Heh, well I just wanted an idea on scale. It doesn't take millions of years, but less than 100. Certainly it wouldn't likely be 100% every 30 years, but 3.3%

Heh, well I just wanted an idea on scale. It doesn't take millions of years, but less than 100. Certainly it wouldn't likely be 100% every 30 years, but 3.3% every year. As far as geo-engineering significant climate change this looks like one of the easier approaches actually. Of course it's much more feasible with the continued migration towards solar, wind, hydro, and related. Sadly I think Nuclear got the short end of the stick for mostly political reasons. Things like putting a nuke plant in a known tsunami zone, without protection, because of political lobbying. So all in all, agreed.