Space mirrors? Flying "volcanoes"? Over at National Geographic, my pal Mason Inman presents five extreme geoengineering proposals to prevent a global warming catastrophe. The ideas were included in report from the United Kingdom's Royal Society. From National Geographic:
Computer-controlled ships could ply the remote seas, pumping out seawater mist, which would encourage low, thick clouds to form, researchers say. The clouds would reflect sunlight back into space."5 Last-Ditch Schemes to Avert Warming Disaster"
It would cost more than a billion dollars to launch a fleet of a few hundred of these ships, the new study says—a relatively small sum, as geoengineering costs go. But the cloud ships' ability to change local temperatures and weather could raise fears that countries will clash over control of the clouds...
Instead of trying to block sunlight via Earth's atmosphere, another approach would be to take the fight to outer space.
Huge mirrors or thin, reflective disks could orbit alongside Earth and block solar rays, some scientists say.
The approaches would be safe, with little in the way of side effects, the Royal Society says.
But it could cost a few trillion dollars and take decades to design, build, and launch, requiring "a space program many times larger than anything yet attempted."
RSS Feed
Everyone wear aluminum foil hats to reflect the suns heating rays back into outerspace.
"Only God can change the Earth's temperature, not Al Gore...Global warming is pure make-believe." - Massey Energy CEO John Blankenship at a Labor Day rally attended by the likes of Hank Williams Jr., Ted Nugent, and Sean Hannity (wvgazette.com)
hasn't ANYONE see Highlander?
I'm confused here... My memory on the subject is shaky at best, but I recall something in highschool learning about how clouds cause a greenhouse effect. Something about radiation passing through the clouds, bouncing off the surface and being reflected back down by the clouds again. Wouldn't this make creating more clouds counter-intuitive?
How about we build a national/worldwide cultural movement to plant genetically enhanced trees?
We know for sure trees trap large quantities of carbon dioxide (as opposed to the space mirror or whatever the hell it is), they're a great natural resource, they can work within local environments, they can be genetically altered to grow much quicker to maturity...
give it a pithy name, Larger Arbor Corps, have Bob Loblaw endorse it on his law blog, everyone's happy.
here's one.
1)put a compressor tank on the exhaust of every car and factory chimney. when they are full of CO2, bubble them gently through tanks of algae (you may have to creat GM algae) to scrub out the CO2.
2)Profit
All of these "Answers" share in common the need for yet more resources and energy to be consumed. I'd like a study on the carbon footprint necessary and would be amused they even began to reach break-even point for CO2 emitted in their own construction and upkeep.
Here's a radical idea: adapt and use climate change.
Oh well, who am I talking to. The US has failed to adapt to its own climate, how could I possibly expect them to adapt to a new one.
Yes, I'm looking at Las Vegas and other cities. I'm looking at New Orleans, where people knew for decades that a Cat 3/4 hurricane *would* wipe them out and they did nothing.
How about taking advantage of increased rain in previously dry areas? (Like east Africa) Or rather mundane things. Like reforesting the area around the Mediterranean Sea or the Alps. Or convincing the people in the Sahel area that their cattle herds are the main reason for the poor vegetation and climate they have - and helping them make do without them. You say that would destroy their ancient culture and way of life? So, would you rather they destroy the environment? Is agriculture in Greenland really a bad thing to do, just because we are so used to seeing Greenlanders as hunters? Is that destruction or enrichment of culture? Or is it just plain reasonable?
Why is it, that nobody talks about those measures?
here's a crazy one- let's all stop living these unhealthy lifestyles...
...as if. okay, here's a wacky one i would love to hear embraced or debunked- why not harness the amazing amount of energy given off by kids as they run around all day non stop? I envision neighborhoods with these "energy-playgrounds" where kids go for a few hours a day, strapped into some kind of wireless electrical device that charges as they run around expelling energy, and transmits that energy to a community power supply... sounds ridiculous until you spend time with kids and realize how much energy they really do generate in a day... i just don't know enough about the technology that would be needed.
i'll just © and TM that one right now...
The other ginormous issue with almost all geoengineering schemes are that ten minutes after the collapse of space-flight capable human civilisation and/or the other industrial bases needed to maintain them, they'll stop working, at which point the real level of warming they've been concealing thwacks the planet upside the icecaps.
TP1024 and others saying similar things:
> Why is it, that nobody talks about those measures?
>
I suggest meditating on Occam's razor. Which is more likely, that you've had a brilliant insight that none of the extraordinarily clever and dedicated climatologists and others working in the field had completely missed, or that they already thought of that and rejected it for a reason that hasn't occurred to you?
As usual I heartily recommend realclimate.org to get a sense of how bloody complicated the actual science - the real science is. See also their recommended reading list for those wanting a deeper understanding. Everyone else? If you can't do the sums, you get to believe what the experts tell you (or be incredibly arrogant and stupid, of course, like far too many of us, and posit some vast conspiracy theory to Make Shit Up.)
Most of these geoengineering solutions will do nothing more than buy us a few extra years to solve the underlying problem. While the greenhouse gases are still in the atmosphere, the forcing is still there. On of the scariest things about geoengineering (let's say by seeding the stratosphere with aerosols) is that once you've started, you can't stop - if you do, you'll get all the accumulated warming hit you in one go. Only the ones that actually remove carbon from the atmosphere should be considered solutions. And if you think for a moment about what put the carbon there, you'll realise these are unlikely to work - we burn fossil fuels to release energy. Reversing the process is unlikely to take less energy than we got in the first place.
Geo-engineering is only ever likely to be a stop-gap; we need to get on with the real solution - weaning ourselves off fossil fuels as fast as possible.
