Artificially cooling the planet carries potential threats -- and so does allowing tech billionaires to monopolize the research efforts.
Kim Stanley Robinson argues that blanket opposition to intervening in the climate is wrongheaded.
It boils down to a failure to question capitalism, civilization, and the notion of progress.
Now, here's a thought experiment. Imagine a world where we are in fact at 350 parts per million. On the flipside, imagine
The climate news gets scarier by the day. February obliterated all records as the warmest seasonally-adjusted month since measurements began. At this rate, we're on a path to blow through the 1.5º C temperature rise the nations of the world set as a goal at COP21 in a few years.
We now stand at a crossroads. However unintentional, humans are responsible for climate change. It is time we own up to that and deal with the problem in earnest. For what we do today will forever determine our future trajectory. Could this crisis be the impetus that moves us to the next stage of civilization or to extinction?
Australian climate scientist Tim Flannery suggests we could cool the climate with massive seaweed farms to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
The most efficient method of quickly reducing the global population, and solving the global warming problem, is by nuclear war.
His warning comes less than three months before world leaders gather in Paris to strike a make-or-break deal to pull our
Today, the Earth got a little hotter, and a little more crowded.
Last week I met a young man who is about to major in environmental engineering. When he found out I blog about climate change, his first question was, "Is it already over?" Clearly he intended to be provocative.
If we don't want to screw up our climate, it is time to put the fruitless debates on climate-engineering techniques to rest, and focus on the only real solution, which is a tremendous challenge requiring all our intellectual resources: The mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.
Siberia's melting permafrost: crater saga is scarier than anyone thought; Berkeley study directly IDs climate change culprit; Even earth scientists struggle to defeat global warming using interactive game.
Credit Jatkins at Wikimedia Commons To help you understand just what science does and does NOT do, check this out! The extreme
Unsurprisingly, there are a number of uncertainties and undesirable side-effects with this plan and some oppose even studying geoengineering. To date, there has been no major publicly funded research program in geoengineering.
But Nicholson emphasized the need for caution going forward. “There’s absolutely no substitute for slashing fossil fuel emissions
I find it awesome that despite the distinct possibility that it won't work and the near certainty of disastrous side effects and suffering for billions of people if it does, scientists are still pursuing geo-engineering
Are these technological solutions to some of the damage humans have done to ourselves and the natural world, or are they just versions of Castle Bravo and the Oxygen Destroyer, escalations of a self-destructive technological death spiral?
If solar radiation management could be implemented (which is a big question, since it has never been done and the equipment to implement either cloud brightening or creation of stratospheric clouds does not exist), it would have benefits. But I have identified at least 26 possible risks.
Humans have caused a lot of damage to the planet. But on this Earth Day, can we reverse that damage with man-made rain clouds, sun reflectors and ice caps? We discuss how science can slow the effects of global warming.