Geoengineering Wouldn't Be Enough to Stop Greenland From Melting (gizmodo.com) 286
An anonymous reader quotes Gizmodo:
When the Greenland ice sheet went into a record meltdown in the summer of 2019, it raised a very terrifying specter of the future. Here was a 12.5-billion-ton mass of ice -- one that's been melting at a quickening pace since the 1980s -- melting in a way scientists didn't expect to happen for decades. While the ice sheet won't completely disappear for centuries, any further increase in its melt will put coastal communities at risk of inundation.
There's an argument to be made that we should do everything possible to save the ice, and a new study explores a very controversial idea to that end: cooling the planet.
The findings, published last month in Earth's Future, explore what would happen if the world pumped particles high into the atmosphere that would reflect sunlight back into space. This high-altitude air conditioning scheme, known as solar radiation management or SRM, would bring down the global average temperature. The paper's results show that cooling would help slow -- though not stop -- the melting of the ice sheet. That could buy coastal regions time but also change the climate in other ways that may end up hurting other regions around the world...potentially pitting nations against each other.
There's an argument to be made that we should do everything possible to save the ice, and a new study explores a very controversial idea to that end: cooling the planet.
The findings, published last month in Earth's Future, explore what would happen if the world pumped particles high into the atmosphere that would reflect sunlight back into space. This high-altitude air conditioning scheme, known as solar radiation management or SRM, would bring down the global average temperature. The paper's results show that cooling would help slow -- though not stop -- the melting of the ice sheet. That could buy coastal regions time but also change the climate in other ways that may end up hurting other regions around the world...potentially pitting nations against each other.
orbital solar farms / sun shades (Score:3, Interesting)
imho, we should be moving the toxic and heat intensive industries into orbit anyways, mine asteroids, smelt in space, parachute to earth, use the planet for living and for biology, keep the heavy stuff off planet, use the moon, it's an ideal manufacturing base if you go underground, machines don't need amenities
I can't believe this obvious stuff isn't already in the works, come on people
Re: orbital solar farms / sun shades (Score:3, Insightful)
Another issue is he
Re: (Score:2)
As a concept if we had the tech, sure. But we don't. Putting stuff in orbit is -hard-. It takes a tremendous amount of energy to put stuff in space.
Do we have to go into orbit?
The earth's albedo changed a lot when air travel was banned after 9/11:
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Can't we just come up with a simple aircraft fuel additive that solves the whole global warming issue for us?
Re: orbital solar farms / sun shades (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Better put the "brakes" on calling people idiots!
Please learn the difference between breaking and braking.
"You mean friction against the atmosphere, just like I said"
That's not quite what you said. You wrote:
"gravity is pulling you hard through the atmosphere causing friction"
To which you were corrected:
" that's due to shedding orbital velocity through aerobraking."
You were corrected you as to why the ship is going fast in the first place. You were wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
You were corrected you as to why the ship is going fast in the first place. You were wrong.
So I think you saying that "an object above that atmosphere starting at rest compared to the earth (not the surface, but to the earth+sun) would drop through the atmosphere but would not experience sufficient heating to be a problem to either the earth or the object". Which is a fine theory, but well, someone is utterly completely wrong here, but I don't think it is who you think it is.
Note, I'm not a rocket scientist. And it is painfully clear that neither are you.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Break versus brake is an easy spelling mistake a spell checker does not catch ... no idea why you nitpick about that. Rest assured: everyone knows the difference between breaking and braking ...
Re: (Score:2)
You're an idiot.
Credibility's a thing, dude.
Re: (Score:2)
Heavy industry could be located in cold climates where the potential for environmental damage is reduced. There's already plenty of land where the soil and/or climate is not conducive to agriculture and already have sparse populations.
Re: (Score:2)
Gee, that won't take what, just a few billion $. Hell, you ought to lead the effort. What do you figure it will take you? 2 yrs, 3yrs? And moving tons of material to and fro space should take how many space elevators do you figure? Surely, they can be built quickly. And no sneaky forgetting the physics of doing what we know how to do down here on Earth up there in almost zero gravity. Maybe it will take giant spinning factories. Should be piece of cake.
