the externalities.
Solar still requires better batteries. Yes, it's a huge amount better than it was, but it still needs improvement. (Saying it's better than c
Re: (Score:2)
There are CO2 initiatives all over the planet, yet somehow global CO2 emissions still increased. Just stagnation would already be way insufficient, but we can't even manage that. Still optimistic?
Yes, actually we are doing pretty well. Predictions of doom are highly exaggerated.
https://thebreakthrough.org/is... [thebreakthrough.org]
Re: (Score:2)
this way seems so monumentally stupid that only the hubris of Government would deem it worthy of further study
Telling citizens to reduce their CO2 output is political suicide, so... this is the way it's going to go at government level and it shouldn't surprise anybody who's been paying attention over the last 20 years.
It's really telling that it's more palatable for some people to advocate potential global suicide than it is something that could possibly be political suicide....
Re: (Score:2)
Telling citizens to reduce their CO2 output is political suicide
It seems quite obviously, but eventually at some point in the future, survivors are going to start simply killing people who will not stop polluting.
I agree the solution is not entirely political. Just as, murder isn't reduced by politics, but by physical actions taken by other humans to stop or imprison the perpetrators.
It amazes me how many people don't comprehend that it won't just be remote foreigners starving when the system of food distribution breaks down. They picture themselves sitting in their liv
Your hatred of this plan is stupid (Score:2)
the fact that the warmth from the Sun is what keeps the planet and its various residents alive is universally agreed upon.
We ain't talking about blocking out the sun entirely, champ.
Even taking on faith that we'd be able to affect the climate in any way, this way seems so monumentally stupid
Here's what is truly stupid - to be against the only idea that can actually be easily reversed (by moving the blocking out of the way or adjusting it).
ALL OTHER SOLUTIONS are more or less permanent, or take a very long
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily our Government ... oh, darn it :-(
Re: (Score:2)
I think I'm more worried about what the Chinese or Russians might accidentally do with this technology. We do not need to fund the research, then turn over Earth-destroying tech to governments that can't be trusted that well. Of course that's probably the reason we're doing this research... "they'll beat us to it, so we better do it first". Great. Meanwhile we're killing off every other species and chopping or burning down forests at stupid speeds. I really want us to preserve some of the beauty left on thi
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think the US government is any more reliable in this context? The only countries likely to benefit from this are the countries around the equator...and even that's dubious. This would be likely to shut off the Jet Stream, and possibly even the Great Conveyor ocean current. That's not a localizable effect.
Re: (Score:2)
That's like saying it is up to debate if your boogers are God. It shows ignorance, but there is no debate implied.
"Nanner nanner I don't believe you, you can't force me to believe you, nanner nanner" is not a debate position, it is purely within the realms of politics and personal aesthetics.
That a thing can be believed by some human does not in any way imply that it is logical, or that their belief is part of a "debate."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There is no debate. The science is fairly settled
Science doesn't work that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Now, look up the word "settled."
(Hint: it will not say "proven.")
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I guess people like Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. Don Easterbrook, Dr. Kiminori Itoh, Dr. Ivar Giaever (Nobel Prize winner, at that), Freeman Dyson (no Doctorate, but he knows a few things about physics), Dr. Will Happer, Dr. Ian Plimer, and thousands of others all lack hard science degrees and don't know of what they speak. Right?
I mean, consensus is everything - all that matters is that most people believe something is true. Like the "everyone knew it was true" about ulcers being caused by st
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how the global warming "science is settled" group not only want to sideline geoengineering and go for carbon reduction only, based on no science at all. Even worse, they want to block even a small amount of scientific research into geoengineering. They are worse than the science and global warming denialists they so denigrate.
Re: (Score:2)
Thermodynamics is a thing.
Sorry mate, increase CO2, increase solar radiation trapped in the lower atmospheres. Physics doesn't give a fuck about your idea of debate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are search engines for that, but it will not change anything.
People only care about what fits their dogmas and nothing else. They are sheep lead to the slaughter and they happily march right down into their own doom.
Each side is only going to engage in confirmation bias where they call anyone not espousing their views as not being a real scientist and that denies or believers are intellectually corrupt and/or Shills.
