Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Climate Scientist Pioneer Talks About the Furture of Geoengineering

samzenpus posted about 2 months ago | from the it's-getting-hot-in-here dept.

Earth 140

First time accepted submitter merbs writes At the first major climate engineering conference, Stanford climatologist Ken Caldeira explains how and why we might come to live on a geoengineered planet, how the field is rapidly growing (and why that's dangerous), and what the odds are that humans will try to hijack the Earth's thermostat. From the article: "For years, Dr. Ken Caldeira's interest in planet hacking made him a curious outlier in his field. A highly respected atmospheric scientist, he also describes himself as a 'reluctant advocate' of researching solar geoengineering—that is, large-scale efforts to artificially manage the amount of sunlight entering the atmosphere, in order to cool off the globe."

cancel ×

140 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Just be careful (3, Insightful)

penguinoid (724646) | about 2 months ago | (#47758605)

So long as they don't accidentally break some important system that they forgot to account for, I'm all for it.

Mod parent to infinity (3, Insightful)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 2 months ago | (#47758689)

Yeah, that was my first thought. Before you go fucking with something as important as the climate, you had better be DAMN SURE you know EXACTLY what you're doing. Some systems are just not to be fucked with lightly.

Re:Mod parent to infinity (3, Interesting)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 months ago | (#47758799)

Well bad news, we've been fucking with it heavily for a couple hundred years with no plan whatsoever, and we're still mostly acting like it's no big deal.

Re:Mod parent to infinity (2)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 2 months ago | (#47758917)

Well bad news, we've been fucking with it heavily for a couple hundred years with no plan whatsoever, and we're still mostly acting like it's no big deal.

Yeah, and we're trying to stop that, because we realized it was a mistake.

Re:Mod parent to infinity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47759099)

Yeah, except that parent is right - we're still mostly acting like it's no big deal.
Some increased awareness doesn't mean that we (as a species) are actually trying to stop it.

Re:Mod parent to infinity (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47759257)

I see you're still using electricity.

Re:Mod parent to infinity (1)

Megol (3135005) | about 2 months ago | (#47759447)

Yes. From hydro power. Yes that also destroys the environment but in a considerably lesser way than the alternatives.

Re:Mod parent to infinity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47759651)

Actually, I typed this with a butterfly [xkcd.com] .

Re:Mod parent to infinity (-1, Troll)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 months ago | (#47759807)

Do you have a point? Or are you just too stupid to understand we can only change this system from within the system?

Re:Mod parent to infinity (3, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | about 2 months ago | (#47760597)

Individual effort is precisely the wrong way to approach the problem. No individual has a measurable impact on the overall environment. The only thing that would work is manipulating the natural economic incentives that are pushing us towards disaster.

Re:Mod parent to infinity (5, Insightful)

Mr_Wisenheimer (3534031) | about 2 months ago | (#47759205)

Who is "we", because it most certainly does not include Fox News, the Wall Street Journal editorial board, the petrochemical corporations, or any of their shills and acolytes, and that is a pretty large segment of the population.

Re:Mod parent to infinity (-1, Troll)

mi (197448) | about 2 months ago | (#47759541)

Who is "we", because it most certainly does not include Fox News, the Wall Street Journal editorial board, the petrochemical corporations

Nor anybody else, who do things, rather than try to force others to do them the way an actress or a politician said they should be done.

Re:Mod parent to infinity (2, Insightful)

penguinoid (724646) | about 2 months ago | (#47759469)

Well bad news, we've been fucking with it heavily for a couple hundred years with no plan whatsoever, and we're still mostly acting like it's no big deal.

No, we've done very little to purposely change the environment (and nothing at the global scale). Our various industries all give us guaranteed benefits (though not necessarily net benefit), and the effects on the environment are a side-effect, and comparatively small. If we decide to intentionally target the global environment, the effects could be much bigger.

