It's not a lie though. Climate change may be a big fashion nowadays, but the fall of the Roman Empire coincided with a long-term change of climate in the Mediterranean region that caused repeated harvest failures and oft occurring famine and a noticeable decline in population and thus weakened the empire and its economy significantly, contributing to its inability to defend itself. #history
Discussion
It may be that the better response to observed climate change trends should be to figure out how to prepare and make ourselves resilient.
The world is wringing its hands and trying to turn the Titanic around rather than prepping the lifeboats.
The problems are mostly real.
The solutions are mostly fake.
Everyone wants to be in charge, but no one wants to take responsibility...
Good way of putting it, yeah.
Also note how few "greens" are willing to accept and endorse nuclear energy. This is a proof of what insightlesd frauds most of them are.
Nuclear energy to slow the GHG output.
Allowing sulphur in jet fuel again to treat the symptoms.
Pulsed iron enrichment of high-nutrient/low-chlorophyll seawaters to sequester emitted GHG.
All solutions proven at scale, and economical to use. No hit to living standards. No global Oligarchical-Collectivism required.
And for the West's ruling class, those are deal-breakers.
These seem like great ideas, but given the complex systems nature of the environment, I'm a little hesitant to get all gung-ho on putting new stuff into the atmosphere or oceans. What are the unforseen side effects? Are they acceptable? It's hard to say.
Also true; iron seeding of the oceans would likely sour the oceans, possibly being detrimental to coral reefs.
The oceans have already been screwed over pretty bad in some areas, no need to make it worse if there are other solutions.
Impossible to sour the oceans with iron even if we wanted to - journalists can't math.
And near-impossible to lower productivity of High-Nutrient / Low Chlorophyll waters - they're screwed now literally by definition ("Low Chlorophyll"). Easy to raise them, though, especially if silicic acid is already available.
The secret is they're not new.
Trace sulphur aerosols in the stratosphere we did in the 1970s. Not on purpose, just a side effect of high-lubricity jet fuels. Lowered global temperatures by ~1 C, no effect on crop yields. Which stands to reason - no crop plants are noticably luminance-limited, no even sugar cane at any plausible level of use.
Iron enrichment of the oceans happens all the time, when a river cuts into an iron-rich deposit (pyrite especially, but also haematite under the right redox conditions), and when winds erode a desert down to an iron-rich bedrock. This effect is strongest during ice ages, and acts as an unhelpful positive feedback on climate.
Intentional enrichment of High Nutrient/ Low Chlorophyll Southern Ocean waters was done at scale in 2003-2005 austral summers as a pilot project. Plankton bloomed locally, died, and sank. No lasting effects despite extensive sampling over time and space.
Interestingly, blooms become limited by silicic acid availability at high doses, but that's just a matter of choosing the right waters and spacing out the blooms. I can find you guys the papers if anyone wants.
Open oceans have surprisingly terrible primary productivity compared to continental shelves, nowhere for critters to hide. Its really hard to make it worse, and very easy to temporarily improve it.
Policy response: crickets chirp.
Solving the problem "wrong".
That's really great info, thanks!
Definitely doing things that have already been studied would be preferable. Better still if it's reversible. It sounds like those are both, to varying degrees.
"Definitely doing things that have already been studied would be preferable. Better still if it's reversible."
Strongly agree :)