But we don’t know if antibiotics for treating disease is a valid metaphor for global engineering to address warming. It might, instead, be like amputating a leg to treat the mumps.
Now, that’s probably not the case, but it is not yet provably not the case. Some of us are just feeling really cautious about pouring butter into the clockworks.
Sure. And I’m all for experimenting with geoengineering. Set up some observation stations, fly some planes, inject some gasses. Get good, solid measurements of the effects. Pick an area where a little low ph rain won’t do much damage. Cost maybe 100 million bucks, tops. The view of many eco-hippies is that the earth is so fragile that this is guaranteed to be a disaster, and is not even worth attempting.
Try to find a gas that is both cheap, effective, and doesn’t have too many side effects. Don’t go large scale unless you have a solution you can live with.
No, it is not. Once again you appear to be confounded by technical terminology you don’t understand. Most of the things I mentioned are direct first-order consequences of polluting the atmosphere with sulphate aerosols.
One gets the impression from your pontifications that there are so many different ways of fixing climate change that there’s not a thing to worry about! We can create magic beans for growing magic crops, we can spray sulphuric acid all over the planet and cool it right down, and no doubt we can send giant beach umbrellas into orbit to give us some nice shade. And of course we can build self-replicating factories to do it all for us, automagically, so we won’t even have to leave the comfort of our armchairs in which we think up these schemes. Actually, we only need to build one of these magic factories, right? The rest takes care of itself! I believe Mickey Mouse did something like this in The Sorcerer’s Apprentice.
Back in the real world, however, real scientists consider climate change to be a serious problem with no easy fixes. The primary solution advocated by the most recent joint statement [PDF] of the national academies of the world’s 13 leading countries requires at least 50% reductions in global carbon emissions by 2050 and the creation of a low-carbon economy across the industrialized world, and secondary solutions involving region-specific adaptations and investigating new technologies like the feasibility of scalable carbon capture and sequestration. This generally echoes the most recent detailed findings of the latest IPCC AR5 assessments and the broad terms of the Paris climate accord (COP21) from December 2015. To the surprise of no one, magic solutions like yours are never mentioned.
So now you’ve gone from “They don’t cause acid rain” to “they didn’t cause mass extinction”! 
Stay focused. How does this support your contention that even attempting aerosols - and sulfate is no one’s first choice, it’s just the only one we have data on, is “fantastical and irresponsible”. I never said ‘magic beans’, I said genetically engineered algae. One is real and well researched as an idea, the other is a cartoon. I never said we will have self replicating factories in time to matter. All I’ve said is that :
(a) even in the worst case scenarios, there’s straightforward ways to survive
(b) If anything is a fantasy, cutting CO2 by 50% simply from a worldwide pinky swear is it. Either we develop tech so good that cutting CO2 is easy, or it will never happen. Classic tragedy of the commons. I’m sure if you think about what tech we would need to cut CO2 easily, you’ll realize it’s a form of very robust and heavy automation to make the capital equipment needed. Something that could be extended to reproducing some of it’s own components…
So if we manage to win “sorcerer’s apprentice” style, alrighty then. But what happens if that is slow? And certain countries just won’t stop emitting CO2 and don’t give a fuck about sanctions? That’s where geoengineering is the sensible thing to try.
Do you genuinely think that the future world is going to be one where things go according to the plans proposed by the UN?
You might as well ask if the second coming of Christ will happen by 2026.
Spoiler alert: No.
Since we bumped the thread anyway, I’ll call attention to Kedikat’s interesting post. Is it true that fracking is driven by today’s unusually low-interest rates? I hope some economists will discuss this and provide some context.
cite?
If 99.9% of Humans were wiped out by aliens, a plague, a giant meteor or climate change, there would still be over 7 million Humans running around.
We have adapted very well to every available ecological niche.
Or, equivalently, we’ve adapted every available ecological niche to ourselves.
My pope is my cite
(d&r)
Dude, use the the spoiler quote tags. So now I have to wait 8 years for the anti-climax.
:mad:
Aww yes… FYI for those who use Google Calendar, you can set events well into the future.
I put an event for the ten year anniversary of this thread to bring it back from the dead!!
Please mods, don’t ever close it!!
What would be the direct cause of death, for any given individual? Has anyone tried to picture this in their mind? Will I die quickly or slowly?
Got it … “Jesus comes and begins baptizing with fire” … I’m sure the ensuing war will put climate change in perspective … how much Cesium-137 do they include in these climate models? …