4 ms·

Refreezing Earth's poles feasible and cheap, new study finds

38 points by rmason 4y ago

Ancalagon 4y ago
Cheap fix, cheap way to make more problems in the long run
hasmanean 4y ago
Well be paying the pole tax in perpetuity for yearly “aerosol treatment.”
steve_adams_86 4y ago
This is frighteningly inexpensive – if it did work, I worry it would alleviate the necessary concerns to find permanent solutions. The world could easily afford this. Some individuals in the world could easily afford this. It’s too easy. Perhaps it could reduce other issues and actually prevent various species-specific catastrophes around the poles. As a conservation effort it might make sense. I do worry about downstream effects. People far smarter than I am are researching this, but there are so many potential knock on effects. Even so, I’m glad to see progress being made in this kind of research. That’s a big step up from my childhood.
fire 4y ago
lol I feel like this is more or less exactly what led to the earthwide frozen wasteland in Snowpiercer
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jaggs 4y ago
These stupid geo-engineering 'solutions' are a disaster waiting to happen. Morons.
- Nomentatus 4y ago
  Disaster is a possibility - but note that your answer implies that the climate emergency isn't, you know, an emergency; since in emergencies corners are frequently cut and some chances taken. I'm wary too, but I'm convinced the emergency word isn't just puffery.
  - jaggs 4y ago
    Totally agree with you about the emergency, but to believe that we can fix the climate crisis by throwing more speculative technology at the problem - with no real idea of what the unintended consequences will be - is total madness. Not to mention the fact that no one person or nation has the right to experiment with everyone's existence just because they 'think' it will work. At least on paper. Meanwhile we could be working towards real solutions instead of this foolishness. Sorry, I get really annoyed with these idiots.
    - hypertele-Xii 4y ago
      Some level of madness may be a required for the continued survival of our species.
      - jaggs 4y ago
        No, not really. There are a large number of sensible solutions we can use which will ensure our survival as a species. We just need to remove the global growth imperative as fast as we can. The current capitalist trajectory is directly opposite to what we need. Managed, responsible degrowth can deliver everything we need without massive disruption. Yes, we'll need to accept lower levels of convenience and comfort, but that's probably a good thing in terms of overall life balance and well being. There's absolutely no need to start chucking sulphuric acid aerosols into the stratosphere. Fix the problem, don't just try and mask it.
        meany 4y ago
        Do you have concerns that this will trap the billions of very poor in permanent destitution? Do you see a way to stop global growth and raise these people out of poverty? Global per capita gdp is 10k. From a first glance, even if we established a global government that redistributed wealth, no one will be living well - at least by modern standards.
timoth3y 4y ago
“Every complex problem has a solution which is simple, direct, plausible — and wrong.” -- H. L. Mencken
- avmich 4y ago
  "On the other hand, we cannot ignore efficiency" -- D. E. Knuth
tamaharbor 4y ago
What could possibli go wrong?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tamaharbor 4y ago
  No Simpsons fans here.
denkmoon 4y ago
Smells like Cane Toads.
- Smoosh 4y ago
  As an Australian, I agree.
Smoosh 4y ago
Is this another diversion/distraction by the fossil fuel industry to allow them to continue business as usual for as long as possible? Even if it is highly effective, wouldn't they then argue that climate change is "solved" and we can go back to releasing CO2 as much as we want? Further, would they then underwrite astroturfing campaigns to shame people who don't accept that the problem is solved as never-satisfied malcontents who should be ignored?
- netsharc 4y ago
  Feels like society at large wants to continue business as usual. Electric cars are still super wasteful compared to public transport, tonnes of metal and battery that the majority of time sit around idle and a minority of time transport one person. I saw an article yesterday where Clear Channel was defending the placement of digital street-level billboards, but hey "We try as much as we can to use renewable energy to power these things.". Looking forward to seeing those aerosol flights all over the planet, as humanity get desperate.
rexxars 4y ago
Hmm, this was proposed 10 years ago by David Keith: https://mashable.com/archive/arctic-global-warming https://mashable.com/archive/arctic-global-warming I wonder what has changed, apart from going from $8 billion to $11 billion.
vgel 4y ago
Since the article didn't specify and I had to go to the original paper: the "aerosol" substance is sulfur dioxide
20after4 4y ago
So contrailing the poles? Imagine that.