I'm not saying climate engineering is a bad idea, but keep in mind that people are arrogant and overconfident. Test everything, even if it means going slowly. We don't have a backup planet in case there's a mistake, and we really can afford to wait decades before implementing these measures.

Re:Mod parent to infinity (4, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | about 2 months ago | (#47760501)

the effects on the environment are a side-effect, and comparatively small. If we decide to intentionally target the global environment, the effects could be much bigger.

We can only hope, but I find that extremely unlikely. How many dollars have been spent on dredging up carbon and dispersing it into the atmosphere in the last 200 years? The US spends a trillion dollars per year on gasoline alone, and the US is about 1/4 of world oil consumption (less by now). Global coal consumption is over 7 billion tons per year. That is a ton of coal for every man, woman, and child on earth, per year, every year, for decades on end.

What this means is even if we find some means of restoration that is 100 times as potent at cooling the planet as CO2 is in warming it, the task is incomprehensibly huge.

Re:Mod parent to infinity (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 2 months ago | (#47760951)

The US spends a trillion dollars per year on gasoline alone

Umm, no.

In 2013, the USA used 134.5 billion gallons of gasoline. Which works out to about $450-500 billion.

Re:Mod parent to infinity (3, Interesting)

penguinoid (724646) | about 2 months ago | (#47761013)

What this means is even if we find some means of restoration that is 100 times as potent at cooling the planet as CO2 is in warming it, the task is incomprehensibly huge.

No. No it isn't. There's a few individuals who could personally afford to send us back into an ice age. Just to give a couple examples,

According to estimates by the Council on Foreign Relations, "one kilogram of well placed sulfur in the stratosphere would roughly offset the warming effect of several hundred thousand kilograms of carbon dioxide."

Recent research has expanded this constant to "106 C: 16 N: 1 P: .001 Fe" signifying that in iron deficient conditions each atom of iron can fix 106,000 atoms of carbon,[34] or on a mass basis, each kilogram of iron can fix 83,000 kg of carbon dioxide.

But they have side effects. And perhaps they have side effects that won't become apparent until we try them on a large scale.

Re:Mod parent to infinity (-1)

mi (197448) | about 2 months ago | (#47759611)

and we're still mostly acting like it's no big deal.

It certainly is a big deal to those, whose salaries and authority depends on it being a big deal. To the rest of us — not so much...

Re:Mod parent to infinity (0, Flamebait)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 months ago | (#47759837)

It is a big deal. It a huge fucking deal. But morons like you can't understand that, don't understand even the most basic science, and keep talking as if your ignorant opinion should have the same weight as an informed opinion.

The only people who it isn't a big deal are people who have become bitches of science denial.
You are no different then the people in Africa denying that Ebola is real.
Stupid, ignorant, FUD spread prick.

Re:Mod parent to infinity (3, Insightful)

mi (197448) | about 2 months ago | (#47759945)

But morons like you [...] bitches of science denial [...] Stupid, ignorant, FUD spread prick.

I suppose, this was another example of the sophisticated argument exquisitely worded in order to convince an opponent, rather than shout him down...

Can I subscribe to your newsletter? Thank you!

Re:Just be careful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47758893)

It's as if you *KNOW* they will screw it up. I'm confident they will. My greatest concern is that because the engineering is happening now over some major metropolis areas (such as San Francisco) for the last several years -- the people there deserve to feel the effects of human activity. The *best* solution is for us to not put a bandaid on the situation so that the effects of our cultures are fully felt and thus causal to reconsideration of priority. This won't happen, though, because humans are notoriously poor long planners and attracted to immediate satisfaction.

My greatest issue with all of it right now is that the weather engineering is happening without public disclosure or consent.

Re:Just be careful (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 months ago | (#47759325)

Nuke'em from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.

Re:Just be careful (2)

Anon-Admin (443764) | about 2 months ago | (#47759391)

Hold on a second. This installation has a substantial dollar value attached to it.

