A link that works for me and not for thee? Fascinating. Straight to renewables sounds ideal to me. If none in positions of power oppose it, and external investment can be attracted. Zambia BTW has hydroelectric up the wazoo. So to speak.
that's the beauty of reducing the releasing of carbon dioxide. Even if the man-made thing is phony baloney, decreasing our C02 output - we still end up saving natural resources, as well as increasing efficiency, as well as (hopefully) the possibility of someday getting out of other countries (where we harvest THEIR carbon based fuels) where culturally 'isolationistic' people don't want us anyway. Point being, it serves no purpose to become hysterical over either weather or climate if we are doing the right thing. That's the trick. .
This may clarify matters. Or not. I agree with all Hill said except "crazy people" is not a useful description. Hysterical and doing the right thing syllogism is unknowable at present. So it does not seem useful either. We don't know how rapidly climate will change on current CO2 emission pathway, or rate/extent of those changes on other aspects of human enterprise, or extent to which they would be mitigated on a lower-CO2 pathway. I mean we do not know exactly. Because of all that it makes sense to transition to renewable E at a rapid rate. If too rapid constrains economic development in poor countries, you have non-optimized in a different direction. Best guesses require inputs from a wide range of experts. I concede that fossil fuel burners are a type of expert. Particularly in terms of making profits in settings where externalities are ignored. They will not willingly give up their seat at the table. Optimal path for de emphasizing that large, profitable, and government-subsidy-driven industry will not be easy to know or implement.
Along those lines see newest country-level emission data: CO₂ emissions | Energy economics | Home Updates data used in: Le Quéré et al. Global Carbon Budget 2018 Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 2141–2194, 2018 https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-2141-2018 Which you must have already read. I mean, seriously...
Back to news, this site link does not load for me. Have a look. Or read some other related things: David Lapola – AIMES Amazon's Trees Get Taste of Air of The Future | Pulitzer Center TUM - Rainforest at Risk
US electrical power distribution systems, with varying degrees of interconnection, confronted with future higher levels of renewable-E inputs: Solar and wind power are growing. Grid managers need to get ready. - Vox If Vox's reporting does not float your boat, follow link to Lawrence Berkeley Lab report.
West Antarctic ice sheet, were it to depart, would increase global sea level by 3 meters. A newly proposed way to prevent or delay that is with snow blowers on a very large scale: Sea level rise: West Antarctic ice collapse may be prevented by snowing ocean water onto it -- ScienceDaily From the original publication "Snowing the water mass onto the ice sheet would mimic the type of precipitation naturally occurring over most part of the ice sheet, ..." Which I would dispute. Sea water has 35 grams per liter of NaCl, which natural snow does not. Publication does not indicate that authors considered that salt effects on ice and snow melting. (an email is obviously called for) == +CO2 effects on nutrition of agriculture: Rising CO2, climate change projected to reduce availability of nutrients worldwide: Protein, iron, zinc to be 19.5%, 14.4%, and 14.6% lower, respectively, than without climate change -- ScienceDaily Not first time this has been suggested. Separate from obvious concerns for human nutrition, I wonder how nutritious plants were 170 million years ago when CO2 was very high. Perhaps unlikely that such information can be extracted from fossil records. But that's what was thought about colors of dinosaur feathers until someone figured out how to detect it.
More questions, besides the obvious potential pitfalls of pumping ice-melter on top of glaciers: Freshwater snowmaking requires a lot of energy to pump the water up to the ski slopes, and to blow it into the air in a form that actually makes something resembling snow instead of (sunlight absorbing) ice or water runoff. What elevations will this water need to be pumped up to? Is the energy available for fake snow on West Antarctica? Carbon-free or at least sufficiently low carbon to be climatically beneficial? What would the actual albedo of this seawater 'snow' be, compared to natural snowfall? Could it would a bit dirtier and darker, possibly increasing solar melting?
Geo engineers here mention large wind turbines to provide E>100 gigawatts. Also see distances of >100 km and a notable phrase "ignoring frictional losses". Look, nobody is claiming practicality. They are simply observing that +3 meters sea level would be disruptive, and expanding list of geoengineering options to possibly consider. I'd not fault that, but prefer it to be fully scoped. I honestly doubt that anyone anywhere has made a teaspoon of seawater snow, so its albedo is ???
There have been several recent asteroid flybys in news. Saw there a link to this article https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL073191 If TL;DR then just see Figure 2a.
I missed the news, but a quick check of my usual past source does show two potentially serious pebbles passed closer than the moon in the past two days: Both were discovered less than 4 weeks before encounter. Many others are not discovered until they are receding.