Researchers Want To Launch Dust From the Moon To Help Cool Earth (washingtonpost.com) 122
In a study published Wednesday in PLOS Climate, a group of astrophysicists proposes shooting lunar dust into space to help partially shield sunlight to Earth. The Washington Post reports: The team used computer simulations to model various scenarios where massive quantities of dust (and we mean a lot of dust) in space can reduce the amount of Earthbound sunlight by 1 to 2 percent, or up to about six days of an obscured sun in a year. Their cheapest and most efficient idea is to launch dust from the moon, which would land into orbit between the sun and Earth and create a sunshade. Yes, the idea sounds like science fiction. Yes, it would require (a lot of) new engineering. Yes, there are more feasible climate mitigation tactics that can be employed now and in the near future. But the researchers view this rigorous physics experiment as a backup option that could aid -- not replace -- existing strategies to help humankind live on a more comfortable Earth. [...]
In the new study, the authors concede their idea isn't perfect but say it addresses some problems with previous concepts. For instance, the amount of material needed to actually shade the sun exceeds 10 billion kilograms (22 billion pounds), which is about 100 times more mass than humans have ever sent into space. Bromley says dust is very efficient at scattering sunlight relative to its size. The team considered different types of dust, scattering properties and size. The team found that aggregates of fluffy and highly porous particles scattered light the best, but they opted for a particle perhaps more easily accessible in space: moon dust. "We really do focus on lunar dust, just plain old, as-it-is lunar dust, without any indication of changing its shape," said Bromley, who said future moon mining could excavate the dust needed. Perhaps the greatest challenge is getting the right material exactly where you need it, Bromley said.
In one computer simulation, the team shot lunar dust from the moon's surface toward the sun. Bromley said the device to launch the lunar dust into space could be something similar to an electromagnetic gun, cannon or rocket -- picture a T-shirt cannon sending dust into orbit. In the simulation, the dust scattered along various routes until the team found suitable trajectories, which allowed the dust to concentrate temporarily and act as a sun shield. Bromley said the dust would periodically disperse away from Earth and throughout the solar system. In another simulation, the team shot off dust from a space platform about 1 million miles from Earth. This would be in an area known as L1 (Lagrange point 1), where objects tend to stay put because of equal gravitational pulls between the sun and Earth. This idea required more astronomical cost and effort because they would need a space platform and a dust supply that could be easily replenished. In either scenario, people on the ground wouldn't be able to see the shield or feel any difference, although some tools would probably be able to detect changes in the incoming solar radiation.
In the new study, the authors concede their idea isn't perfect but say it addresses some problems with previous concepts. For instance, the amount of material needed to actually shade the sun exceeds 10 billion kilograms (22 billion pounds), which is about 100 times more mass than humans have ever sent into space. Bromley says dust is very efficient at scattering sunlight relative to its size. The team considered different types of dust, scattering properties and size. The team found that aggregates of fluffy and highly porous particles scattered light the best, but they opted for a particle perhaps more easily accessible in space: moon dust. "We really do focus on lunar dust, just plain old, as-it-is lunar dust, without any indication of changing its shape," said Bromley, who said future moon mining could excavate the dust needed. Perhaps the greatest challenge is getting the right material exactly where you need it, Bromley said.
In one computer simulation, the team shot lunar dust from the moon's surface toward the sun. Bromley said the device to launch the lunar dust into space could be something similar to an electromagnetic gun, cannon or rocket -- picture a T-shirt cannon sending dust into orbit. In the simulation, the dust scattered along various routes until the team found suitable trajectories, which allowed the dust to concentrate temporarily and act as a sun shield. Bromley said the dust would periodically disperse away from Earth and throughout the solar system. In another simulation, the team shot off dust from a space platform about 1 million miles from Earth. This would be in an area known as L1 (Lagrange point 1), where objects tend to stay put because of equal gravitational pulls between the sun and Earth. This idea required more astronomical cost and effort because they would need a space platform and a dust supply that could be easily replenished. In either scenario, people on the ground wouldn't be able to see the shield or feel any difference, although some tools would probably be able to detect changes in the incoming solar radiation.