Re:Just be careful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47760579)

They are just softening you up for accepting the idea that they have already been doing for some 40-50 years.

They have been geoengineering for many years.

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/

Re:Just be careful (1)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about 2 months ago | (#47760767)

The criterion should be: if your geoengineering process can't run away, no problem. A legal procedure would be adding nutrient to areas of the ocean to produce carbon-eating algal blooms; the process runs only until the nutrient is consumed. An illegal procedure might be engineering a plankton organism that eats carbon, feeding on existing oceanic nutrients; such an organism could run away and consume all atmospheric carbon, freezing the world and killing most land plants.

Cooling is worse then warming. (5, Insightful)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 2 months ago | (#47758625)

We know there is an ice age tipping point just a few degrees colder then present. Geo-engineering could fuck us all if they trust a climate model that overestimates.

Alternatively we could all be driving 10 liter W-16s, just to save the planet.

Re:Cooling is worse then warming. (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 months ago | (#47758837)

Alternatively we could all be driving 10 liter W-16s, just to save the planet.

At some point in the future, we probably will, but for now we've created for ourselves plenty of margin for error between the current conditions and triggering an ice age.

Re:Cooling is worse then warming. (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | about 2 months ago | (#47760191)

The planet will be fine either way. Save the humans.

Furture? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47758631)

Furture? Really there's furture?

Re: Furture? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47758673)

I come from the furture! I can prove it. Just listen to my furtive and furious farts!

Re: Furture? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47758745)

Furbies are just the furkinning! Furries will furnish your doom!

Re:Furture? (5, Funny)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 2 months ago | (#47758705)

Yeah, it's right after the parst and prersent.

Re:Furture? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47759393)

Ther furture? ERMAGERD!

Re:Furture? (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 2 months ago | (#47759441)

Not to be confused with the furniture, which has far more shrubberies in it.

Re:Furture? (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 2 months ago | (#47760227)

Not to worry, the knight that says ni, will fix it.

Re:Furture? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 months ago | (#47758825)

Furry future? O_O

Re:Furture? (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 months ago | (#47759113)

I come from the future. Just look at my posting date/time. See? Future!

Re:Furture? (2)

q4Fry (1322209) | about 2 months ago | (#47760755)

I'm going to fature the furture on my bolg. We can half a debate in the convents.

Re:Furture? (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 2 months ago | (#47760769)

I see fur in the future.

Climate change (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47758659)

Somebody's spell checkur must have overheated.

Furture? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47758671)

Spell check anyone?

FYou FaIl It (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47758713)

Reasons why anyone as those non gay, are the important No maater how Juliet Are together BSD style.' In the Escape them by

Agricultural Revolution 2.0 (5, Interesting)

deathcloset (626704) | about 2 months ago | (#47758805)

Humans must control the environment, it's just what we do. To quote the late, great Jacob Bronowski, man is, “...not a figure in a landscape, but the shaper of the landscape.” We've already affected the planet - just look at the deforestation in the Amazon (the jungle) from satellite images - it's impossible to ignore, even from space. If your face looked like the Amazon looks right now you would go see a doctor. How could this not be inevitable? First we sow the fields, next we sow the planets.

Re:Agricultural Revolution 2.0 (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 months ago | (#47759473)

Great. The so-called "Green Revolution" has resulted in the destruction of topsoil everywhere it has been used, and increasing fossil energy dependence. What's next?

Re:Agricultural Revolution 2.0 (2)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 2 months ago | (#47759555)

Of course it also prevent a lot of starvation.

Re:Agricultural Revolution 2.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47760391)

Except that if it ever fails it will cause massive starvation that will cause orders of magnitude more death and disease then any other event in history.
We have built our civilization on a stack of cards.

Resource Conflicts? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47758827)

If people thought conflicts over rivers, lakes, land were bad wait until one country is setting the thermostat.