This cause is lost, far to lost because people cannot see past their ignorance, biase
Re: (Score:3)
Good predictions like these?
https://skepticalscience.com/c... [skepticalscience.com]
No, better to trust those freedom-loving mavericks from the denialist blogs! Their predictions have been better, right?
https://skepticalscience.com/g... [skepticalscience.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
We've been through this, the first link is an easily debunked [theguardian.com] common denialist argument on a denialist blog, the second link is wrong as hell including a goddamn math error in plain sight, as explained here:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/201... [blogspot.com]
And here:
http://www.realclimate.org/ind... [realclimate.org]
Stop spreading anti-scientific lies repeatedly. Find yourself a witchcraft forum if you want to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The "0.6C error" is basically a fabrication born of Patrick Frank's clown math. You could apply the same Terrence Howard model of error propagation to data from any field to blow the error margins wide open and try to make a whole field look like a farce playing inside the error margins. The 0.2C alignment between mainstream climate models would be utterly impossible if these 0.6C+ errors were real without blatant manual fudging of the numbers. There's a reason his Time Cube Errors thesis had to be brute-fo
Re: Yeah, that'll work out great (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such thing as "definitive proof." You've never seen it about anything.
You don't have any proof that proof can even exist, much less definitive proof.
Humans do not have any way to directly and accurately sense the world. We believe our senses interact with a "real world," but we can't prove that. Consensus is the closest thing available even to demonstrate that you exist.
Therefore, you do not demonstrate critical thinking. Your beliefs can't possibly be true, based on the evidence you have. (and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it is a pretty good one too. Left you speechless.
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly he's just being nitpicky. The statement as said was correct. But if you were to talk about probabilities....
Say, e.g.:
At least one of these scientists is correct.
10 scientists say X
1 scientist says not x.
What is the probability of x?
Unfortunately, that argument works exactly the same if you substitute "wrong" for "correct". Which means that you need a more complex approach, based on who you trust how much. The problem is most people enter a term based loosely around "how much would this inconve
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There actually *IS* a vigorous debate among serious scientists...but it's not the one the AGW-deniers claim. Climate scientists are arguing furiously about details of their assertions. It's my personal belief, as a non-expert, that we're already committed to more than 2 degrees of warming due to various lags in the cycle. But how quickly with Greenland melt? How quickly and how thoroughly will Antarctica melt? These are being vigorously debated. So to deny that there's a debate is to deny reality. Bu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the distinction that the garden-variety citizen doesn't seem to be smart enough to make: just because some scientists suck doesn't mean you condemn the entire class of peop
Re: (Score:2)
IIUC, that was Antarctic sea ice reached a new high. And the sea ice came from within the land based continent. IOW, the total ice mass of Antarctica declined. This, however, is quite difficult to measure. (I've seen reports of measures that indicated it was thinning...but just how much and how widely they couldn't state. And there were a couple of areas where it was getting thicker. This is to be expected, as weather is not uniform over an entire continent.)
Also, IIUC, that decision doesn't mean what
Re: (Score:2)
By your batshit insane logic anyone who ever becomes a politician will always have a conflict of interests. I mean does being a scientist bar you from politics, seriously?!?
Because, Logic (Score:2)
Sure, we could legislate a smooth and transition off of fossil fuels over the course of 20 years, but that would be too hard. So, we are going to go the easy route and try to completely geo-engineer the entire planet without screwing it up in the process.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, we could legislate a smooth and transition off of fossil fuels over the course of 20 years, but that would be too hard. So, we are going to go the easy route and try to completely geo-engineer the entire planet without screwing it up in the process.
Spending $4 million every year for the next two decades will do exactly nothing to achieve that goal over the next 20 years. Recognizing that fossil fuels are about as future proof a technology as horse drawn carts were around 1900 and putitng some force behind phasing out fossil fuels would be better but the US in particular is just too apathetic, deluded and slothful to do that. This is not to say that Geo engineering is useless, it is worth looking at but your plan of trying Geo engineering while still p
Re: (Score:2)
"but the US in particular is just too apathetic, deluded and slothful to do that."
What is this... Stupid Olympics day on Slashdot? It's the money moron... it has always been the money, it has never been, and never will be about anything else!
Everything comes down to it, no matter how much people run their filthy holes about virtue and belief.
Every War between nations... was about money. Civil wars... all of them about money. Take US Civil War which people claimed was about slavery... it's total bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
The time for that was twenty years ago. We should still do it, but it's too late to save the biosphere. If all we did now was transition off of fossil fuels, it would only prolong the inevitable.
