# Global Waming's Solution(ish)



## Deleted User (Oct 26, 2018)

I was doing a bit of research on nuclear winter.

Y'all can already see where this is going. I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding something, but would it be possible to detonate a couple of nukes in the stratosphere to slow down, if not reverse global warming?


----------



## KiiWii (Oct 26, 2018)

....if we all left our windows open while we have aircon on.....


----------



## Engezerstorung (Oct 26, 2018)

...if we all adopt butt plug to stop adding methane in the air
and then do big ones for cows...


----------



## SG854 (Oct 26, 2018)

Cowspiracy

And stop eating those nasty Mexican burritos. We don't need your nasty Nitrogen and Methan's released into the atmosphere from your rear end.


----------



## BlackWizzard17 (Oct 26, 2018)

Global Warming is a myth


----------



## leon315 (Oct 26, 2018)

IF everyones start to go to work on feet or bike, hey! IT EVEN RESOLVES DIABETE TOO!


----------



## Exannor (Oct 26, 2018)

....I like fridges....


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 26, 2018)

Dammit, you're all hilarious butt I was hoping for an actual answer.


----------



## Exannor (Oct 26, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> butt


heh, butts


That's what we need to plug

and leave fridges open


----------



## KiiWii (Oct 26, 2018)

@TerribleTy27 just nuke the worst offending countries.

2 birds one stone.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 26, 2018)

I'm not a fan of blowing up the sky. I don't hate the sky. I actually like it.


----------



## Arcanuskun (Oct 26, 2018)

And this becomes EoF...
So OP, what did you research? On what scientific paper did you see that nuclear winter can hep reverse global warming?


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 26, 2018)

Arcanuskun said:


> And this becomes EoF...
> So OP, what did you research? On what scientific paper did you see that nuclear winter can hep reverse global warming?



Uh, basic logic? If nuclear fallout in the stratosphere blocks the sun and reduces heat, wouldn't it be safe to say a couple nukes would reduce global warming?


----------



## Engezerstorung (Oct 26, 2018)

well, as you said, IT BLOCK THE SUN
i don't know, could be an issue?
"hey my snacks never develop fungus because i put bleach in it, such a genius"


But, hey, cow butt plugs will create lots of jobs to manufacture them, move them, install them, and so on... Eh!


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 26, 2018)

Engezerstorung said:


> well, as you said, IT BLOCK THE SUN
> i don't know, could be an issue?
> "hey my snacks never develop fungus because i put bleach in it, such a genius"



Obviously that would be an issue if we were firing thousands or so. But I don't think it's much of an issue at the smaller scale. Just enough to keep the icecaps from melting further.


----------



## Arcanuskun (Oct 26, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Uh, basic logic? If nuclear fallout in the stratosphere blocks the sun and reduces heat, wouldn't it be safe to say a couple nukes would reduce global warming?


Then your basic logic and science is wrong. It is not the sun's heat that rises the temperature. It's the greenhouse effect. With what you said, the greenhouse gasses will increase and temperature will also increase like in planet venus.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 26, 2018)

The best solutions, other than reducing CO2, is making technology that can take C02 directly out of the air.


----------



## Engezerstorung (Oct 26, 2018)

1 to 2 °C don't seem a lot, and see the implications, it dont seem to be too much far fetched to imagine than variation in solar exposure can also have big implications overall

that's why there is scientist who study things and not just people with there basic school knowledge who think about it on the top of their head

if things were easy to figure out, it probably wouldnt be such a mess


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 26, 2018)

Arcanuskun said:


> Then your basic logic and science is wrong. It is not the sun's heat that rises the temperature. It's the greenhouse effect. With what you said, the greenhouse gasses will increase and temperature will also increase like in planet venus.



Crutzen Paul J.; Birks, John W. (1982). "The Atmosphere After a Nuclear War: Twilight at Noon"
Robock, Alan; Luke Oman; Georgiy L. Stenchikov; Owen B. Toon; Charles Bardeen & Richard P. Turco (2007). Climactic Consequeces of Regional Nuclear Conflicts

Youre using greenhouse gas as a catch all term. The kind of chemicals being excreted during a nuclear explosion aren't greenhouse gasses. At least not according to my understanding.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Engezerstorung said:


> 1 to 2 °C don't seem a lot, and see the implications, it dont seem to be too much far fetched to imagine than variation in solar exposure can also have big implications overall
> 
> that's why there is scientist who study things and not just people with there basic school knowledge who think about it on the top of their head
> 
> if things were easy to figure out, it probably wouldnt be such a mess



Bull. Most modern problems could easily be solved. The real problem is almost always that it's not beneficial for the people in power to do that.

Take world hunger. We easily have enough food to feed everyone in the world. So why don't we? Simple. People like meat. Meat requires all the veggies we could use to feed everyone. Politicians want people to like them.

Human nature and selfishness. That's the issue.


----------



## Ratatattat (Oct 26, 2018)

Why do anything? Mother Nature herself will take care of the problem, once Mankind is eliminated.
Or we will just have a second Venus around.


----------



## Arcanuskun (Oct 26, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Crutzen Paul J.; Birks, John W. (1982). "The Atmosphere After a Nuclear War: Twilight at Noon"
> Robock, Alan; Luke Oman; Georgiy L. Stenchikov; Owen B. Toon; Charles Bardeen & Richard P. Turco (2007). Climactic Consequeces of Regional Nuclear Conflicts
> 
> Youre using greenhouse gas as a catch all term. The kind of chemicals being excreted during a nuclear explosion aren't greenhouse gasses. At least not according to my understanding.
> ...


Well I can cite you a more recent study than that one. One from NASA.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/483/how-would-nuclear-war-affect-the-climate/

To qoute:


> Instead of sulfate particles, like you get from a volcanic eruption, a nuclear event produces soot, and that results in very different climate impacts. Whereas sulfate particles from a volcano might warm the air of the upper atmosphere by a couple degrees, black carbon absorbs heat from the sun and can lead to much more atmospheric warming.