Re: (Score:2)
The military industrial complex is literally preventing us from getting off the planet.
No, it's countries like Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China that keep us from giving up massive military spending. If you have a plan to stop awful authoritarian regimes from seeing a deterrent instead of easy victims, then you're well on the way to freeing up that money.
Re: (Score:2)
You could just leave those countries alone, and they would leave you alone ... but you just can not do that, right?
Re: (Score:2)
There needs to be a thumb's up button for this parent article.
I am not sure about sunshades. Lets test Geoengineering on a planet we are not living on. This planet has been warm before and it will be warm again. We may have to relocate some people away from the coast line. And some farming to the south. We may have to breed less. All thing to cry about, but change happens, embrace the change.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't believe this obvious stuff isn't already in the works, come on people
Oh sorry my bad, I was goofing off on slashdot. I'll get right on it after this post.
Re: (Score:2)
burtosis ( 1124179 ):
You do know you can use solar energy to launch payloads into orbit. You have heard of splitting water(H2O) correct? Please stop using fossil fuels for that. Do not forget to reuse your launch vehicle.
A sig. not mine, I saw a long time ago:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because there are not many places where you could build one ...
Re: (Score:2)
Possible is not the same as viable, practical, or sane.
We can also launch things into orbit using nuclear weapons - but we don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Though honestly, that's a cool idea. Do one launch a year from some remote location. Launch thousands of tons of payload at once. Not sure if we could launch people that way; I haven't done the math. And fine-tuning it to a useful orbit (or really, any fine-tuning) is hard. But it would probably do less damage to the earth than the things it could replace, or even the current flow of rockets.
So nuclear is back on the table? (Score:2)
Re:So nuclear is back on the table? (Score:4, Informative)
Back on the table? It's been the only realistic answer from day one.
Gen 4 nuclear [wikipedia.org] is far safer and it consumes waste from older reactor designs.
If you are not looking at nuclear to solve this problem then you have other motives.
Re: (Score:3)
As nuclear is economically completely non-viable now, only fanatics and morons will seriously consider it. And only fanatics and morons will believe the empty promises of the nuclear industry about the next gen reactors, when they have blatantly lied every time before.
Also, incidentally, this stuff id not ready and will take a long time to get ready. Too long. Also, since it is economically non-viable, it probably never will get ready. At some point it will just get dropped quietly.
No, nuclear is still stupid (Score:2, Informative)
Renewables plus storage are cheaper and have lower initial environmental impact than nuclear, so nuclear is dead regardless of safety concerns. WITH the safety concerns, it's double-dead.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Trained nuclear engineer here:
You are wrong.
"Look, E=mc^2 "
I probably understand that better then 80%+ people on slashdot, but it's irrelevant.
"ucker, there's orders of magnitude more energy available in the nucleus of an atom than the electron field.
No one is suggesting otherwise. That a matter of area, and we have plenty of area to use solar for the entire nation, and you could barley see it from space. Wind and others would add to it.
" do some fucking research stop rehashing your ignorant anti-nuke bulls
Re: (Score:3)
You should check his post history... Wow.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need a massive building, IIRC Toshiba make nuclear reactors in shipping-container sized boxes, Rolls Royce is looking to make such things too.
And at the very least you'll understand that ships and submarines are powered by nuclear reactors these days.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not immoral when the other choice is a hotter planet.
I mean, there are a lot of issues with it I listed above, but considering what we are talking about, money is way down on the list.
I mean, yes we should pay for it now with higher taxes, but remember: in the 21st century money is more valuable then people. humanity, or morals.
Remember "Fallen Angels"? (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyone remember the SF novel "Fallen Angels"? (Larry Niven, Michael Flynn, Jerry Pournelle)
https://www.amazon.com/gp/prod... [amazon.com]
Published in 1991, it is set in a near-future world in which scientists are hunted down and killed, as witches were once. Why? This is a freezing Ice Age world, in which human beings struggle to stay alive. The terrible cold is partly due to well-meaning steps that were taken to avert "global warming" - just in time for the current interglacial to end abruptly. (Remember, we are at present living through an Ice Age).