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Whatâ(TM)s the rollback plan? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What do you do after deployment when you decide it was a bad idea?
Probably the same thing we did when we found out after over a century of fossil fuel deployment that carbon emissions really do wreck the climate, that it will be bad and that the climate sceptics were wrong. We'll go into more denial. This time it will be denial about the fact that applying quick fix Band Aid solutions to big nasty and complex problems created through over a century of runaway pollution won't work.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are completely wrong and just as bad as the deniers. The only reasonable answer to climate change is to say that we know that the Earth has had climate changes that have occurred naturally and that we are uncertain if humans are a major contributing factor to the current climate changes. Anything more than that is stupidity.
"Uncertain"?
It's almost as if you think that dumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the air will have zero effect, that we don't understand the most basic of science, and That we can't do a few simple experiments to check the math.
Re: Whatâ(TM)s the rollback plan? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How much Co2 does nature absorb vs generate a year,
How much H20 does nature absorb vs generate a year,
Re: (Score:2)
You are completely wrong and just as bad as the deniers. The only reasonable answer to climate change is to say that we know that the Earth has had climate changes that have occurred naturally and that we are uncertain if humans are a major contributing factor to the current climate changes. Anything more than that is stupidity.
People die of old age. It doesn't mean all deaths are from old age. If you find a smoking gun in someone's hand next to the body and a bullet hole then there might be some uncertainty as to cause of death, but not much.
Re: (Score:3)
You are as dumb as bread. We reliably know that the speed of climate change is massively higher than ever before and that the reason is human action. Slow climate change (10'000 of years) can be adapted to. Fast change (100 years) may well be an extinction level event.
Re: (Score:2)
You are as dumb as bread. We reliably know that the speed of climate change is massively higher than ever before and that the reason is human action. Slow climate change (10'000 of years) can be adapted to. Fast change (100 years) may well be an extinction level event.
Extinction level event? Your claim is a doomsday fantasy completely divorced from reality.
Re: (Score:2)
You are completely wrong and just as bad as the deniers. The only reasonable answer to climate change is to say that we know that the Earth has had climate changes that have occurred naturally and that we are uncertain if humans are a major contributing factor to the current climate changes. Anything more than that is stupidity.
Direct measurements over time establish there is more CO2 in the atmosphere today than decades past.
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/tren... [noaa.gov]
Isotopic ratios of atmospheric carbon disambiguate human activity as cause.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Extra atmospheric CO2 increases temperature of the planet or at least an ideal boring featureless lifeless spheroid analogue of earth.
The open question is merely particulars of future impacts not who or what caused them.
Re: (Score:2)
No rollback needed because this is a purely hypothetical exercise.
A much more practical solution would be to spray sulphur into the upper atmosphere, which will have a limited life.
https://www.pagerpower.com/new... [pagerpower.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Every nerd has a favorite geo-engineering proposal.
My favorites are:
1. Iron fertilization of the oceans [wikipedia.org].
2. Flooding the Qattara Depression.
Re: (Score:2)
Every nerd has a favorite geo-engineering proposal.
My favorites are:
1. Iron fertilization of the oceans [wikipedia.org].
2. Flooding the Qattara Depression.
As a nerd, I think all these "solutions" are stupid. Trying to jerry-rig the precambrian ocean in modern times will create an ecological catastrophe, spreading SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere will cause acid rain, and heaven help us if a nice huge volcano eruption occurs while we attempt that.
The best bet is for humans to ride out whatever happens now, and do what we can to preserve biodiversity.
I'm pretty convinced that we passed a tipping point some time ago, late 70's, early 80's, and the weather pa
Re: (Score:2)
You mean create acid rain?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean create acid rain?