----------



## Engezerstorung (Oct 26, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Bull. Most modern problems could easily be solved. The real problem is almost always that it's not beneficial for the people in power to do that.



yes, and the solution is stop polution for economical (as in "we can save some bucks so yey more mony") reasons, stop overproducting when we could still be living confortably with our stuff, but not in this actual crazy way, and so on

today ive seen an article about a regulation in europe to ban plastic "one time usable stuff", like straws, plastics fork/knives, the stuff to pick your ears with a cotton head;
the argument being that its a huge portion of ocean plastic pollution
so, putting aside the fact that stopping producing those plastic products is a good idea, my question is "why doesnt they talk about not throwing plastic in the ocean in the first place" <_< because throwing your bin in the ocean is a near-to-0 cost solution and it seem invisible, except its like putting the dust under the carpet in the end...

and in the end my argumentation stand, because those dumb ideas (of throwing your waste in the ocean/lake or in the middle of a forest, and so on...) come from people not knowing about what they are saying, the kind of people who see everything as an argumentation or a negotiation, like you can negotiate with actual cause and consequence physical stuff (like 2° in 10 years? come on, give me 3)

well its kind of off topic anyway... btw, nuclear winter is exactly the "i dont want to assume or go back on what i was saying and doing until now" kind of solution. the "i will keep doing as i do now while trying to do a dumb thing to solve the problems i dont want to hear about, and when it will fail and make thing worse it will not be my fault because at least i tried something"


ps: sorry for the engrish, im not an english native speaker and long text tend to exaust my ability to make it decently structured


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 26, 2018)

Arcanuskun said:


> Well I can cite you a more recent study than that one. One from NASA.
> https://climate.nasa.gov/news/483/how-would-nuclear-war-affect-the-climate/
> 
> To qoute:



To quote:



			
				the same paper you cited *facepalm* said:
			
		

> On the ground, global temperatures would fall by a little over 1 °C (1.8 °F) over the first three years. In contrast, aerosols from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo contributed to about 0.3 °C (~ 0.5 °F) of cooling over one year. Black carbon particles are smaller than sulfate particles and can be lofted much higher by solar heating, where their influence on climate can last up to a decade.



--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Engezerstorung said:


> yes, and the solution is stop polution for economical (as in "we can save some bucks so yey more mony") reasons, stop overproducting when we could still be living confortably with our stuff, but not in this actual crazy way, and so on
> 
> today ive seen an article about a regulation in europe to ban plastic "one time usable stuff", like straws, plastics fork/knives, the stuff to pick your ears with a cotton head;
> the argument being that its a huge portion of ocean plastic pollution
> ...



I suppose it depends on your viewpoint. On the one hand, I agree that people really should be better educated about what's going on, and so some of the blame falls on them. But on the other hand, the people in power are trying very hard to make sure that never happens.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Oct 26, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Uh, basic logic? If nuclear fallout in the stratosphere blocks the sun and reduces heat, wouldn't it be safe to say a couple nukes would reduce global warming?


your level of stupidity is scary. Your next brilliant idea is going to be to nuke the planet in order to fix overpopulation(another myth)


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 26, 2018)

comput3rus3r said:


> your level of stupidity is scary. Your next brilliant idea is going to be to nuke the planet in order to fix overpopulation(another myth)



Dude, you can't just throw an ad hominem without at least explaining why it's a bad idea.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Oct 26, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Dude, you can't just throw an ad hominem without at least explaining why it's a bad idea.


lol. do i really need to explain to you the effects of nuclear bombs? Did the word radiation cross your mind while you were hatching up your plot to nuke the sky? lol


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 26, 2018)

comput3rus3r said:


> lol. do i really need to explain to you the effects of nuclear bombs? Did the word radiation cross your mind while you were hatching up your plot to nuke the sky? lol



If it's being detonated in the stratosphere, all of the radioactive particles would just fly off into space. If you're that worried we could just do it way above Antarctica.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Ok who the hell changed warming to waming


----------



## Engezerstorung (Oct 26, 2018)

about argument against:
even if it was actually a solution without downfall to cool down the earth it wouldnt solve the issue about the production of the gases (co2 and stuff), it could even worsen it since the geniuses at the top would think that since we now have a solution to cool the earth we dont need to be carefull anymore
and global warming asside those gases are still an issue, because you change the composition of the air, wich have an effect on the biosphere
and oceans would still keep absorbing too much co2, wich is, if my non expert knowledge on the matter is right, is acidizing them, killing life, and destabilizing those deep ocean floor methane crystals stuff, wich could cause an apocalyptical cascade reaction releasing it all in the athmosphere and all the consequences... (someone talked about Venus earlier?)


----------



## Arcanuskun (Oct 26, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> To quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You didn't read the whole paper do you? That's only the short term effect.



> We also saw that two to four years after the event, rainfall would decrease globally by an average of about 10 percent.


Long term would be the precipitation rates will be lowered. Climate change concerns are not only in heating up the planet. As you can see its name "climate change." Agriculture will be affected by the cooler climate, low precipatation, and lower solar radiation. Wireless communications(microwave communications and skywave) will also be affected as it relies on solar radiation as well.

To further reiterate the point of others as well, we can approach it on a more philosophical level.  

Let's say we do your proposed solution, we cooled the climate by a degree, what then? Will people stop doing things that increase greenhouse gasses? What if people don't? Should we fire another nuclear warhead to cool the climate? What will its effects after then?
Next, what if it fails, by some unknown factor, what are the after effects? Can we still survive by with the said effects on the environment? 

If we can answer it by now and if the answers will result in more pros than cons, then good. This is a proper solution. But if not, well we should further research on this matter.

Don't get me wrong. I like the idea of limited nuclear war in theory. That's why I am asking for some scientific proof if you have researched it in the first place. But since I have researched it also before, and all I can see was that the pros doesn't outweigh the cons, I am against with your said solution. 

Lastly, you are free to change my mind. This is science of course, even laws can be broken.


----------



## Engezerstorung (Oct 26, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Ok who the hell changed warming to waming



 global whamming sound scary!

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Arcanuskun said:


> Let's say we do your proposed solution, we cooled the climate by a degree, what then? Will people stop doing things that increase greenhouse gasses? What if people don't? Should we fire another nuclear warhead to cool the climate? What will its effects after then?
> Next, what if it fails, by some unknown factor, what are the after effects? Can we still survive by with the said effects on the environment?



and yeah, thats why i was trying to come to earlier : before talking about reverting the damages we need to stop causing them in the first place or we are going to go nowhere (or thing that we solved it when we didnt, basically deluding ourselves with false safety)


----------



## dpad_5678 (Oct 26, 2018)

BlackWizzard17 said:


> Global Warming is a myth


Wouldn't it be great if it was?