We can learn from volcanoes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47758841)

What was happening with that solution involving dispersing sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, just like volcanoes, since volcanoes do that, and it cools the Earth for a good while.

Or extending the smoke stacks of coal burning plants up to 18 miles high so that sulfur dioxide goes into the stratosphere instead?

Re:We can learn from volcanoes. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47759853)

Thank goodness that never went in anywhere and that was back in the 70's when they were for SURE that the earth was cooling. But never fear, they are 110 percent certain that this global wa...err I mean climate change thing is for real this time and screwing with the environment is the only thing to do...

waxing pedantic (1, Offtopic)

thomasvs (600635) | about 2 months ago | (#47758859)

Did he talk about it furtively because he knew he didn't spellcheck first?

What could possibly go wrong? (1, Insightful)

castle (6163) | about 2 months ago | (#47758885)

And they already do this stuff at varying scales. Want to increase/decrease rainfall? Been doing it since the 60's and probably earlier.

I say climate scientists are a pretentious lot. And while I hate to be considered an unreasonable person with regard to respecting scientific opinion, climate science is a major source of ridiculously dangerous and harmful ways to do the wrong thing and throw a complex poorly understood system awry. Thanks for the Ice Age/Marsification/Greenhouse World you self-righteous boffins! ;) but complex organic systems are probably pretty resilient, so perhaps it'll just be a temporary roaring correction til Mama decides to purge the fleas on her back who pretended at trying to fix a system that is self-regulating by doing grossly ridiculous things in the interests of saving us from the over-hyped threat of the generation. ..!..

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47759439)

I believe your lies.

Re:What could possibly go wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47761291)

THE FURTURE AWAITS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47758901)

What amazing technology will we come up with in the furture? In the furture, will everyone drive a flying solar-powered car? Will furturistic robots walk the earth in search of energy? I for one cannot wait for furturistic technology to arrive.

Geoengineering? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47758919)

I bet that's just Liberal sciency slang for Cooking the Books
yuk yuk yuk!

Ah good, the most important point addressed (5, Interesting)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 months ago | (#47758927)

It does nothing to address global warming's ugly twin brother, ocean acidification. And by presenting the world's public with an apparent techno-fix, it could deflate the movement to reduce carbon emissions.

"For me, my main concern is that we would start doing solar geoengineering while we're still building things with smokestacks and tailpipes," he tells me. "And in that framing, I think the solar geoengineering is just facilitating continued greenhouse gas emissions."

Very well, as long as you know. No point having a nicer climate for a little while as we set the stage for an oceanic mass extinction.

It's not built into our moral wetware.. (0)

somepunk (720296) | about 2 months ago | (#47758937)

But not taking action has consequences, too. Rather scary ones, in this case, I think one could argue. Maybe the responsible thing to do is to is to take a more deliberative role in how our species is altering the environment, rather than just allowing ourselves to continue to alter it according to maladapted systems and nonconscious collective behavior.

Thing is, we know what we have to do (3, Interesting)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 2 months ago | (#47758951)

What we have to do is fairly simple.

1. Stop using fossil fuel. Fairly easy to do this, just end all tax exemptions and artificial subsidies for coal oil and gas. All of them. Then start phasing in retrofits of existing coal plants to use cogeneration (waste heat) and cut coal use in half. Use oil for lubricants. Cut jet fuel use in half using 787s (half fuel use) and turboprops (even less fuel use). Use high speed trains and then battery EV trucks fed by local wind/solar storage for short runs. We know we can do this, we just subsidize the old 18th century methods.

2. Cut energy use in heating/cooling buildings. Efficiency. There's most of your energy use. Passive solar design, put solar cells on roofs, use shades and ceiling fans. We know how to do this and have for half a century. Just expire tax subsidies and exemptions for buildings that don't do this, phasing them out 10 percent a year.