No. Please try to make a genuine argument, instead of an ill-informed rhetorical question based on no more than a vague memory of the acid rain scare of the 1970s.
Re: (Score:2)
As TFA states, it would be a last resort if our other climate control schemes fail.
It would be technologically challenging. Moon dust is very abrasive, because there is no wind or moving water to wear it down. The result is extremely sharp particles that destroy everything they come into contact with. After a few days the equipment that the Apollo crews took to the moon was basically worn out.
Re:What's the rollback plan? (Score:4, Interesting)
Moon dust is very abrasive, because there is no wind or moving water to wear it down. The result is extremely sharp particles that destroy everything they come into contact with.
Ya, as the dust settled thru our atmosphere, it would be incredibly destructive. Abrasive to surfaces, and more cancer-inducing than asbestos.
8(
Re: (Score:3)
You wait "a few days" as the article says. Literally a few days until the dust has dispersed and everything is back to normal if you don't keep launching more dust. This is probably the most ridiculously misguided criticism ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Ad if after a decade or two, we suddenly stop, probably due to people no longer believing in climate change as it isn't happening anymore.
Governments are not known for long term thinking, especially if it costs.
Re: (Score:2)
@Ambigwitty beat me to it. I think the human race is powerful enough to make intentional changes to the planetary climate; I don't think they're wise enough to do it properly.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait for the dust to disperse into space. This would essentially be like throwing sand into the air. You will have to keep doing it in order to maintain the cooling.
Re: (Score:3)
What do you do after deployment when you decide it was a bad idea?
Simple: We die.
Re: (Score:2)
megamaid
Re:What's the rollback plan? (Score:3)
What do you do after deployment when you decide it was a bad idea?
The dust will be floating in Space, which is a vacuum, so a vacuum cleaner -- duh. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
https://despair.com/products/c... [despair.com]
Dumbest Idea Ever. (Score:4, Insightful)
Like we have the capacity to pull off such a stupid idea.
Screwing around with nature on a huge scale (Score:3)
And what if this backfires and makes the situation on Earth a whole lot worse?
Re: (Score:2)
Back to the caves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be the end. Survival chances would be pretty much zero.
Re: Screwing around with nature on a huge scale (Score:2)
I bet an alien civ. did the same thing on their planet long, long ago. And this is why we had no confirmed contact with them since.
Snowpiercer (Score:2)
Our Friend The Sun (Score:2)
Rsearchers Want To Launch Dust From the Moon To Help Initiate Nuclear Winter
"Since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun. I shall do the next best thing: block it out."
Re: (Score:2)
THE SUN...nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Simpson's Already Did It (Score:1)
Monty Burns used a sunshade to shield Springfield, ST from the sun so people would use more power from his nuclear plant. In the crossover South Park episode, Professor Chaos (butters plus aluminum foil mask) is thwarted when every evil plan he comes up with is responded to by General Disarray as "Simpsons Already did it."
Lunar dust. Explosion. Moves in a relatively thing narrow tube to position between the sun and the earth. Doesn't enter earth's gravitation field. Doesn't become conical and go into o
Solar power (Score:3, Interesting)
Every last watt of power on earth comes from the sun*. Okay that the sun heats the earth and our sphere is running a fever at the moment and into the foreseeable future. But limiting the suns power input is the wrong way to go, we need to be better at extracting that power and converting it to electricity instead, instead of using up the stored solar power we call fossil.
Earth is a rechargeable battery, hydrocarbons the medium that stores it, putting a limiter on the charger is the wrong way to go.
* caveat: there are some power from the planet's core and some geothermal power generated when the crust and oceans moves because of gravitational forces of the moon. But we can hardly use the planet's core as a power source and say that the long term negative impacts will be negligible. And regarding the other; there wouldn't be any waves if the sun didn't keep our ocean's liquid, and trying to harness earthquake energy isn't possible today.
core power (Score:3)
there are some power from the planet's core and some geothermal power generated when the crust and oceans moves because of gravitational forces of the moon. But we can hardly use the planet's core as a power source and say that the long term negative impacts will be negligible.