Re: (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with real science, however. Here's a secret: science fiction writers just make up whatever they need to in order to make their plot exciting.
Re: (Score:3)
"We are currently living in the Quaternary Ice Age, this is only the fifth significant and severe ice age in Earth’s known history, and, so far it has lasted about 2.6 million years (technically 30+ million years ago when permanent ice appeared on Antarctica). It is the most severe ice age in the Phanerozoic, the geological name for the past 550 million years. Ice Ages are rare, but humans evolved during one, so it seems normal to us". https://wattsupwiththat.com/20... [wattsupwiththat.com]
Operation Dark Storm (Score:2)
"We don't know who struck first, us or the machine, but we know that it was us that scorched the sky. At the time, it was believed that it would save the ice sheets and hence slow down global warming." Morpheus
Fear mongering aside... (Score:2, Interesting)
Fear mongering aside, it sounds like we need better models. The real inconvenient truth here is that we have no real idea what is going to happen or when. The only real truth is that we will either be greatly relieved or greatly disappointed.
So, why are these models so bad? We have the geological record, so what's preventing these models from predicting the future based on past events? Is it a lack of imagination, lack of funding, lack of talent, lack of data, or a combination of these? Until this gets
The creative mind (Score:2)
The real inconvenient truth here is that we have no real idea what is going to happen or when.
The real possibility of a planet-wide catastrophe of this scale is why choosing to err on the side of caution was the only sane course of action from the get-go.
'Big brains' may well turn out NOT to be the evolutionary advantage it is claimed to be.
Re: (Score:2)
The real possibility of a planet-wide catastrophe of this scale is why choosing to err on the side of caution was the only sane course of action from the get-go.
Indeed. Unfortunately, most people are _really_ bad at risk management and at accepting inconvenient truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Clouds. Models suck because they suck with clouds. Per the IPCC itself [archive.ipcc.ch]
:
The sign of the climate change radiative feedback associated with the combined effects of dynamical and temperature changes on extratropical clouds is still unknown.
The role of polar cloud feedbacks in climate sensitivity has been emphasized by Holland and Bitz (2003) and Vavrus (2004). However, these feedbacks remain poorly understood.
Basically, we don't know what feedbacks come from clouds, how they impact any potential climate change - and we don't even really know how clouds form. So most models assume a static state for clouds and go forward from there (which explains why they almost all tend to run quite a bit hotter than the data shows).
Clouds [Re:Fear mongering aside...] (Score:2)
Clouds. Models suck because they suck with clouds. Per the IPCC itself [archive.ipcc.ch]
Interesting. Why did you quote the 2007 IPCC report, instead of a later one?
Say, maybe https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5... [www.ipcc.ch]
However, with that said, you are right: at the moment modelling clouds is the factor that contributes most to the uncertainty in the rate of warming.
I'm not sure why you say that the "models assume a static state for clouds" though -- that may have been true once, but all the models include clouds these days.
Re:Clouds [Re:Fear mongering aside...] (Score:4, Interesting)
Currently, neither cloud process models (CRMs and LES) nor observations provide clear evidence to contradict or confirm feedback mechanisms involving low clouds.
In other words we have no data to confirm or deny the feedback involving clouds. We don't know what they do. But on page 594 of the report:
There is as yet no broadly accepted way to infer global cloud feedbacks from observations of long-term cloud trends or shorter-time scale variability. Nevertheless, all the models used for the current assessment (and the preceding two IPCC assessments) produce net cloud feedbacks that either enhance anthropogenic greenhouse warming or have little overall effect. Feedbacks are not ‘put into’ the models, but emerge from the functioning of the clouds in the simulated atmosphere and their effects on the flows and transformations of energy in the climate system. The differences in the strengths of the cloud feedbacks produced by the various models largely account for the different sensitivities of the models to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations.
Essentially, the models all assume a positive feedback - small to large - for clouds. Even though we just finished saying we had no data to confirm or deny the feedbacks. But we'll assume it's positive (bad), and go forth from there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you actually paid attention to the models you'd notice that they produce a range of estimates.
Why are the models so bad? There are several reasons:
1) They're done at too large a scale. A cell size in a model is generally several kilometers on a side.