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 26, 2018)

Engezerstorung said:


> about argument against:
> even if it was actually a solution without downfall to cool down the earth it wouldnt solve the issue about the production of the gases (co2 and stuff), it could even worsen it since the geniuses at the top would think that since we now have a solution to cool the earth we dont need to be carefull anymore
> and global warming asside those gases are still an issue, because you change the composition of the air, wich have an effect on the biosphere
> and oceans would still keep absorbing too much co2, wich is, if my non expert knowledge on the matter is right, is acidizing them, killing life, and destabilizing those deep ocean floor methane crystals stuff, wich could cause an apocalyptical cascade reaction releasing it all in the athmosphere and all the consequences... (someone talked about Venus earlier?)





Arcanuskun said:


> You didn't read the whole paper do you? That's only the short term effect.
> 
> 
> Long term would be the precipitation rates will be lowered. Climate change concerns are not only in heating up the planet. As you can see its name "climate change." Agriculture will be affected by the cooler climate, low precipatation, and lower solar radiation. Wireless communications(microwave communications and skywave) will also be affected as it relies on solar radiation as well.
> ...



I don't see it as a permanent solution at all. But espescially with the near catastrophic level we're reaching... 

I see this as delaying, or stalling for time. So that eventually science can progress to the point where we have some kind of hypereffective co2 sucking plant. Or something. Idk. Who knows what solution could finally pop up.

I really wish we could say that we have the time to come up with a way to stop us from making those gasses, or something, literally anything. But we don't. It's either something massive like this, or apocalypse.


----------



## dAVID_ (Oct 26, 2018)

The only real solution is to stop consuming fossil fuels.


----------



## Engezerstorung (Oct 26, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> I don't see it as a permanent solution at all. But espescially with the near catastrophic level we're reaching...
> 
> I see this as delaying, or stalling for time. So that eventually science can progress to the point where we have some kind of hypereffective co2 sucking plant. Or something. Idk. Who knows what solution could finally pop up.



temporary band-aid tend to end up as final solution at a political level "if we do that, and it seem to work, why try to do other costly things, IT WORK, we will discuss other solution if the need come at the time"


----------



## dpad_5678 (Oct 26, 2018)

dAVID_ said:


> The only real solution is to stop consuming fossil fuels.


You don't support the usage of fossil fuels to profit large corporations, and give them an incentive to destroy the planet?
Hippie liberal snowflake communist scum.

/s


----------



## comput3rus3r (Oct 26, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> Wouldn't it be great if it was?


It is.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Oct 26, 2018)

comput3rus3r said:


> It is.


The same people who deny climate change are the same people that believe the Earth is 6000 years old and that there's a dude in the sky with magical lightning powers that hates gay dudes.
That's why climate change deniers are laughed at.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 26, 2018)

Engezerstorung said:


> temporary band-aid tend to end up as final solution at a political level "if we do that, and it seem to work, why try to do other costly things, IT WORK, we will discuss other solution if the need come at the time"



True, but when the alternative is uhhh... Really bad, to put it mildly, I don't see a lot of options.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Oct 26, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> The same people who deny climate change are the same people that believe the Earth is 6000 years old and that there's a dude in the sky with magical lightning powers that hates gay dudes.
> That's why climate change deniers are laughed at.


I laugh at you for eating up the propaganda. I could care less if you want to get sodomized and end your family tree. You have free will that was given to you by.. oh wait I guess you don't have free will.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Oct 26, 2018)

comput3rus3r said:


> I laugh at you for eating up the propaganda.


_*believes the fucking bible*_


----------



## Engezerstorung (Oct 26, 2018)

well, i personnaly dont think that stopping putting 3x more food in super market than people eat, eating big meat 2 time a day all days and needing a new iphone every 6 monthes is really a bad alternative
(i dont imply that tis is a exhaustive list of problems, i just selected them to illustrate the general issue : waste, hyper consuming, economical greed, and so on...)


----------



## comput3rus3r (Oct 26, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> _*believes the fucking bible*_


so you think the bible is the only place where God is referenced?


----------



## JiveTheTurkey (Oct 26, 2018)

Easy Solution: Strip nekkid for cool, hug later for warm. 

To throw my idea in the pot, I think we have a time limit as a species to evolve and travel away from Earth before it leaves the Goldilocks zone. Most of that time has come and gone with the dinosaurs and fossil fuel is bad but I think it's the temporary way to advance. (given humanity does the right choices in time)


----------



## Bullseye (Oct 26, 2018)

CO2 is really bad, eh! It's good knowing that plants don't use it to feed and in the same process to convert it to O2. We would be in deep trouble if plants were to act like that...

I am ashamed of my breath, releasing CO2 like a disgusting animal...


----------



## tbb043 (Oct 26, 2018)

Has anyone seen manbearpig? I'm totally cereal!


----------



## SG854 (Oct 26, 2018)

tbb043 said:


> Has anyone seen manbearpig? I'm totally cereal!


I have. He was in some woods with his family. I'm Cereal, why won't anyone take me Cereal! Wahhhhhhh!


----------



## lexarvn (Oct 26, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> True, but when the alternative is uhhh... Really bad, to put it mildly, I don't see a lot of options.


Causing a nuclear winter is a really bad too though. Short term, it may help, but more than likely in the long run, it will just end up exacerbating the problem.
Photosynthesis will go down due to the blocked sunlight, slowing co2 absorption, and solar farms will have lower yield, increasing reliance on fossil fuels which will inevitably make the rate of co2 put into the atmosphere go up.
When the nuclear winter ends, we'll likely be in a far worse situation than if we did nothing.


----------



## BlastedGuy9905 (Oct 26, 2018)

YEAAAHHHH!!! LET'S NUKE THE SKY!!


----------



## bitjacker (Oct 26, 2018)

Pine trees are the answer to everything. Pitch is very combustible. If someone found a way to make pitch into fuel, Fossil fuels would not be needed anymore. The trees could make us some oxygen, We could harvest pitch from them. There would need to be alot more arborists though.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Oct 26, 2018)

comput3rus3r said:


> so you think the bible is the only place where God is referenced?


Lol no, but it's literally a book of lies and has the most concentrated use of religious figures and ideals that you'll find (I mean, it's the bible).
"Being gay is wrong."
"Hit your children, or you don't love them."
"You planet is 6000 years old."