Won't work anyway. The earth's core has stopped spinning, and will soon begin spinning in the other direction. The result will be negative energy.
Do try to keep up.
Re: (Score:2)
Won't work anyway. The earth's core has stopped spinning, and will soon begin spinning in the other direction. The result will be negative energy.
Do try to keep up.
Meh, that's not what that paper said, it said that earth's core is no longer spinning faster than the mantle. Of course headlines interpreted this as "ZOMG the core stopped spinning" but anyone who actually looked any deeper than the headlines knows that's not the case.
References:
https://www.verifythis.com/art... [verifythis.com]
https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Won't work anyway. The earth's core has stopped spinning, and will soon begin spinning in the other direction. The result will be negative energy.
Do try to keep up.
Meh, that's not what that paper said,
Whoosh! But maybe someone will mod you Informative. However, I hope that's not actually necessary....
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the energy from radioactive decay inside the earth. Technically that power comes from other stars exploding, not our sun.
Re: (Score:1)
We should always remember the decay...
Re: (Score:2)
From what I can find on the numbers, the Earth gets about 7 million times as much energy from the Sun as the Earth outputs from radioactive decay. I'm not 100% sure about those numbers, but it's definitely vastly more solar energy than anything else. I thought you'd left it out from your original post, although I just read it, and you did mention heat from the first core. The first time, I though you just meant tidal energy coming from the core, but maybe I misread it and heat from radioactive decay may hav
mass to space (Score:2)
10 billion kilograms (22 billion pounds), which is about 100 times more mass than humans have ever sent into space
So they are saying that 100,000 tonnes has been "sent into space"?
Sounds like a lot. SpaceX said "15,000 tonnes to orbit" for payload recently. Maybe 100,000 includes all the upper stages and a lot of propellant that made it over the Karmen line?
https://space.stackexchange.co... [stackexchange.com]
There's stupid and then there's advanced stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Dangerously crazy (Score:3)
This is a classic example of the madness that has swept the Anglo Saxon countries in recent decades.
Notice that the only places where there is any real belief in either the climate crisis or the measures proposed to remedy it are English speaking. Canada, US, UK, Australia, NZ. No-one else even shows much interest in it. China and Russia don't even send senior delegates to COP. Masses of other countries send people but say nothing. The big emitters who do attend wait till the last minute, then veto any substantive action proposals, then go back home and announce that they are installing and burning more coal. A few go with the sole aim of demanding money to deal with the local consequences of this imaginary crisis. Emissions continue to rise, and everyone outside the Anglo Saxon countries goes to sleep until the next one, and there continues to be no sign of any crisis.
Here we have a completely mad proposal - unsafe, impractical, unaffordable, and unnecessary. The interesting thing about it is that it has enough plausibility in the academic environment in the US to be published and taken seriously. This is one of many signs that we are in a real cultural crisis. The nature of the crisis is that the academic world and most policy makers have lost touch with reality, they have no idea or interest in implementation of their mad ideas. What happens is that someone comes up with some wild idea, and then everyone rushes after it without any thought or planning for what will be involved in making it work.
For instance, lets all move to EVs. Right, and what about charging stations? What about refuel times? What about grid capacity?
Don't bother me with detail, is the reply, I am saving the planet. Oh, and I've had another great idea, lets move the grid to wind and solar at the same time. After all, wind and sunlight are free, aren't they?
Look where you will, for instance in the NY State proposals, for any account of how this is all supposed to work together and generate enough reliable power for it to work with existing demand. Double or triple the demand from EVs and heat pumps, how is this going to work, where are the costed implementation plans? You will find none.