2) Weather is chaotic. Very small initial differences *can* produce extremely different outcomes, and outcomes different in unpredictable ways.
3) Collecting data is expensive. The smaller the grid you use to collect the data the more expensive it is.
4) C
Re: (Score:3)
It's not all-or-nothing. There's definitely enough evidence that something is up with climate and there's almost no chance it could anything besides bad. But we may never have models that will make genuinely reliable predictions, so it's not reasonable to ignore the predictions and it's not reasonable to blindly trust them.
The solution is not all-or-nothing either. Anyone proposing turning back the clock on the Industrial Revolution is not taking the matter seriously. There's plenty of scope for taking
Re: (Score:2)
we have the geological record, so what's preventing these models from predicting the future based on past events?
That is of course already done. Models underestimate [wordpress.com] the warming seen in the paleoclimate data. Even still, the warming seen in the models and the modern record is enough to require action.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually hundreds of models are run, and certain ones picked. they've already been alarmists many times in the past two decades with nonsense that did not and can not happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Talk about being ignorant: Forest fires have been in the geologic record for at least 420 million years. Also, where do you think the carbon dioxide released from the coal and natural gas fired plants came from? Most of it was in the atmosphere before. It didn't just get "beamed" onto the planet by aliens.
It's a shame we cannot harness the vacuum between your ears for anything useful. At least you can serve as the most extreme example of someone having inversely proportional mouth and brain sizes.
I know an easy way to do it, realistically: (Score:3, Interesting)
People say this is too big to do. But there is a comparatively simple process:
Make a few ash volcanoes erupt.
Pick the ones with the most pressure underneath them. And use explosives to break the plug holding them back.
Choose the right size of volcano, time them so the right amount of ash is in the air at any time, and you're in business.
Hell, any wealthy person with access to explosives could do it right now, without asking anyone.
I just have the feelings that the selfish moron crowd would use that as an excuse to keep destroying everything, like a bad pathogen.
P.S.: After thinking about it for a bit... (Score:2)
... yes, the amount of ash volcanoes might not suffice.
Then again, we should stop ruining our planet in any fuckin case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You do realise that it will kill a lot of plants, making things worse in the process?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The one flaw in your plan: Bruce Willis has not returned anyone's calls, lately. The incompetent plumbers summoned to unclog the toilet damaged a pipe, turning this whole thing into a much larger project, and he's reported to be in a foul mood lately.
During his last phone upgrade, somehow he lost his contact for "Archibald 'Harry' Tuttle", so he rang de Niro and for some reason De Niro has turtled and is denying ever having known such a person (maybe he
Re: (Score:2)
Thank for letting us know you don't actually understand volcanic materiel.
dumb dumb
YOU literally want to dim lights? you know we need light, rights? light isn't the problem, trapping it IR products is.
Yellowstone Park is the best choice (Score:2)
Yellowstone Park is the obvious choice plus has the added benefit of getting rid of most of the biggest polluters ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Great. And what do you do if it turns out it was a bit too much ash and earth freezes over? Or if there are unacceptable side-effects? How do you reverse the damage then?
Won't work that way and what about BRIC? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Yes, sulfate aerosols increase the reflection, and also cause acid rain. A difficulty to keep in mind, though, is that the cooling due to aerosols only lasts for a few months, since they rain out, to a few years at most (and a few years only if you blast them into the stratosphere, which takes a pretty massive volcanic explosion-- not the case for merely burning coal). Carbon dioxide, on the other hand is cumulative. It doesn't rain out.
But, as you point out, a
Re: (Score:2)
About 4 - Stop it, you ignorant fuck.
Medieval warm period, and the little ice age were fucking local effects, not global you shit eater.
"But our pollution looks like it is making it worse"
It's a scientific fact that it's making it worse, and many order of magnitude worse.
Why don't you mention volcanoes to show us how monumentally fucking stupid you are. Please die in a fucking fire.. wait, you will... we all will.
Well., not me. I've made all my kids colleges personal loan they are not attached to, and as so
In other words (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope.
