3 ms·

Fun fact: we are currently in an ice age. By definition, when ever there is ice sheets covering both poles we are in one. The default state for earth is no ice

Fun fact: we are currently in an ice age. By definition, when ever there is ice sheets covering both poles we are in one. The default state for earth is no ice over the poles (as far as we can tell) The amount of ice also fluctuates wildly in an ice age. The ice coverage can be where it’s currently at (poles), all the way to an ice sheet covering half of the US and Europe. But in the last 5 million years, there’s a cycle where ice sheet size and thickness increases, then decreases at a regular 100k interval. The last few thousand years we’ve been at a lower and decreasing end of ice https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age The idea that we’d want to put the Earth back into an ice age when (1) that doesn’t appear to be the default for earth and (2) an ice age means less food — it’s an insane idea. Scarier that any random old country could probably do this without consent of the globe.

TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
An ice age also means more arable land, and eventually megafauna. Downside: Everyone has to move into former ocean plains Upside: You will be able to walk to circumnavigate most of the planet Earth at glacical maximum https://www.cbc.ca/greathumanodyssey/content/assets/images/minidocs/20k-1-image-3-original.jpg https://www.cbc.ca/greathumanodyssey/content/assets/images/m...
willis936 4y ago
Nowhere in the "Expected climate impacts" section is inducing an ice age even on the table. The anticipated effect is a 2C cooling of the atmosphere. Considering we're on track to blow way past a 2C increase in atmospheric temperature from 100 years ago to 30 years from now, SAI would be a mitigating action. The goal is to maintain our habitat.
- Roark66 4y ago
  "Expected" - is the keyword here. No one should (and I belive will) agree for any kind of "geo-climate-engineering experiments" unless our science is actually capable of predicting/simulating exactly what's going to happen. Said understanding of the climate and ability can be proven by let's say consistently successful weather forecasts for 14 days in advance. Then we can talk. Until then, even seriously considering it is stupidity of the worst kind exemplified by results of smaller attempts to "engineer" things we don't understand fully such as destruction of the Aral Sea and its ecosystem and many others. "But, but, we _already_ "engineer" our climate by releasing large amounts of greenhouse gases!" say proponents of such ideas. To which I say, those things cannot be compared. During the earth's history there were many significant releases of co2 and methane we can study (from mega volcanoes, to asteroid impacts caused planet wide forest fires). There were times when the earth's atmosphere had 10 times the co2 it has now and it didn't cause a Venus-like runaway greenhouse effect some people are so keen on presenting as an almost certain scenario. The planet managed to reabsorb it. We can mitigate many effects of climate change that manifests itself as few degrees of warming (including all the more intense weather events) much better than let's say a significant drop in temperature for a decade. In 50 years we will think about such climate-engineering ideas the same we now think about ideas from 1950s to use nuclear explosions for building canals, and other "soil moving" ideas. Insanity.
  - counters 4y ago
    > Said understanding of the climate and ability can be proven by let's say consistently successful weather forecasts for 14 days in advance. Then we can talk. Weather prediction and understanding the impacts of SAI are two very completely different problems. This is an arbitrary and not particularly relevant benchmark for gating geo-engineering work. That being said there are many, many ethical, political and other technical reasons why geo-engineering is a very bad idea and should be avoided at all costs. Undoubtedly, mitigating as much as climate change from occurring by quickly reducing global GHG emissions should be one of the main laser-focused areas of everyone involved in stopping climate change.
sydbarrett74 4y ago
Here's the problem: homo sapiens didn't evolve during a period when both poles were ice-free.

TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago

An ice age also means more arable land, and eventually megafauna. Downside: Everyone has to move into former ocean plains Upside: You will be able to walk to circumnavigate most of the planet Earth at glacical maximum https://www.cbc.ca/greathumanodyssey/content/assets/images/minidocs/20k-1-image-3-original.jpg https://www.cbc.ca/greathumanodyssey/content/assets/images/m...

willis936 4y ago

Nowhere in the "Expected climate impacts" section is inducing an ice age even on the table. The anticipated effect is a 2C cooling of the atmosphere. Considering we're on track to blow way past a 2C increase in atmospheric temperature from 100 years ago to 30 years from now, SAI would be a mitigating action. The goal is to maintain our habitat.

Roark66 4y ago
"Expected" - is the keyword here. No one should (and I belive will) agree for any kind of "geo-climate-engineering experiments" unless our science is actually capable of predicting/simulating exactly what's going to happen. Said understanding of the climate and ability can be proven by let's say consistently successful weather forecasts for 14 days in advance. Then we can talk. Until then, even seriously considering it is stupidity of the worst kind exemplified by results of smaller attempts to "engineer" things we don't understand fully such as destruction of the Aral Sea and its ecosystem and many others. "But, but, we _already_ "engineer" our climate by releasing large amounts of greenhouse gases!" say proponents of such ideas. To which I say, those things cannot be compared. During the earth's history there were many significant releases of co2 and methane we can study (from mega volcanoes, to asteroid impacts caused planet wide forest fires). There were times when the earth's atmosphere had 10 times the co2 it has now and it didn't cause a Venus-like runaway greenhouse effect some people are so keen on presenting as an almost certain scenario. The planet managed to reabsorb it. We can mitigate many effects of climate change that manifests itself as few degrees of warming (including all the more intense weather events) much better than let's say a significant drop in temperature for a decade. In 50 years we will think about such climate-engineering ideas the same we now think about ideas from 1950s to use nuclear explosions for building canals, and other "soil moving" ideas. Insanity.
- counters 4y ago
  > Said understanding of the climate and ability can be proven by let's say consistently successful weather forecasts for 14 days in advance. Then we can talk. Weather prediction and understanding the impacts of SAI are two very completely different problems. This is an arbitrary and not particularly relevant benchmark for gating geo-engineering work. That being said there are many, many ethical, political and other technical reasons why geo-engineering is a very bad idea and should be avoided at all costs. Undoubtedly, mitigating as much as climate change from occurring by quickly reducing global GHG emissions should be one of the main laser-focused areas of everyone involved in stopping climate change.

sydbarrett74 4y ago

Here's the problem: homo sapiens didn't evolve during a period when both poles were ice-free.