Every single one of those statements are incorrect. You clearly have no argument, just shallow "what you said is stupid" responses.
Devoted Christians are just scared that God will descend down from the heavens wearing a kiss outfit, playing a flaming electric guitar, getting ready to fuck them in the ass if they dare questions anything the holy book states.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 26, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Ok who the hell changed warming to waming




I been trying to decide, if there was a typo in the first place or was it changed.


----------



## CORE (Oct 26, 2018)

Let it Go! Let it Go!  Oh sorry Global Warming again f**k me Global Cooling , Global Warming make up your mind the solution well Taxing aint gonna change it then again we use money for everything so.

However the whole damn Solar System is in Global Warming all Planets and our Sun has Patches in it so we need to send money to the other planets afterwards so we can tax those Martians , and dont forget those bloody russians on the moon that is where Mueller needs to investigate about Trump it is out there with floating empty bottles of vodka and a huge Helghast Army that is where they are operating from and in general 99% Population that keeps Shitting out their ass , damn all that farting. And the Lefts usual Shit Talking well.

PEOPLE JUST STOP BREATHING BECAUSE MOTHER EARTH IS HAVING A HOT FLUSH.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Oct 26, 2018)

The whole GW thing has been blown wayyyyy out of proportion -


----------



## Plstic (Oct 26, 2018)

solution, stop all those countries like china and india from polluting so much.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Oct 27, 2018)

Engezerstorung said:


> ...if we all adopt butt plug to stop adding methane in the air
> and then do big ones for cows...


Go for it man, I'll be right behind you 


TerribleTy27 said:


> I was doing a bit of research on nuclear winter.
> 
> Y'all can already see where this is going. I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding something, but would it be possible to detonate a couple of nukes in the stratosphere to slow down, if not reverse global warming?


Please, not another Elon Musk. The guy might be a genius, but I firmly believe that if we listened to him for everything we'd end up erasing our own existence. Nukes are not a good solution to anything, they cause too much harm.


----------



## CosmoCortney (Oct 29, 2018)

At first I've been skeptical myself. But after learning how carbon dioxide molecules behave when hit by heat radiation and light it became very clear to me.
But I don't think reducing our CO2 emissions would be enough. If we want to re-balance the global temperature we will have to regrow the destroyed forests for 2 reasons: First getting CO2 separated into carbon and oxygen. Second using the plants for active temperature reduction. Trees consume a lot of energy to do their photosynthesis and maintain their metabolism. They also release water out of their leaves which quickly evaporates. The change from a liquid state to vaporous consumes a lot of warmth from the immediate area. The same effect sweat cools down our body.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 29, 2018)

CosmoCortney said:


> At first I've been skeptical myself. But after learning how carbon dioxide molecules behave when hit by heat radiation and light it became very clear to me.
> But I don't think reducing our CO2 emissions would be enough. If we want to re-balance the global temperature we will have to regrow the destroyed forests for 2 reasons: First getting CO2 separated into carbon and oxygen. Second using the plants for active temperature reduction. Trees consume a lot of energy to do their photosynthesis and maintain their metabolism. They also release water out of their leaves which quickly evaporates. The change from a liquid state to vaporous consumes a lot of warmth from the immediate area. The same effect sweat cools down our body.



That's a good long term solution. The problem is I'm worried we won't have the time for trees to be regrown. From what I understand, we're in imminent danger.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 29, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> That's a good long term solution. The problem is I'm worried we won't have the time for trees to be regrown. From what I understand, we're in imminent danger.


Looking at just the U.S., trees alone take up 6 times the area of all the cities and towns in the country put together.
This is not counting other greenery plants. And less the 10% of the land has been developed. Over 90% of the land is untouched.


----------



## Shubshub (Oct 29, 2018)

>Detonate a couple of nukes in the stratosphere
>Let metric-shitloads of radiation rain down onto the earth.


----------



## CosmoCortney (Oct 29, 2018)

Shubshub said:


> >Detonate a couple of nukes in the stratosphere
> >Let metric-shitloads of radiation rain down onto the earth.


well, getting rid of humanity would also solve the problem


----------



## 8BitWonder (Oct 29, 2018)

I think whatever you're hoping to protect by countering global warming with nukes will surely die off from the extensive radiation exposure.

We and a lot of other wildlife would be better off if we found a less extreme solution.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 29, 2018)

Shubshub said:


> >Detonate a couple of nukes in the stratosphere
> >Let metric-shitloads of radiation rain down onto the earth.





8BitWonder said:


> I think whatever you're hoping to protect by countering global warming with nukes will surely die off from the extensive radiation exposure.
> 
> We and a lot of other wildlife would be better off if we found a less extreme solution.



I don't think you guys get what I'm saying. Detonate it in the _stratosphere. _Over Antarctica. All those radioactive particles would simply fly off into space. The few that remain are so high up that they're essentially harmless.


----------



## 8BitWonder (Oct 29, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> I don't think you guys get what I'm saying. Detonate it in the _stratosphere. _Over Antarctica. All those radioactive particles would simply fly off into space. The few that remain are so high up that they're essentially harmless.


I have a hard time believing that detonating a nuke at an altitude of ~30km will result in the majority of harmful particles escaping the other ~9,970km of our atmosphere.

And particles that are high in the atmosphere still come down eventually.
Violent volcanic eruptions in the past have put debris as high as the stratosphere, but it still eventually settled across the Earth.

Edit: I might also add that the ozone layer is entirely within the stratosphere, we all know how badly it went last time we damaged that.


----------



## AkikoKumagara (Oct 29, 2018)

Not safe and likely ineffective. If it were that easy, or if there were some simple solution as such, we'd have little concern over the issue.


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 29, 2018)

short answer: you're suggesting a 1,000,000,000 pounds of cure when we're wanting an ounce of prevention.

long answer:
- climate changes moves us out of the safe habitable zone enough to choke out much of the bottom of the food chain and cause terrible weather.
- this is different than an ice-age, which is what you're suggesting. Basically the opposite direction with probably worse results.
- we want CO2 scrubbers, we don't want to block out the sun. We like our sun.
- Radioactive materials will be scattered due to the jet stream. bad news.
- trying to get all nations to agree to this would be completely untenable. We can't even inform our own citizens enough of basic science, much less convince them we need to set off a nuke to fix it.

The real solution will be found through the fields of science and communication. We need to get people to understand the science, and we need to put money into alternative fuels and CO2 scrubbers. That's the easiest, safest route going forward. Still ain't easy though.


----------



## Jayro (Oct 29, 2018)

BlackWizzard17 said:


> Global Warming is a myth


Yeah, and the sun is flat.