Its not an accident that in the same countries where climate hysteria has become the conventional wisdom, along with idiotic and unaffordable measures which are both impractical and ineffective in reducing emissions, we are also seeing a similar disconnect and similarly random irrational and un-thought out proposals on other subjects, particularly gender and race. And we are seeing a flight to subjectivity in ethics and policy areas.
This proposal will never get started. But the fact that it has passed peer review and is thought to merit serious discussion is an important sign of the real crisis we are in, which has nothing to do with climate. The crisis is in our culture.
Re: (Score:2)
Notice that the only places where there is any real belief in either the climate crisis or the measures proposed to remedy it are English speaking.
No, this is not true. What has been noted in non-English-speaking places is an "increased polarization", meaning increasingly conflictual opinions between two sides. Your impression could come from 1) the fact that the leadership of English-speaking countries is notably vocal about a range of topics, and "marketing" is sort of a cultural trait in cultures derived from England. 2) The higher prevalence of English as the language use to formulate these statement in your daily internet feed.
(I am not from the
Re: Dangerously crazy (Score:1)
Nonsense, from a world perspective climate change has been a fact for the last 40 years.
Only in the English-speaking parts of the world do you find people who ever thought it was a scam, and people who are in a position to do something about it, because they own everything and have so far been the ones causing it.
If you want China to stop you need to show them you are willing by not causing any more pollution.
It may take a couple of decades to convince them, but that's what YOU need to do.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter what you show China. They don't believe it, and they have no intention of doing anything but increase their emissions.
And the proof is, for all these countries, their conduct at COP. They all refuse to reduce.
"In the closing stages of the Cop26 summit, Sharma told the Guardian he feared that the deal would be lost when China and India â" both heavily dependent on coal power â" attempted to reopen the text of the deal by objecting to a commitment to âoephase outâ coal.
Re: Dangerously crazy (Score:1)
Nonsense, come back when the US signs even the Kyoto protocol.
They have more than a hundred years of a head start in pollution.
It stands to reason that other countries should at the very least be afforded the same amount of pollution per capita.
So China is well within their rights to continue pollution for a while to come, even after the US completely ends their pollution.
And until the west ends its own pollution, it's ridiculous for them to demand that others do it.
Re: (Score:1)
This talk about 'right to pollute' or 'climate justice' or whatever else isn't helping. This isn't about fairness, it's about what's going to happen if there are more greenhouse emissions. We all live on the same planet and greenhouse emissions affect us all, no matter which country is responsible. Climate change doesn't care how long or how much a country has been emitting in the past, or whatever other reasons anyone may have for feeling they're entitled to emit. You emit more greenhouse gases, climate ch
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, its a familiar argument. It amounts to the argument that its only fair that China, India etc should destroy civilization on Earth. Because the US and Europe started the industrial revolution.
Your problem, and that of everyone offering this completely irrational argument, is that either you believe that there is a climate crisis fuelled by CO2 emissions.
In which case fairness, history, per capita etc is irrelevant, the point is that everyone, and particularly the big emitters like China, needs to redu
Re: (Score:2)
Are you going to tell someone in China or India that they are not allowed a fossil fuel car while someone in the US is?
Re: (Score:2)
A country that emittes 10 tons of CO2 per person goes to a country that emitts 6 tons of CO2 per person and says you need to reduce your emissions.
What do you think the second country is going to do?
Re: (Score:2)
Notice that the only places where there is any real belief in either the climate crisis or the measures proposed to remedy it are English speaking. Canada, US, UK, Australia, NZ. No-one else even shows much interest in it. China and Russia don't even send senior delegates to COP
When your argument can be boiled down to "what would a failed state like Russia do?" you should know you have a bad argument. Consider Russia, it's among the poorest country in Europe. There are countries in Europe poorer of course, but the interesting thing is, they're pretty much all in the so-called "Russian Mir" or Russian sphere of influence. It's mostly a mix of Russian puppets and former Russian puppets that Russia devastated through war because they didn't want to be Russian puppets any more. Why on
Re: (Score:2)
"Why on Earth would anyone think it's rational to act like Russia?"