3. There is no 3. It's that fracking simple.

Re:Thing is, we know what we have to do (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47759083)

Step 1: Read the NIPCC reports and realize it's the sun, not CO2, stupid.

Step 2: Don't build major cities in deserts and on fault lines and then complain about drouts.

Step 3: It's that simple.

Re:Thing is, we know what we have to do (1, Funny)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 2 months ago | (#47759239)

4. Spel real good

Re:Thing is, we know what we have to do (2, Interesting)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 months ago | (#47759379)

'Simple'

You keep using that word. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Re:Thing is, we know what we have to do (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 2 months ago | (#47759517)

It was simple. And, if done, it would literally cut 80 percent of GHG carbon pollution worldwide.

Your problem is you don't want to do it, because you live in Fear, or in Subsidy.

Nothing wrong with that, other than the Tragedy of the Commons.

Re:Thing is, we know what we have to do (1)

JWW (79176) | about 2 months ago | (#47761229)

Your "simple" plan cuts transportation by a huge margin, say hello to large price increases for anything transported further than a trivial distance. The food you eat is not just transported, but planted, and harvested using the energy whose price you massively increased. Increase food prices even more. Your plan for coal breaks the power grid. Brownouts, blackouts and mandatory rationing will be necessary. Oh and the impact on food refrigeration will help increase food costs even more again.

Your "simple" solution would cause massive chaos, social unrest, riots and death. I suppose if thats your simple goal, then you're fine.

Re:Thing is, we know what we have to do (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47760009)

1. Stop using fossil fuel

SO SIMPLE except everything that makes the modern world FUNCTION is based on the idea that you can transport a high volume of things long distances. Not even talking about ships or planes, how do you even have lettuce year round in the grocery store. The produce fairy didn't sprinkle magic dust and make it happen. It was hauled there by trucks and trains across amazing distances.

The reason fossil fuels are subsidised so heavily is because if they weren't the price of food would skyrocket and people would freak the fuck out on a scale I don't even dare to imagine. Remember the energy crisis chaos in the 70s? That was manufactured and SHORT compared to "simply" making the keystone of transportation obsolete.

The transition to alternative fuels is happening (when even the military is looking into it you can see the writing on the wall) but it HAS to be a gradual process because anything else would be utter chaos

Re:Thing is, we know what we have to do (0)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 2 months ago | (#47760773)

Wrong. Look, some of us work at universities where we MAKE things that don't need fossil fuels, and produce them worldwide.

Adapt or die.

Re:Thing is, we know what we have to do (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47761301)

LOL
You, your professors, your support staff, the municipal services you depend on every day, the grocery store full of food (chemically fertilized and transported worldwide) you use every day is 100% there only because of fossil fuels.

Your little experiment only works because of the fossil fuel infrastructure all around you.

Fuck you, you arrogant little piss stain.

Re:Thing is, we know what we have to do (-1, Flamebait)

rickb928 (945187) | about 2 months ago | (#47760181)

1. Increase global energy costs by a factor of 5-10, crippling economies of most nations. Force airlines to scrap ground existing fleets and purchase replacements, causing fare increases of 200-500%, and then refit the existing fleet with more efficient, expensive, and lower performance engines, both increasing flight times and continuing fare increases. Rapidly build high speed train routes at astronomical costs, increasing rail fares commensurately. And then compel freight carriers to purchase battery EV trucks at great expense and with and marginal performance, reducing service and capacity, in creasing costs of most goods. These to be fed by local wind/solar storage at even higher energy costs since subsidies cannot be provided within a collapsing economy. We know we can do this, we just have to accept the diminished standard of living and loss of mobility, and the enriching of the suppliers of this technology.

2. Reduce heating/cooling in buildings. Efficiency. There's most of your energy use. Renovate, at great expense, existing structures to incorporate passive solar design, put solar cells on roofs so long as these are available, and promote the use shades and ceiling fans that we have and are already doing as we have for half a century, despite the redundancy of promoting this. Just expire tax subsidies and exemptions for buildings that don't do this, phasing them out 10 percent a year and causing the wholesale razing and replacement as these 'substandard' structures are legislated out of existence.