38 points by rmason 4y ago

Ancalagon 4y ago

Cheap fix, cheap way to make more problems in the long run

hasmanean 4y ago

Well be paying the pole tax in perpetuity for yearly “aerosol treatment.”

steve_adams_86 4y ago

This is frighteningly inexpensive – if it did work, I worry it would alleviate the necessary concerns to find permanent solutions. The world could easily afford this. Some individuals in the world could easily afford this. It’s too easy. Perhaps it could reduce other issues and actually prevent various species-specific catastrophes around the poles. As a conservation effort it might make sense. I do worry about downstream effects. People far smarter than I am are researching this, but there are so many potential knock on effects. Even so, I’m glad to see progress being made in this kind of research. That’s a big step up from my childhood.

fire 4y ago

lol I feel like this is more or less exactly what led to the earthwide frozen wasteland in Snowpiercer

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jaggs 4y ago

These stupid geo-engineering 'solutions' are a disaster waiting to happen. Morons.

Nomentatus 4y ago
Disaster is a possibility - but note that your answer implies that the climate emergency isn't, you know, an emergency; since in emergencies corners are frequently cut and some chances taken. I'm wary too, but I'm convinced the emergency word isn't just puffery.
- jaggs 4y ago
  Totally agree with you about the emergency, but to believe that we can fix the climate crisis by throwing more speculative technology at the problem - with no real idea of what the unintended consequences will be - is total madness. Not to mention the fact that no one person or nation has the right to experiment with everyone's existence just because they 'think' it will work. At least on paper. Meanwhile we could be working towards real solutions instead of this foolishness. Sorry, I get really annoyed with these idiots.
  - hypertele-Xii 4y ago
    Some level of madness may be a required for the continued survival of our species.
    - jaggs 4y ago
      No, not really. There are a large number of sensible solutions we can use which will ensure our survival as a species. We just need to remove the global growth imperative as fast as we can. The current capitalist trajectory is directly opposite to what we need. Managed, responsible degrowth can deliver everything we need without massive disruption. Yes, we'll need to accept lower levels of convenience and comfort, but that's probably a good thing in terms of overall life balance and well being. There's absolutely no need to start chucking sulphuric acid aerosols into the stratosphere. Fix the problem, don't just try and mask it.
      - meany 4y ago
        Do you have concerns that this will trap the billions of very poor in permanent destitution? Do you see a way to stop global growth and raise these people out of poverty? Global per capita gdp is 10k. From a first glance, even if we established a global government that redistributed wealth, no one will be living well - at least by modern standards.

timoth3y 4y ago

“Every complex problem has a solution which is simple, direct, plausible — and wrong.” -- H. L. Mencken

avmich 4y ago
"On the other hand, we cannot ignore efficiency" -- D. E. Knuth

tamaharbor 4y ago

What could possibli go wrong?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tamaharbor 4y ago
No Simpsons fans here.

denkmoon 4y ago

Smells like Cane Toads.

Smoosh 4y ago
As an Australian, I agree.

Smoosh 4y ago

Is this another diversion/distraction by the fossil fuel industry to allow them to continue business as usual for as long as possible? Even if it is highly effective, wouldn't they then argue that climate change is "solved" and we can go back to releasing CO2 as much as we want? Further, would they then underwrite astroturfing campaigns to shame people who don't accept that the problem is solved as never-satisfied malcontents who should be ignored?

netsharc 4y ago
Feels like society at large wants to continue business as usual. Electric cars are still super wasteful compared to public transport, tonnes of metal and battery that the majority of time sit around idle and a minority of time transport one person. I saw an article yesterday where Clear Channel was defending the placement of digital street-level billboards, but hey "We try as much as we can to use renewable energy to power these things.". Looking forward to seeing those aerosol flights all over the planet, as humanity get desperate.

rexxars 4y ago

Hmm, this was proposed 10 years ago by David Keith: https://mashable.com/archive/arctic-global-warming https://mashable.com/archive/arctic-global-warming I wonder what has changed, apart from going from $8 billion to $11 billion.

vgel 4y ago

Since the article didn't specify and I had to go to the original paper: the "aerosol" substance is sulfur dioxide

20after4 4y ago

So contrailing the poles? Imagine that.