I have no idea, who does think that? I was not endorsing the way China and Russia behave on climate. I was simply pointing out how they behave.
They, and almost the entire rest of the world, show no evidence of believing there is any climate crisis or that reductions of emissions are necessary. And how they behave at COP is all the proof you need of this.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea, who does think that? I was not endorsing the way China and Russia behave on climate. I was simply pointing out how they behave.
It speaks to the relevance of them as an example to the rest of the world. You made the (dubious) claim that only english-speaking countries believe or care about climate change, with Russia and China as the extreme end of that who don't send delegates. So, you set up a spectrum where, at one end we have Russia (and China) and at the other end, English-speaking countries and you want us to believe that the correct end of the spectrum is the one that Russia occupies: not caring and/or believing. So, if you'r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you forgetting the pacific islands?
uhm.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For values of "permanent" on the order of decades. On that sort of time scale a combination fo radiation pressure (per grain of dust) and orbital mechanics would transform a "blob" near the Sun-Earth L1 point into a dust ring between ~145 and 155 Gm from the Sun, with orbital periods from ~0.9 and ~ 1.2 years.
On an order of decades or so satel
Get SnowPiercer tickets while you can! (Score:2)
Train will be boarding in 10 years!
Anything to stop burning fossil fuels (Score:3)
Fossil fuels are our drug addiction, and we're seemingly prepared to do anything not to give it up.
what about impact on satellites (Score:3)
How about we just follow the science and plant (Score:3)
Planting trees is a much lower cost method to not only combat global warming but has more benefits.
It creates more O2, it helps wildlife, keeps cities cooler.
But alas there is no profit in it. so this simple solution will never happen
Re: (Score:3)
Planting trees works if you have something like 200 years to do it. We do not have that time.
Do you want nuclear winter? (Score:3)
Fear leads to the Dark Side (Score:2)
Instead of the increasing number of quick fix proposals based on gapped science, why don't we patiently start winding down on our extraordinarily wasteful practices in energy and food production?
The whole fear-mongering approach to climate issues is exposing us to snake oil peddlers of every kind and it will end up making things much worse rather than better.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Fear can lead to people finally moving their asses. Doing nothing will reliably kill the human race.
Dinosaurs TV show ending (Score:1)
They can have my dust (Score:2)
from my bookshelves and such if they like. Itâ(TM)s a lot easier to access and collect.
Iâ(TM)ll throw in what my vacuum picks up rather than emptying it into the trash, if they like.
Instructions unclear. (Score:1)
Ah yes... (Score:2)
...instead of fixing the root issues, let us further pollute the space around our planet, and increase the number of particles which may cause extraordinary damage to things we put into orbit. Totally a great idea. /s
This feels very, very poorly thought-out (Score:2)
Especially interesting is that it's a wholly untested theory, that there's no way to backtrack from it and punishing those responsible for wasting our time with this drivel would accomplish zilch.
How about we just stop polluting our home? (Score:3)
Maybe we should just stop polluting our planet. Stop putting money and profits over peoples lives and the future of our species.
Yeah, I know. That's as much a fantasy as launching Moon dust into space as a sun shield.
Is this possible now? (Score:1)
impact on astronomy (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you somehow unaware what is at stake here?
Re: (Score:2)
I think the sun would be a major problem for the telescopes to look past.
Lets [not] do it (Score:2)
Somebody thinks that creating a giant satellite sand blaster sounds like a good idea. How long will the solar panels last when being abraded by micro meteorites constantly 24x7? I'm sure the owners of those multi-billion dollar satellites will be happy with this decision.
Just think, the lenses on NSA's spy satellites lenses will become useless over time. While some people might think this is a good idea the Ukranians might beg to differ on this
Earth's Tidal System Affected? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
8.1 x 10^19 tons of moon .