3. There is no 3. steps 1 and 2 are certain to accomplish one of the goals of climate change alarmists - destruction or minimization of the industrialized world, and the commensurate punishment of those who enjoyed the standard of living made possible by profligate, in the opinion of these activists, consumption.

Re:Thing is, we know what we have to do (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 2 months ago | (#47760779)

Solar is already cheaper than oil. And passive solar and cogeneration are cheaper than coal and gas without direct subsidies.

Adapt. The time for excuses is over.

Chemtrail patents (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47759005)

There is a National Geographic documentary that aired on public broadcasting that shows all kinds of possible ways to do geoengineering to "save the planet" and they finish off with chemtrails. They talk about how great it is, and how it is the only real solution to save the planet. The documentary is called "Earth Overhaul" and you can find it on YouTube.

There are two documentaries that you can buy on DVD or watch on YouTube that shows many US patents on geoengineering technology related to chemtrails, a geoengineering conference where they openly talk about it (but don't admit that they are doing it yet), and a geologist who's been monitoring water and soils finding the very things described in the patents (much higher than normal levels of aluminum and barium). The documentaries are called "What In The World Are They Spraying" and "Why In The World Are They Spraying". The second one is very interesting. It talks about the Chicago Mercantile where traders can make a lot of money betting on the weather (failed crops etc.), and it shows how geoengineering could be used to engineer drouts.

Re:Chemtrail patents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47759025)

I forgot to mention that the documentaries on DVD also talk about Monsanto patents on crops that can survive higher than normal levels of aluminum in the soil.

Re:Chemtrail patents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47760839)

What is a "drout"? Sounds bad...

Geoengineering wars to come (4, Interesting)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 2 months ago | (#47759029)

Warmer nations, particularly smaller island nations furiously trying to create global cooling, while an alliance of Canada, Russia, Scandinavia and the newly created United Federation of Antarctica desperately trying to keep it nice and toasty.

Re:Geoengineering wars to come (1)

trout007 (975317) | about 2 months ago | (#47759879)

And I thought my wife and I fighting over the thermostat was bad.

conspire to live in a safe clean world (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47759115)

talk is cheap enough https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wmd+weather+media+censorship & the truth can be discomforting.. the distraction causes further inaction...

Man, what a bad idea... (4, Insightful)

matbury (3458347) | about 2 months ago | (#47759163)

Geo-engineering to counter the effects of CO2 is like someone taking sleeping pills to counter the effects of habitually doing amphetamines at an alarmingly increasing rate. If that doesn't convince you, how about listening to a well-informed 3rd party who isn't chasing research funding for their pet geo-engineering project: Can Geo-Engineering Save the Planet? - Christopher Williams on Reality Asserts Itself http://therealnews.com/t2/comp... [therealnews.com]

Didn't these people watch Futurama? (3, Funny)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 2 months ago | (#47759167)

All they need to do is follow the example set forth in those tomes of knowledge. First you start by putting larger and larger ice cubes into the world's oceans.

When that no longer works (or you run out of ice), you construct a very large mirror in orbit about the Earth which will reflect large amounts of sunlight. Just make sure a piece of space debris doesn't run into it and point it down towards the planet. Ants under a magnifying glass anyone?

Finally, if all else fails, have every robot on the planet point their exhaust vents skyward and at a predetermined signal, furiously vent their gasses to move the planet slightly further away from the Sun.

Simple really.

Re:Didn't these people watch Futurama? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 months ago | (#47759323)

Of course you NEGLECT to mention that - for all of this to work - Richard Nixon's head has to be elected President of Earth! A rather convenient oversight...

I, for one, am not ready to pay that price.