Were going to be fucked, but massive and drastic action can reduce how much we are fucked and even begin a 100 year turn around.
|We won't because we live in an are were is somebody said school fire alarms cost to much, so we could pull them out, half the country wold thing that's a good idea because... money is more important then lives, now.
There's more than one approach to geoengineering (Score:2)
I'm sure that geoengineering could cool, or even freeze the planet. I'm not sure that we could do it in a way causing an acceptable level of damage.
Just as a thought experiment, a large enough sun-shade in orbit could cool the planet as much as you want. The problem is it would have more effect on the equatorial areas than on the polar areas, so the jet stream would shut down, perhaps totally. So might the ocean currents. This would have LOTS of knock-on effects almost none of which would be desired.
In
Re: (Score:2)
And in addition, doing anything that has an effect takes at least decades and may take centuries. Now, if it turns out it was the wrong thing to do, it will take about as long to reverse and may take longer. Not a good idea to experiment with the productive system here.
12.5 billion tons of ice melting?? (Score:2, Informative)
Hmm, that's enough to raise sea levels by 0.035 millimeters!!! The end is nigh!
Get back to me when we're talking decimeters, or even meters of sealevel rise. If all melting Greenland is going to do is raise sealevel by (almost) the thickness of a sheet of paper, it's not worth getting excited unless we run a vacation hotel there....
Re: 12.5 billion tons of ice melting?? (Score:2)
Re:12.5 billion tons of ice melting?? (Score:5, Informative)
The summary was unclear about this so you need to follow the link: Greenland lost 12.5 billion tons of ice in a single day. That's a huge deal. For comparison, between 1992 and 2001 Greenland averaged only 34 billion tons per year [climate.gov] of ice loss. So it lost in one day more than a third of what it was losing in a year just 20 years ago.
You could have prevented this (Score:3)
Can't believe this still needs to be posted. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because so many people are still fucking moronic anti-science douche bags, I Still need to post this:
1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
3) When visible light strikes an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
4) Greenhouse gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other greenhouse gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actual address the facts? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false?
So now you have to answer:
Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?
Blocking ? (Score:2)
Geoengineering is a pipe-dream (Score:2)
At least at this time. Maybe the human race can do it in a few centuries (if there is a human race left at that time), but not much earlier. there is both the issue of what do actually do and hot to prevent "emergent properties" of that engineering, as well as one simply of scale. The human race has zero experience with engineering on that scale and it does not have the basis for it. At the very least, it would need a general consent all over the planet. But at this time we cannot even agree to not have war
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If we all stop complaining about global warming now, and relocate further inland over the course of GEE I DUNNO AN ENTIRE CENTURY, perhaps we will all be perfectly safe?
What would be your plan for relocating Miami for example? What would it cost to make Miami a ghost town? In Miami-Dade and Broward Counties alone, there are 792,226 at-risk homes worth more than $336 billion. [miaminewtimes.com]
Re: Geoengineer this: (Score:2)
What would be your plan for relocating Miami for example?
Put a wall up around it. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
"Put a wall up around it."
It being the state of Florida.
To keep all the Floridians from getting out...
Re: (Score:2)
In Miami-Dade and Broward Counties alone, there are 792,226 at-risk homes worth more than $336 billion.
Don't worry . . . by the time the water reaches them, they will be worth a lot less.
And I'm guessing that once they are under water . . . they will be probably only be worth about nothing.
Maybe Florida building codes for new homes should require that they be usable when completely submerged in water . . . ?
Re: (Score:2)
My plan?
Step one: Call in exerts in all the needed fields.
Step Two: Let them create a plan.
Step three: begin implementation.
Of course it would be cheaper to implement massive a serious pollution regulations.
Phase out fossil fuels as a source of energy we burn.
This is a non-problem. (Score:2)
You don't need to relocate and you don't need a plan. Cities are constantly rebuilt and the lifetime of your average new building nowadays is much less than timescale we are talking about here, as is the time until maintaining a building costs more than erecting it. In fact, in 100 years you will probably need to ask a historian to find out where the coastline used to be.
So simply leave this to the free market and let the climate concerned put their money where their mouth is. I doubt that coastal real esta
Re: (Score:3)
If we all stop complaining about global warming now, and relocate further inland over the course of GEE I DUNNO AN ENTIRE CENTURY, perhaps we will all be perfectly safe?
