4 ms·

This is such a small take. Climate change can absolutely be reversed by sufficiently determined technological and industrial civilization. The reason most cli

This is such a small take. Climate change can absolutely be reversed by sufficiently determined technological and industrial civilization. The reason most climate activists don’t acknowledge that is because they don’t want it to be true. They prefer being noble doomsayers before the “ignorant sheep.” There are (expensive) geoengineering projects that would give humans direct control over global temperature.

TigeriusKirk 6y ago
It's also crystal clear geoengineering will ultimately be how the problem is addressed. Everything else is a distraction given the reality of how people and societies work.
Fricken 6y ago
Maybe climate change could be by a sufficiently determined technological and industrial civilization, if there was some such thing. Climate change could also be solved by a magical flying rabbit, if there was some such thing.
- ByteJockey 6y ago
  They aren't talking about sufficiently advanced technology (magic). They're talking about things we can already do, but have serious trade offs. The most common suggestion is to add particles to the atmosphere that reflect sunlight. I think sulfur was first proposed, but I think study of calcium carbonate has been ongoing to avoid the ocean acidification issues that sulfur presents.
  - Fricken 6y ago
    The imaginary part is sufficient determination.
    - ByteJockey 6y ago
      My understanding is that the costs are low enough to be done by a single country unilaterally. At least at first. If we start doing it, and don't reform our ways, it gets progressively more expensive. Probably a nice stop gap if we ever get our shit together, but are staring down some really bad after effects.
newsbinator 6y ago
What it would take to move the Earth slightly further away from the sun, to offset that 4º ~ 8º spike?
127 6y ago
We can't simply do many order of magnitudes easier task now (reduce carbon emissions). How exactly do you suggest we do this task you suggest later?
lucb1e 6y ago
> they don’t want it to be true. They prefer being noble doomsayers before the “ignorant sheep.” This is obviously false. Please take this nonense elsewhere. I agree with the rest of your comment more than with the person you replied to, like, of course we can have a major effect on the climate if we see the need to (if we indeed see 8°C warming and traditional food supplies failing, suddenly the powers of this world will see ways to do something about it that they aren't doing today) and it doesn't automatically mean an imminent end to history like GP claimed. I just don't get why you had to add the cited part. We're all on the same team.
mhh__ 6y ago
[Citation needed]

TigeriusKirk 6y ago

It's also crystal clear geoengineering will ultimately be how the problem is addressed. Everything else is a distraction given the reality of how people and societies work.

Fricken 6y ago

Maybe climate change could be by a sufficiently determined technological and industrial civilization, if there was some such thing. Climate change could also be solved by a magical flying rabbit, if there was some such thing.

ByteJockey 6y ago
They aren't talking about sufficiently advanced technology (magic). They're talking about things we can already do, but have serious trade offs. The most common suggestion is to add particles to the atmosphere that reflect sunlight. I think sulfur was first proposed, but I think study of calcium carbonate has been ongoing to avoid the ocean acidification issues that sulfur presents.
- Fricken 6y ago
  The imaginary part is sufficient determination.
  - ByteJockey 6y ago
    My understanding is that the costs are low enough to be done by a single country unilaterally. At least at first. If we start doing it, and don't reform our ways, it gets progressively more expensive. Probably a nice stop gap if we ever get our shit together, but are staring down some really bad after effects.

newsbinator 6y ago

What it would take to move the Earth slightly further away from the sun, to offset that 4º ~ 8º spike?

127 6y ago

We can't simply do many order of magnitudes easier task now (reduce carbon emissions). How exactly do you suggest we do this task you suggest later?

lucb1e 6y ago

> they don’t want it to be true. They prefer being noble doomsayers before the “ignorant sheep.” This is obviously false. Please take this nonense elsewhere. I agree with the rest of your comment more than with the person you replied to, like, of course we can have a major effect on the climate if we see the need to (if we indeed see 8°C warming and traditional food supplies failing, suddenly the powers of this world will see ways to do something about it that they aren't doing today) and it doesn't automatically mean an imminent end to history like GP claimed. I just don't get why you had to add the cited part. We're all on the same team.

mhh__ 6y ago

[Citation needed]