----------



## Nerdtendo (Oct 29, 2018)

Global warming isn't even real


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 29, 2018)

This thread would be comedy gold if it wasn't on such a serious topic. 

Okay...lemme first say this: it seems to me like @TerribleTy27 has read something about geoengineering, and is getting at it...rather drastically. 


Geoengineering (or geo engineering? Geo-engineering? I don't even know how to write it correctly) is a theory that states that the greenhouse effect that is currently slowly heating up the atmosphere can be reversed. In layman terms(1): getting the carbon dioxide out of the stratosphere by injecting it with a chemical (no...not a nuclear bomb ) that causes a reaction with the dioxide, so it becomes heavier and rains down back on the planet. The theory is that if this is done over Antarctica, the local downfall would have a global effect...somehow.
Of course the theory is pretty controversial, as it basically means "stop pollution by polluting more". It would also mean that one of the last pure parts of nature - Antarctica - becomes in effect an huge waste dump...if things are *successful*, that is. The problem is that there are a lot of things that can go wrong.

The whole "a couple degrees warmer doesn't hurt" is nonsense to those who study climate. Just yesterday I read that back when the world was 5°C colder, Los Angeles was buried under 1.5 kilometers of snow. So yes, those "couple degrees" are a matter of life and death in the long run (it's about climate, so it's always about the "in the long run"). If the pollution doesn't come down, the warming may be increased. If too much of carbon dioxide is removed, then we may be cooling off the planet instead. So in the end...it's a worldwide gamble. Given how the debate goes ("we'll see if we can go with less polution once the problem manifests itself. What's that? No...I mean manifests itself undeniably"), it might be mankind's only real solution in the end. But still: it's a gamble.


(1): and probably missing and/or misquoting things. As said: I only know the very basics


----------



## DBlaze (Oct 29, 2018)

I say we create a fake sun and blow up the real one.


----------



## linuxares (Oct 29, 2018)

Sigh these climate change deniers.

Well I'm on a whole different theory than most people. Do the earth getting hotter? Yes. Does it all have to do with Humans? Nope! Have Humans helped the warming of the planet? Oh yes we have.

Why I'm not superworried about climate changes? Well this planet has been both hotter and colder than when we were on it. It's a cycle. Most scientices believe the last 10.000 years have been a oddly calm period. So by all means, we should stop with CO2 releases of coal, fossiel fuels etc. It's not good for anyone. Not even you climate change deniers should be able to agree on that.


----------



## Shubshub (Oct 29, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> I don't think you guys get what I'm saying. Detonate it in the _stratosphere. _Over Antarctica. All those radioactive particles would simply fly off into space. The few that remain are so high up that they're essentially harmless.


I dont think you understand just how powerful Gravity is my dude.


----------



## KHEOPS (Oct 29, 2018)

What does that have to do with anything? If you blow up a petard in your fridge, do you think it will warm up?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



KingVamp said:


> The best solutions, other than reducing CO2, is making technology that can take C02 directly out of the air.


You know that this technology has been around for millennia....
This is called photosynthesis, plants and trees, during the day they eat the co2 releases oxygen.
The night the opposite, but produces much more o2 than co2 rejects

Simply planted trees by the millions and stop cutting trees to make rotten furniture like ikea, cut 20 football fields per day in the Amazon forest is completely irresponsible, man is a complete moron.


----------



## Ratatattat (Oct 29, 2018)

I say we quit glorifying ourselves on how smart we think we are and start writing our epitaph.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 29, 2018)

Honestly, I'm sure some of the people here are trolling, but how can you be outright in denial? 

If fake, then we are still developing technology that can help on this planet and other planets too.  
If real, well, hopefully we can prevent the worse case scenario and even reverse it.

Better safe than sorry.



KHEOPS said:


> You know that this technology has been around for millennia....
> This is called photosynthesis, plants and trees, during the day they eat the co2 releases oxygen.
> The night the opposite, but produces much more o2 than co2 rejects
> 
> Simply planted trees by the millions and stop cutting trees to make rotten furniture like ikea, cut 20 football fields per day in the Amazon forest is completely irresponsible, man is a complete moron.


While trees would help, they can't be everywhere nor are they as efficient than technology designed to capture CO2 from the air. 



Ratatattat said:


> I say we quit glorifying ourselves on how smart we think we are and start writing our epitaph.


You first?


----------



## Ratatattat (Oct 29, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Honestly, I'm sure some of the people here are trolling, but how can you be outright in denial?
> 
> If fake, then we are still developing technology that can help on this planet and other planets too.
> If real, well, hopefully we can prevent the worse case scenario and even reverse it.
> ...



Not to worry will be right behind you looking over your shoulder, since were all in the same boat


----------



## KHEOPS (Oct 29, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Honestly, I'm sure some of the people here are trolling, but how can you be outright in denial?
> 
> If fake, then we are still developing technology that can help on this planet and other planets too.
> If real, well, hopefully we can prevent the worse case scenario and even reverse it.
> ...


How can you say that?
What technology are you talking about?
If we had this famous technology to absorb co2, how would we be there today when we talked about global warming? Do you think the man is smarter than tens of thousands of years of evolution? Plants and bacteria were there before man and will be there after man's extinction

The only reality today is what? It is the plant trees and oceans that have always absorbed CO2, man has never done anything in this sense and technology cannot do everything, ex kill bees on earth ,by what will man's intelligence replace polenisation? Is he going to do it himself? Flower by flower? Tree by tree? Stop believing that man is capable of doing everything with technology, this is a heresy, or find a solution for polennisation, should be simpler than transforming co2 into o2 ,the truth is that today it is nature that does the job, not man, or else we do not live on the same planet

And what are you going to say to me?
That man will create bee drones for polenized? How much would it cost? How would that be more effective than bees? Man is inspired by nature, the materials, textiles, the most resistant for example is the spider web, we are in 2018 with nanotechnology we try to create a fiber as strong as the spider web without ever succeeding,and here we're just talking about a kind of insect that man can't or will never match, stop hiding behind technology, it will always be behind nature, like man is unable to prevent tsunamis, ah yes it's true man has technology, it's stacking sandbags, really impressive... Technologically impressive...


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 29, 2018)

KHEOPS said:


> How can you say that?
> What technology are you talking about?
> If we had this famous technology to absorb co2, how would we be there today when we talked about global warming? Do you think the man is smarter than tens of thousands of years of evolution? Plants and bacteria were there before man and will be there after man's extinction


Link Link

Considering evolution isn't perfect and is a unguided process and we have already made things that are better than nature, yes? Not that it isn't always about being better. Like I said, trees can't be everywhere.