Re:Didn't these people watch Futurama? (1)

Livius (318358) | about 2 months ago | (#47760547)

Not difficult, providing you don't care whether it's a fair election or not.

NIMBY (2)

jimmifett (2434568) | about 2 months ago | (#47759191)

Practice makes perfect, so try it out on Venus first.
At the same time, try out warming techniques on mars, so that when inevitably used on and screws up earth, you can attempt to reverse and make it even worse.

Re:NIMBY (1, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 months ago | (#47759353)

Practice makes perfect, so try it out on Venus first.

They already did.

If you've ever read Robert Heinlein, you'd know that - back when he was writing stories in the 50s and 60s - Venus was a temperate (albeit still very cloudy) planet.

Diplomatic engineering (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | about 2 months ago | (#47759195)

Since China has already agreed to GATT, invoking Article XX carbon tariffs on their imports ought to be a solution that avoids more costly and risky approaches.

Already done (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47759207)

Already done [quora.com] : we have around 43% of earth's land surface covered by humans .

Re: Already done (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47759369)

I thought for a second there you said hummus.

Um...100%? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47759287)

what the odds are that humans will try to hijack the Earth's thermostat

Industry raising the temps? Long ago.
Green-industry attempts to lower the temps? Started and continuing.
Fighting over whether it's too hot or too cold? Always.

Concensus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47759315)

How the heck would we ever get enough peoples on-board to be able to go ahead with deliberate geo-engineering? And if we ever did, would conditions at that time be reversible?

Re:Concensus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47759775)

They don't need permission, they just do it secretly:

What In The World Are They Spraying - DVD documentary
Why In The World Are They Spraying - DVD documentary

Considering the Republicans made this illegal... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47759321)

this shouldn't be posted here. All you're going to do is put targets on the chests of people for the Republicans to snipe. Seriously, stop trying to fight them. They control the government. We have to go underground to survive.

pselling mistake (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47759349)

I call for all bad spellers in the wolrd to untie together.

stop spewing carbon into thining atmosphere (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47759375)

the chemically correct approach... welcome our solar powered bequesters

you're saying the real clouds will come back? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47759405)

for certain, in about 3 years of not poisoning ourselves. simple sprayed water vapor will help cool our special selves until the creationally supplied balance returns

solar powered flying fire hydrants? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47759893)

blast from our past... rock on /. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCS-g3HwXdc

Too Late (2)

blue9steel (2758287) | about 2 months ago | (#47759377)

We're already engaged in geo-engineering so I'm having trouble seeing how doing it in a smarter more rigorous way is a bad thing.

If you're going to geoengineer... (1)

cl3v3r (3775089) | about 2 months ago | (#47759423)

...let's do Mars first, and *then* take those lessons back to earth.

The law of unintended consequences for well intentioned human interventions into natural systems is legend. Diurnal mongoose introduced to Hawaii to eat nocturnal rats, ended up attacking the same endangered bird species as rats.

Re:If you're going to geoengineer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47759631)

We humans know what we're doing!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_Reef

Furture? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47759459)

Man, the "furture" is gonna be scary....

No! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47759479)

Did no one see Snowpiercer??

Furture? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47760029)

Climate Whiz talks about the furture engineering of the English language...more at 11!

qYuo FaiL It (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47760131)

No such thing as 'global warming'... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47761095)

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/08/25/Australian-Bureau-of-Meteorology-accused-of-Criminally-Adjusted-Global-Warming

Oh look, a bunch of liars falsifying temperature records so they can maintain their 'catastrophic man-made global warming' lie. Sorry - 'climate change' (LOL) lie.

www.climatedepot.com

Very, VERY bad idea! (1)

pubwvj (1045960) | about 2 months ago | (#47761185)

Planet hacking is a very, very, very, very, very, very bad idea. Might I emphasize that a bit more? People don't understand things well enough, are too incompetent, too driven by greed and the risks are enormous.

LEAVE - IT - ALONE.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?