This well captures the ignorance of most people on the subject. You don't have any scope of the destruction with systemic changes on this time-scale.
Here is a list of likely outcomes:
Re: Geoengineer this: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Insects are very sensitive to temperature, humidity, and precipitation. They also need specific plants for food. That's why you can get such different insect populations in areas just a short distance apart. Shift the climate a little bit and everything changes. Some insects die out because they aren't suited to the new conditions. Maybe they just lay their eggs and hatch earlier in the year, but then the plants the larvae need for food haven't sprouted yet, so they disappear from that. Others will ju
Re: (Score:2)
some insects will die out and relocate to suitable regions, and others will move in to take their place. That's how nature works.
Its like how cold water fishing stocks have moved further north as the sea heats up, and fish from the hotter tropical regions have moved north too.
Re: (Score:2)
Insect are like any other creature, sensitive to thee ecosystem if it swings to much.
FYI: 50% of pollination is don't by bees. To die it back to the first point. Mites are insects, and the kills mites. Warmer temperature will mean more mites; which means fewer bees. SO on and so on.
None of which is relevant because we will kill the oceans first.
Tune down your alamism (Score:2)
During most of earths history since the Cambric explosion when land-based life started in earnest, temperatures have been higher, the pole were ice free and CO2 concentration 5 to 10 times higher than today.
What we are used to is the anomaly, what you depict as a doomsday scenario is in fact the normal climatic state of the earth. And we better get used to it if we intend to live here for any geologically significant amount of time.
Re:Geoengineer this: (Score:5, Informative)
You left out two important facts.
First, the IPCC report gave a range of predictions based on different emissions scenarios. The 0.3 meter figure was for the lowest emission scenario. We aren't anywhere close to that scenario. In fact, global emissions are still increasing. At the other end, the highest emissions scenario had a sea level rise of 2.5 meters. Hopefully we won't follow that either. But given where our emissions are today and what we're currently doing about them, we have no chance of getting anywhere close to the 0.3 meter figure.
The other thing you leave out is exactly what this article is about: those numbers were probably too low. The melt this summer, where Greenland lost 12.5 billion tons of ice in a single day, was way beyond what the IPCC predicted. It's only been a few years since that report, but it's already become clear that their predictions were overly conservative (which many scientists said at the time it was released).
Re: (Score:2)
possibly, but why does nobody mention the antarctic ice when they talk about the arctic?
Re:well that settles it (Score:4, Funny)
who wants to be an asteroid miner
No one has to:
“Anybody who can travel about 600,000 miles to an asteroid mine sure as hell can learn how to program as well. Anybody who can throw asteroid coal into a spaceship furnace can learn how to program for god’s sake.”
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps he should sue his parents for turning him into a neurotic wreck who can't deal with the world as an adult.
Re: (Score:2)
Hush! Don't be telling everybody the dirty little secret that the high priests of AGW don't want anybody to learn!
Re: (Score:2)
For fuck's sake.
https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Right? I know lets block sunlight! herp derp. Lets ignore that means less plant growth in a world wear arable land is going to be dwindling.
That means sense. As if the won't stop the light coming through to still warm the planets.
Ate least with a space system, we could device a way to destroy it when something goes wrong. People want to put shit in the air? WTF, stop it.
Re: (Score:2)
Ice reflects light.
It's not the sun on the specific spot, it's overall temperatures.
Geoengineering will not work. Especially ones that require dimming of light, cause guess what? we need light. Also, that doesn't stop the temperature from rising when we are spewing more CO2
What we do not need is more green houses gases. We need a global and massive slow down in emissions.
People need to get the fuck over themselves. But I can' charge in 5 minutes, but it only goes 200 miles. Blah Blah Blah.
But since the US n
Re: (Score:2)
Its not the US that's at fault necessarily, but China and India. Unless they do something that isn't massive increases, it really doesn't matter what US states do.
I find it incredible that the green activists ignore global emissions to focus on very local areas. Its almost like they don't care about the planet but their national politics instead.