KHEOPS said:


> The only reality today is what? It is the plant trees and oceans that have always absorbed CO2, man has never done anything in this sense and technology cannot do everything, ex kill bees on earth ,by what will man's intelligence replace polenisation? Is he going to do it himself? Flower by flower? Tree by tree? Stop believing that man is capable of doing everything with technology, this is a heresy, or find a solution for polennisation, should be simpler than transforming co2 into o2 ,the truth is that today it is nature that does the job, not man, or else we do not live on the same planet


This is completely off-topic. lol That said, artificial bees and helping regrow the bees population, are ways to fix the problem. If you really want to know, you can look it up yourself.



KHEOPS said:


> And what are you going to say to me?
> That man will create bee drones for polenized? How much would it cost? How would that be more effective than bees? Man is inspired by nature, the materials, textiles, the most resistant for example is the spider web, we are in 2018 with nanotechnology we try to create a fiber as strong as the spider web without ever succeeding,and here we're just talking about a kind of insect that man can't or will never match, stop hiding behind technology, it will always be behind nature, like man is unable to prevent tsunamis, ah yes it's true man has technology, it's stacking sandbags, really impressive... Technologically impressive...


I see that you are set on making this a nature vs technology thing while downplaying and ignoring technology improvements. lol


----------



## KHEOPS (Oct 29, 2018)

Link 1
The container then closes, and the process reverses. The collector is heated to 100 degrees Celsius (212 degrees Fahrenheit), and the pure CO2 is released in a form that can be buried underground, made into other products, or sold.

Buried underground? This is a viable and intelligent solution I don't think

Link2
However these catalysts are often toxic. And what's more, they're expensive. So instead of using a traditional catalyst, the team from Cambridge in England and the Ruhr-Universität Bochum in Germany turned to enzymes found within algae. It's an enzyme that has remained dormant within the plant for millennia.

Man needs algae for enzymes, he doesn't create algae, nor enzymes, if there are no more algae, no more enzymes, no miracle solutions here, you read without wanting to understand that man has done better than nature? Anything, we build buildings with natural resources, concrete, wood, steel etc.... Man extracts the riches of nature, it has never been a question of making matter from zero, fossil energies are the decomposition of plants that sleep on the bottom of the water, man does not make fuel or gas, he extracts it, if you believe man can do it, then why continue to extract oil? Quite simply that it is not economically viable, creating a synthetic oil costs 10 times the price, in energy and other things, in short man uses nature, so to speak improves on some point, but it is not superior to nature, as for your photosynthesis, without the natural enzymes created by nature, how would that be possible? Your point of view is biased, you want to understand that what allows you to defend man, but you are wrong sorry, man can not and will never replace things that nature has done for millions of years and that is a fact.


----------



## netovsk (Oct 29, 2018)

Stephen Hawking already said humanity has but a few centuries to leave earth so I'm not sure how much this matters.


----------



## KHEOPS (Oct 29, 2018)

I would rather believe a scientist stephen hawking, like me than large groups like those with a monopoly on oil or other
They make us believe that everything is fine, that man is capable of great things etc.... But this is illusory, as I predict a 3rd world war, and it will be the war for water, but well it is useless to be uninvolved, man will create water??? Anything, he would rather go plunder resources on ice meteorites, because man is unable to create water, which is vital to him, so to believe that man will do better than nature is really to be ignorant.

The intelligence of man is limited to only one thing, it is to use NATURAL resources, and this since the first hunter-gatherer men, that's all, it improves, it is inspired by it.nature, copying, cloning, but never creating from scratch, your smartphone computers are produced from the ground, precious metals, silicon, but once all the resources are exhausted, that's where we will see the intelligence of man, when he has to create his food from scratch, his water, we can say that man is superior to nature, but we are dependent on nature for food,live and breathed, then stop believing that man is the superior being on this planet, man is just an imbecile who exploits natural resources, and even that he does it wrong, they polish it by extracting resources, he doesn't even know how to do it properly, so to believe that he can create everything he needs zero, it makes me laugh


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 29, 2018)

KHEOPS said:


> Link 1
> The container then closes, and the process reverses. The collector is heated to 100 degrees Celsius (212 degrees Fahrenheit), and the pure CO2 is released in a form that can be buried underground, made into other products, or sold.
> 
> Buried underground? This is a viable and intelligent solution I don't think


Not really sure what you are saying here, but CO2 in the ground is much better than it being in the air. 




KHEOPS said:


> Man needs algae for enzymes, he doesn't create algae, nor enzymes, if there are no more algae, no more enzymes, no miracle solutions here, you read without wanting to understand that man has done better than nature? Anything, we build buildings with natural resources, concrete, wood, steel etc.... Man extracts the riches of nature, it has never been a question of making matter from zero, fossil energies are the decomposition of plants that sleep on the bottom of the water, man does not make fuel or gas, he extracts it, if you believe man can do it, then why continue to extract oil? Quite simply that it is not economically viable, creating a synthetic oil costs 10 times the price, in energy and other things, in short man uses nature, so to speak improves on some point, but it is not superior to nature, as for your photosynthesis, without the natural enzymes created by nature, how would that be possible? Your point of view is biased, you want to understand that what allows you to defend man, but you are wrong sorry, man can not and will never replace things that nature has done for millions of years and that is a fact.


Well, actually, you can make matter out of light. Link People all over Earth are using greener technology and synthetic oil can already be bought. Not everyone is extracting more oil.  

Ignoring the rest of this, because it just starting to become meta. lol "How could man do anything, if the universe wasn't created?"


----------



## KHEOPS (Oct 29, 2018)

This is your point of view, we also bury our waste, and our radioactive waste, and you think it's safe? Are concrete forms eternal? Where does it crack over time? We will be confronted with this problem for millennia, your children and grandchildren will have to make with it, reconsolidated the concrete that protects our radioactive waste from the earth, but the groundwater is already affected by pollution, antibiotic waste, human intelligence? Is that putting chlorine in the water?