Re: (Score:2)
You are wrong and the science doesn't back you up. There is still plenty of time to minimize the long term effects of climate change.
The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the second best time is today.
Re: (Score:2)
The time for that was twenty years ago. We should still do it, but it's too late to save the biosphere. If all we did now was transition off of fossil fuels, it would only prolong the inevitable.
Just because we're past of the point of stopping major negative changes doesn't imply that we're past the point of making useful reductions in those changes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what your goal is. If you want to save Greenland's ice it's probably too late. Antarctica, though, may still be salvageable.
I believe (as a non-expert) that we're already committed to the 2 degree rise in temperature because of lags in the system. But we still have time to keep it below 5 degrees. In between...I don't know, and I don't think anyone does. There are feedback loops that haven't been identified yet. E.g. "Just how much methane will be emitted as the permafrost thaws?" or "Will
You have to wonder (Score:2, Insightful)
how many trees you could plant for $4 million dollars.
And how easily a new ice age could be triggered by well intentioned efforts.
Re: (Score:2)
how many trees you could plant for $4 million dollars.
And how easily a new ice age could be triggered by well intentioned efforts.
There was more forest in the US in 2012 than in 1920 [wikipedia.org]. So I'm not sure the problem is planting trees ...
Re: (Score:2)
But worldwide, the number has decreased quite a bit. The climate doesn't care what country the trees are in. It's all the same atmosphere. From https://www.nationalgeographic... [nationalgeographic.com]:
Between 1990 and 2016, the world lost 502,000 square miles (1.3 million square kilometers) of forest, according to the World Bank--an area larger than South Africa. Since humans started cutting down forests, 46 percent of trees have been felled, according to a 2015 study in the journal Nature. About 17 percent of the Amazonian rainforest has been destroyed over the past 50 years, and losses recently have been on the rise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Planting trees isn't the problem, it is finding places to plant trees which are.
We have large spots of land that have been deforested to put up things like Farms, Housing, Cities, Factories... Things that we rely on to keep us alive, and comfortable, with out having to live like a cave man.
While there are some areas where is just a big lawn is mostly for ascetic reasons they are on private property where we can't force people to plant trees. But other areas there is a safety concern on having too many tre
Re: (Score:2)
...and that in most countries around the world at the same time. Countries that are in different stages of development, that they may not want to cut short because they feel it's their turn now...
Climate change is not a regional phenomenon...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Direct from the Source (Score:2)
"Earth's Radiation Budget.- In lieu of House language regarding Earth's radiation budget, the agreement provides no less than $4,000,000 for modeling, assessments, and, as possible, initial observations and monitoring of stratospheric conditions and the Earth's radiation budget, including the impact of the introduction of material into the stratosphere from changes in natural systems, increased air and space traffic, proposals to inject material to affect climate, and the assessment of solar climate interve
Options (Score:2)
Snowpiercer (Score:2)
We just did a massive geoengineering change (Score:2)
Treating the fever and not the disease (Score:2)
Even if successful, geoengineering does not address acidified oceans from the extra CO2 in the atmosphere. That means shellfish and krill are scarce, it means sprawling dead zones, it means the base of the oceanic food web is knocked out. It means that the way nutrients cycle through the ocean's ecosystems and back to the land will be curtailed. That's the stuff of major mass extinctions.
But, old addled dinosaurs have got to make money, and money's sure to have meaning when global famines hit.
Heard at JPL: "Geoengineering is stupid, but..." (Score:3)
Wow (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This.Is.Exactly.The.Fear. (Score:2)
This is what you get when you use fear as a motivator. Suddenly the most dangerous hare-brained schemes get consideration. In the best case this is just a stalling tactic used to give the appearance of doing something. At worst it is more problematic than the problem it purports to address.
The problem and solution are straightforward: we consume needlessly and inefficiently. We need to stop doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
No. In the best case we find something that works with minimal adverse side effects.
we consume needlessly and inefficiently. We need to stop doing so.
What will the side effects of this be? Putting millions of factory workers and supply chain employees out of work. Poverty, starvation, homelessness, social unrest, riots and lynching. And when the mob comes looking for the people responsible, will you post your address?
Studying seems like a great idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Looks like they are only talking millions, a drop in the bucket. If climate change is as serious a problem as many people think it is, then knowing and understanding ALL the options we have to combat it seems like a very good idea. There are no painless options - so we need to learn about all of them to make the best decision.