This is something like 1 over 10^13 of the mass.
Another "magic" plan to delay real action (Score:2)
So many people these days go for moon-shots so they can continue the suicidal course the human race is steering. None of these plans have any realistic chance of working. Geo-engineering by a species that cannot even capture easily capturable CO2 at the source? What are you smoking? A massively harder approach has no chance if not even an easy one can get done. Carbon-capture? Planting trees? Have you looked at the scale needed? If we had started determinedly, say, 200 years ago, these would have worked but
Re: (Score:1)
"If we had started determinedly, say, 200 years ago, these would have worked but by now there is far, far too little time left and the scale needed is infeasible in the time left. If we had determinedly brought emissions down to zero when the science was solid in the 1980s, yes, that would have likely been enough as well. But now? Even if we stopped all other industrial efforts, it would not be enough. We are already over some trigger-points and we cannot avoid some others anymore. The current prospect is t
Re: (Score:2)
All is lost!
Not yet. But it will be pretty soon. Morons like you are the primary reason.
"Yah the greenhouse is getting too hot" (Score:2)
"Let's whip up a sandstorm outside, to help dim the light"
Just plant trees, people! Green the earth. It's the only solution *proven* to work!
Won't someone think of the tides? (Score:2)
A few hundred years after implementation people will begin to notice the effects of the reduced mass of the moon on tides and tidal ecosystems and our ancestors will be complaining about global tide change!
(Yes, I know the moon is "big" and its mass won't change that much -- much the same logic people used not that long ago to justify dumping anything and everything into the rivers and oceans or byproducts of combustion into the air).
Re: Hey, (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Focusing on temperatures where life on earth existed is being over selective.
Sure, but only if you don't care about life.
Re: (Score:1)
Looks like you needed a sarcasm tag.
Re: (Score:1)
Who the fuck modded this interesting and not "tin foil hat wearing fucking idiot"?
Re: Hey, (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The retards have mod points.
Re: (Score:2)
Now picture that, but 16 degrees C HOTTER. You want to live through that?
You're LITERALLY arguing that because, in the past, it was 16 degrees hotter, human civilization can survive because it is technically not "warming" compared a mass extinction event.
Non sequitur (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that 55 million years ago when that graph peaked, the world was uninhabitable for most of the things living on it today. Preceding it was the Palaeocene era, during which 75% of species died out. The massive rise in temperature was caused by an asteroid impact and volcanism.
The result was a massive decline in the number of living things on Earth, and the surviving ones tended to be small creatures. The variety of flora was greatly reduced too, resulting in large low diversity forests that pro
Re: (Score:2)
There is no evidence of any rapid change coming from human caused global warming which will kill millions or billions of people.
Read the IPCC reports. They do not say anything like that. The idea is simple hysterical alarmism.
What there is going on at the moment is a moderate amount of warming, some of which is probably caused by emissions, but nothing alarming. And that is all.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that 55 million years ago when that graph peaked, the world was uninhabitable for most of the things living on it today.
No it wasn't.
Preceding it was the Palaeocene era, during which 75% of species died out. The massive rise in temperature was caused by an asteroid impact and volcanism.
PETM didn't cause max extinction it was that big space rock that happened 11 million years earlier.
The result was a massive decline in the number of living things on Earth, and the surviving ones tended to be small creatures. The variety of flora was greatly reduced too, resulting in large low diversity forests that provided relatively little food and poor habitats.
The opposite is true. Forests and animals thrived during PETM.
So yeah, if you don't mind having a really bad time,
Depends on where you live. Some will gain, others will loose. In the aggregate arable land is predicted to increase substantially under climate change.
I guess it's no big deal. Ideally though it would be nice if we could avoid rapid change that kills millions, maybe billions of people
On one side you have deniers who believe gods green earth is invincible and climate change is a made up conspiracy. On the other end you have the we're all going to die hothouse runaw