Carbon filter? In short, nature works for free, no borders, no politics, man has the financial aspect that makes it difficult for him to achieve easily what he wants, if we abolish money and borders, yes, I would be optimistic in research, but that is not the case, everything that man produces, pollutes,costs money, and energy, without this economic reality you can be optimistic, but this is not the case, e. g. cancer without the problem of finding money, we would progress much faster in research and solution, but this is not the case this economic reality makes man lose his time and energy,where it could progress much faster in the right direction, everything that man makes to try to do without natural resources is much more expensive, and is not economically viable, the electrical energy produced 100% by man is more expensive than extracting natural products,your synthetic essence costs 5 dollars a liter, without counting the energy price to do it, in short happy to have been able to exchange with you, it made me happy, it is always good to exchange our points of view, you with your optimism, and I the realism, go soon the friend


Spoiler: Synthetic gasoline



According to current technical knowledge, the production of synfuel is as CO2-emitting as refining, or even much more so when it is produced from coal. And the state of technology makes it a highly energy-intensive, and therefore expensive, mode of energy production.

However, the environmental performance of synthetic hydrocarbon production units can be significantly improved, and gain an advantage over conventional production from crude oil, through the implementation of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS). The cost of CCS is high in the more general case of coal-fired power plants, mainly because of the complexity of separating carbon dioxide from nitrogen in the air. In a synthetic fuel production unit, this cost is reduced by about 85%, because carbon dioxide is separated from nitrogen by the process itself.

The development of the BTL ("Biomass-To-Liquids") sector, a variant of biomass gasification, offers an alternative. The 2nd generation biofuels produced in this way use all plants, straws, stalks, waste, wood and not just seeds or fruits like current biofuels. But the BTL sector is still in its infancy. While many research projects are underway, no industrial unit is yet active. However, BTL pilot units are also expected to go into production in Germany in the near future. The BTL sector faces a major problem because the quantities of biomass required are enormous: it is therefore necessary to find a sufficient "deposit" and also to solve the logistical difficulties to transport all this biomass to the BTL plant.

The "CBTL", a combination of Coal-To-Liquids and BTL, offers particularly interesting environmental prospects. For example, the overall "well to car wheel" emission of diesel fuel in a unit fuelled by 85% coal and 15% biomass and equipped with a CCS would be 30% lower than that of diesel fuel conventionally produced from crude oil. Source: Department Of Energy (USA).


https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence_synthétique


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 29, 2018)

KHEOPS said:


> in short happy to have been able to exchange with you, it made me happy, it is always good to exchange our points of view, go soon the friend


Same here.


----------



## KHEOPS (Oct 29, 2018)




----------



## notimp (Dec 19, 2018)

Lets go to town on this topic for a while.

"Fighting against climate change" has been picked up by actually quite a large political constituency as a possible topic to rally people around - basically as a surrogate for there not being any political ideologies to follow anymore.

I might be severely wrong on this - but here is how I see it:

First it plays into the slowing down economic growth narrative, benefiting globalists, or "everyone on the earth equally" (people in archipelagos close to water more so, I guess) - depending on how you want to see it. 

Second, there might be a need for that - because the "if the developing economies also all want their two cars, and exotic holidays, and cow fueled burgers - we'll be fighting over resources more so than ever" argument has something to it. So has the "it will be harder to grow food" argument.

Third there might be a REAL need for that in europe, because we still have no model how to develop the continent to our south, which combined with global warming might cause some big concerns in the future.

Yet, the entire narrative was discarded in the 60s once already, witch is always a feel good memory. Looking your parents in the face, while knowing that they also heard "if you dont do it, it will be too late" - and then went with Margret Thatcher instead.

The global financial system still all but laughs about green initiatives. Many attempts to create green funds, aside. The money pledged to be invested into "green" as a future economy is not insignificant, but...

Enter the new political initiatives. Cute girl caring about nature and the world talking on a stage about their initiative, and how much its growing. Come and join in everyone... Where have I seen that before.  Cynical me.

What I actually want to know is the following.

Every climate conference I've looked at in the recent past, was decided by backroom staffers doing the best they could for slow pace progress.

And NGOs doing rain dances in front of conference halls.

No country despite the developed world is particularly enthused about the stuff (that and we really ought to give them some space to "catch up").

The entire manufacturing of that "new economy" will be done in China, if transport is viable (if not - the green economy will not be the least bit cost effective).

Now - here it comes:

What do you need those "popular social movements" with the cute girls caring for the environment for? To make sure that the private sector pivots earlier? To shave that 0.01°C of global warming off of the scale? For people to have a positive vision entering their near 0% growth future? To shame everyone into using hemp bags and glass bottles while the fastest growing car market segment is SUVs? For everyone to become a vegan, while still taking instagram snaps from their bahamas vacation, Caring about the world?

I really dont quite get it..  The popular movement stuff.

How is that not "taking stuff away from me - that my parents had", while making me feel, that I've volunteered to do so? Is that really supposed to work?


----------



## matthi321 (Dec 19, 2018)

hold in our farts


----------



## notimp (Dec 19, 2018)

As an update on what happened at the last climate conference -

People agreed on implementing a system where everyone reports their CO2 reduction numbers by equal standards.

Thereby fixing a TINSY issue they've had in the past, where corporations were acting against market principals by implementing carbon reduction measures, because they could just as well have bought CO2 certificates from a neighboring country - that "didn't just quite get the reporting right already".

Therby implementing "all that is needed to actually fix climate change". As in the economic measures ("tools") are now there. Once implemented you can "price" CO2 emmissions, and start the action. That is, once the US is back on board again - here is hoping.. 

They still didn't decide on policy - like, at all - but its coming. Nothing new on the pledges ("first movers") front either. Much.

Brazil (ha. haha. hahaha. (political humor...  ) )) decided to play progress blocker this time around, to get more economic concessions.

They dealt with that, then everyone signed the preprepared treaties (Thats normal for international conferences. You want that.).

Exciting stuff.

I'm about to parttake in a social movement to tell people to buy milk in bottles again, I tell you.

edit: One more thing, about a fourth (could be less) of what its needed to reach the intended goal is R&D stuff as is "doesnt exist yet" if I remember part of the general layout correctly. This is noted down as the most cost intensive part of the climate agreements. Thats also where new economies are supposed to fall out. Forecasting ftw..


----------



## Taleweaver (Dec 19, 2018)

notimp said:


> Lets go to town on this topic for a while.
> 
> "Fighting against climate change" has been picked up by actually quite a large political constituency as a possible topic to rally people around - basically as a surrogate for there not being any political ideologies to follow anymore.
> 
> ...