In addition the research seems related to other climate research and so will increase our overall knowledge of how the climate system works.
People have gotten WAY to political on this if they object to *research* into options because they don't match their own ideology 4 *million* dollars, not billion, not trillion. Geoengineering might be a great emergency measure if things start to get out of hand. Surely its worth learning more for such a tiny cost.
Good, we'll need to do it (Score:2)
We don't want to use geoengineering, but we'll need to use it. It doesn't fix all the problems of climate change, and it can create new problems of its own. If we'd gotten our act together 30 years ago, we wouldn't need geoengineering. But we've dithered too long. Now it's too late. Even if we do everything else, it still won't be enough. So we'll have to use geoengineering, and we'd better start studying it to figure out the best way of doing it.
Re: Well, good. (Score:2)
Now that's a wall worthy of a god emperor president.
Re: (Score:2)
"Messing with things beyond your ken" comes to mind.
More troubling, if mankind's history is to be considered, any technology developed from this line of study would eventually be weaponized... which means, of course, it will likely be pursued.
Re: (Score:2)
"Messing with things beyond your ken" comes to mind.
More troubling, if mankind's history is to be considered, any technology developed from this line of study would eventually be weaponized... which means, of course, it will likely be pursued.
Yep. Why risk a nuclear winter that affects everyone when you can simply cause indefinite winter for your enemy? Then once they all starve/freeze to death, walk right in. No radiation decontamination needed.
Elon's got this covered already (Score:2)
Of course, Elon, being an actual Bond villain, doesn't bother to mention that it doubles as a NAZI SUN GUN which he will use to vaporize his detractors with.
BTW, ever notice how the scriptwriting for this show got absolutely ridiculous sometime right around 2012? Mayans called it.
Re: (Score:2)
Where did you get the idea that this kind of cooling could be localized? The only way to do that would be to turn off the Jet Stream, which would create a host of other problems. Like not moving the rain away from the ocean to fall on the land.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Why risk a nuclear winter that affects everyone when you can simply cause indefinite winter for your enemy? Then once they all starve/freeze to death, walk right in. No radiation decontamination needed.
Right.
Godverment said, "Let there be light, and heat, and it was good for the freezing, starving populace."
Re: (Score:2)
if you block a swath above the equator for an hour a day
And how would you propose to do *that*?
Re: (Score:2)
The probable argument: "he gave the dems $4M in exchange for $1B+ to build the border wall. What a DEAL!"
Re: (Score:2)
And here's how that $4m gets spent:
30%-50% goes to the university as overhead to pay for facilities and management. That leaves $2m to $2.8m.
It will be a 4 year grant, so that's $500k to $700k per year.
A grad student will cost you about $50k, and a post-doc $100k. You'll need travel and some computers and stuff. No way you're doing real in-the-field research on this for that much money.
So this will fund a small lab of 1-2 post-docs and a 4-6 undergraduates for 4 years.
I don't think we need to worry about ch
Re: (Score:2)
He's probably caused more than $4m of losses to individual businesses near his golf resort that basically get shut down every time he comes to town.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. There was a story a few years back of a guy likely going out of business because he did helicopter tours of Palm Beach, and every time the president comes to town the secret service shuts down the airspace.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear involves more co2 at a higher cost than renewables. It's the idiot's "solution".
Re: (Score:2)
Is the CO2 from construction of the nuclear plant or somewhere else? Seems surprising integrated over the lifetime of the plant. Some countries seem to operate nuclear at substantial net energy gain
Nuclear does seem to be very expensive as implemented.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you combine the negative response to this with the fact that climate change acolytes won't consider nuclear power as a solution should tell you that they aren't interested in any solution other than "just stop".
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
Someday, when the world is wracked with starvation and turmoil, we're going to build giant wicker men, and fill them up with people like you.
Some of you will die first, but some of you will taste retribution.
Re: (Score:2)
There are two options. First, create a giant mirror in space [youtube.com] which will reflect a large amount of sunlight away from us, or drop a giant ice cube into the ocean [youtube.com] now and then.
Re: (Score:2)
That is literally the result of not taking action, and if you listen to the hippies, you'll end up living in a sci-fi world instead.
So many people can't comprehend that all human wealth exists only in the context of the current climate.
Re: (Score:2)
So many people can't comprehend that all human wealth exists only in the context of the current climate.
That was true in 1850 as well. It's safe to assume that 1.1C was no big deal.