Interesting reply. I have to admit I disagree with pretty much anything you say, but that's okay. You bring your points well and have decent arguments for them. It's just that I personally don't believe it. 

Let's see...it's certainly true that this isn't a new struggle. Yes, our parents heard that before, and no, that hasn't helped...much (I guess that depends on things. The situation might've been a lot worse if the previous generation hadn't fought against greenhouse gasses, tried to preserve wildlife and things like that ). It shouldn't be a reason to just lay back, which...is what I sort of get from your post.

_"Fighting against climate change" has been picked up by actually quite a large political constituency as a possible topic to rally people around - basically as a surrogate for there not being any political ideologies to follow anymore._

Erm...preserving the environment IS a political ideology. Always has, and always will be. It's just that until recent years, it wasn't taken serious enough, so they lacked political power to push the agenda.

This 'cute girl'...are you talking about Greta Thunberg? The one being on school strike because the climate crisis isn't being taken serious enough? I've seen her speech to the UN climate summit. If you are talking about her...sorry, but I find her tone all but cute. Give her enough followers (and I mean A LOT of followers) and she'll change the world. "Come and join in"? Erm...no. More like "get into action, or else...".


Can be that the narrative was discarded earlier, but things are certainly different now. The climate changes aren't a potential future theory anymore but are already happening (not sure about your part of the world, but in Belgium we're breaking record temperatures pretty much every year). Not sure how many scientists had investigated pollution then, but right now everyone but industry lobbyists is convinced about the seriousness of the potential issue. Nonetheless: we're at best slowing down our increasing pace toward disaster, let alone that we're turning things around.

You also make a lot of generalisations. I can't really blame much on you, as the industry knows that in order to keep making money, they have to disrupt the narrative. Saving the environment WON'T be a popular decision. Far from it. Taxes on cars and (especially) ships and aircrafts need to go up A LOT. Result: buying stuff on the internet on a whim will become a thing of the past. The research and development for alternatives need to go up, but in the mean time people (yes: also you and me) need to be discouraged to do many things we take for granted. Eating meat every day? Taking the car to work "just because"? It can not, and will not be a popular thing. And that's the thing: I'm sure we're all willing to do our part to make sure our children (and any next generation) have a world that's still inhabitable. It won't work if we allow ourselves to be distracted by others, which is, in general, our weak spot ("oooh, THAT person is eating meat? Then screw ideology: I'll have some too!!!").

Finally: there is some good news as well. There are no indications that the economy would somehow diminish, let alone collapse, when going green. Rather the contrary: there is a lot of real work to be done (recycling, R&D, less polluting alternatives, ...). All that is really needed is to make sure that becomes economically feasable, and that can be approached in a relatively simple way: make sure the TRUE cost of everything is measured and applied (meaning: the environmental costs have to be in the picture).

Of course: it may be technologically simple, but it's political suicide, and the current industry leaders will use all their power to stop it as well. So...that "relatively simple" may mean nothing less than a revolution.


----------



## notimp (Dec 19, 2018)

Not finished reading your reply yet, no - not Greta.  Greta is an eloquent little kid. I was refering to a cute girl from some french initiative prior to the climate summit that fit the elitist activist mold.. 

I'll do my best to find out her name (uh, creepy..  ) which I didnt remember, but I might not manage. (edit if I do)

You stepped into the same dichotomy I somewhat struggle with, and that is - that yes it was an important movement in the 60s (green parties got constituted), but no one basically gave them much credance. And now that that generation is out of the door, which heard exactly the same - that we hear today (limits to growth stuff) I see the beginnings of "astorturfed" grass roots movements again.

If this is serious political stuff, deal with it on a political level - you have got the influence spheres there.

If you need the help of a "naturally growing" support innitiative to influence political action - even more so, something is wrong cathegorically.

"To save the world we need everyone to participate - using activism" to me sounds more like a participation measure, event politics, feelgood something or rather.

No one looking at the climate change issue can come up with "I know what this needs, more activism!" as a best practice measure. If you need it for amplification - maybe.

Lets look at germany. The green party there got a huge bump in the last election, because socialists lost all political capital they had - people dont care about sustainable economies more - its just, that this is the only "feel good" some what left leaning (is it really? is this now a political narrative?) proposal thats left.

We've had those dissections (grandparents might be into it, for their grandchildren, they are willing to invest their lives savings for them) in the sixties already... :/ There was the same feeling of urgency (Their models werent as accurate yet..  ). Just without a financial crisis beforehand.

And now we are into self imposed restrictions (this is not law yet, this is social movement stuff), on top of that - while every economic indicator points into the different (usual) direction?

The "this is a movement that has grown naturally since the sixties" argument isnt quite correct either. They were already out of the door as well - when they suddenly got hip again. The social movements, not climate change.

Climate change is a real issue, and there, and having to be dealt with - its just the social movement part, that I dont particularly "get". I'm a bit weary of activist movements that list their goals as something no one can even model sufficiently (We want 1.5 degrees tops, no 2, no 3, ...). How would you define "success" for those movements for example.

Currently it looks like, that to them "success" is changing peoples behavior on insignificant stuff - so that they feel, that they have done something. More or less...

And to me thats theater and not so much of the political kind. 

Shorthand is, that I have a hard time getting over the "now we all voluntary - but with the necessary social pressure - start to apply ideological abstinence" gap. And I'm not even somone that might have a hard time even complying to your most "restrictive measures" (so that shame narrative doesnt quite hit me  ), I just for the love of me cant have this narrative sold to me.

You need a religious revival, if you want to have those measures implemented at scale. And by that I mean "George Clooney selling his Lake Como residency and becoming a hermit refusing to set foot on a plane anymore" style narrative framings. Because the new god is now saving the planet. And not personal self fulfillment anymore.

Amazon, btw? Currently a big part of this generations self fulfillment.


----------



## notimp (Dec 20, 2018)

Guys, guys! We are saved! We have carbon bond trading blockchain saving the day!

And nurses and hairdresser telling you about the detriments of global warming!

Oh, I so hope we can do another raindance again, in front of a conference hall - like soon.

src: h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aqNpYar3J0

This is what I mean by "what the heck are those social initiatives (Co-Ops) for".

Example image (girl not as cute this time  ):






This lady for example is working on getting "health" into the national climate frameworks. You know - rider style (adding a bill onto a bill - because thats always a great way to make policy). And the next initiative will add blockchain to it, and then we are all saved. What is this.


----------