Lots of pointers to more on geoengineering here:
http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=406
#2 bodabing:
It's very much under debate, but in general most of the research agrees with what you've said: clouds seem to create positive feedback, meaning that if it gets warmer, clouds make it even warmer. So clouds would indeed exacerbate global warming.
So I agree, I don't know why that's being proposed as a solution. Maybe the low clouds created by the mist are of a kind that has a net negative effect (more reflection of the sun's light than the Earth's IR)? Or, possibly, the ideas are being proposed by people who like big ideas, and not by climate scientists.
People don't generate energy, they're just a very inefficient means of converting it from food. It'd be VASTLY more efficient just to burn the food, and even that's pretty inefficient. This is also why the "energy harvesting" component of The Matrix was met with so much derision.
Besides, America knows the best option is to build a giant hero to shield the Earth from the sun.
Hmmm, this seams as the wrong way around it. Mostly because it actually tries to go around it. For whatever reason the warming happens (personally, I think the statistics is on the side of "it's a natural phenomenon" but it's not important), the issue is not how to stop it, it's how to adapt to it. We are not dinosaurs (as much as evidence can point to it) and we can adapt. What's needed now is a few more years of gathering enough information to be able to predict what the future course will be, in order to say if, or when precisely will building underground cities be needed, or whatever other radical measure is needed. Raising awareness about the issue must ultimately lead to gathering movement to adapt to it. All this certainly doesn't mean a catastrophic end to anything, if adaption begins soon enough.
... or they could add nano particles to jet fuel that help precipitate clouds, they could call the technology "chemtrails"
... what if we all bought cases of soda, but instead of drinking it releasing the stored C02, we permanently stash it away never to be used, locking up the C02 for good.
#6 tp1024:
I actually have a friend who is a PhD student in Harvard's climatology department (or Earth Science or something) who is working with his professors on precisely that idea: given that the world will warm up, how should farmers around the world adapt? Which crops will best tolerate the heat? What staples should be grown in northern Russia?
That said, all the findings show that the results will be catastrophic. Sure, there might be some great corn fields in Greenland, but what are the 800 million people (nearly 10% of the world's pop) who live in sub-Saharan Africa going to do? Migrate to Greenland?
So prevention is, in this case as always, better than cure (or adaptation).
Oh boy, talk about overdoing it.
We have a technology that's available right now, that's efficient, cheap, well understood and has tons of economic benefits.
It's called planting trees.
Trees store tons of CO2 over their life spans, are cheap to plant and maintain and can produce tons of products that we find very interesting indeed, like fruits and construction materials. And trees have pretty much adapted to all climates on earth, so they can be planted anywhere. And, yes, with a bit of planning, trees can also be used in cultivated lands as well (just look up permaculture, folks).
They also tend to prevent things like floods and landslide, prevent soil erosion and some can even slowly remove pollution from the ground and improve soil fertility.
Frankly, whenever people talk about geo-engineering or other 'radical' ideas, I am really tempted to hit them over the head with a two-by-four... Trees are here, they have been our friends and a source of food for millions of years, and people talk about sending mirrors into space and whatnot. Sheesh.
Nuclear power and electric cars. Anything else I can do for you guys?
imipak:
You are talking about something different. I don't doubt that anybody else *thought* of the same idea. But I say that it is an obvious fact that nobody is *talking* about those ideas. And seriously, those are bog standard mainstream. Boring actually. I mean, deforestation has been known to be a seriously detrimental to human living conditions long before anyone knew CO2. (Take your pick: flood and avalanche prevention, soil retention, water storage, increased humidity and evaporation of water ...) Same goes for overgrazing and its connection to desertification.
The other point was about reporting. Climate in southern Greenland has *improved* dramatically, yet, it is reported as a threat. As if growing vegetables, potatoes or trees in Greenland (using specially bred plants) was a threat to the Greenlanders. This is obviously bogus.
Sure, if positive effects remain limited to Greenland, that won't cut it. But of course there will be other, large, areas that are positively affected, just as there will be a lot that are negatively affected.
The problem is that the current discussion is so focused on the negative effects, that it seems (in those discussions) like any change in climate would in any case create unavoidable, exclusively negative impacts that nobody could possibly in any way adapt to.
And this is why everything is focused on prevention, even when push comes to shove (temperatures mustn't rise more than 2 degrees, no matter what), instead of at least considering measures of adaption that could be implemented with less damage to the earth than geoengineering and much less cost.
A lot of those could be implemented right away, since there are lots of areas on Earth that currently aren't adapted to their climate without any change in climate whatsoever.
Find a small island that nobody really wants, one with a volcano.
Lob bombs down the volcano until it erupts.
Flee.
Repeat until climate stabilizes.
Simpsons did it.
I don't care. I'm in it for the money. So my investment tip is: Buy Canada.
Hey, we can all stand outside for four hours a day holding big white cards.
Or, how 'bout this; we take a long, hard look at the world around us, decide that we'd all be a lot happier if we weren't starving to death or dying of thirst, and stop consuming so @#$% much.
Right, right, the card idea works better.
No worries.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
The problem is that the current discussion is so focused on the negative effects, that it seems (in those discussions) like any change in climate would in any case create unavoidable, exclusively negative impacts that nobody could possibly in any way adapt to.
Um, ever stop to think that this is because the negative effects so outweigh the positive? The human species (along with many other species) evolved as well adapted to the earth's current climate. Sudden changes in the climate (in either direction) aren't likely, a priori, to improve that match.
You're right about one thing: we will have to adapt anyway, because some of the warming is already inevitable. Large numbers of scientists are already working out how we'll do it. (Hint: go read the IPCC report on "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability" rather than claiming no-one's talking about it - http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm)
Here's another one:
Tax every man woman and child for living. Those tax revenues fund an elite global organization of very good people who can reverse global warming with their mind powers.
Expensive, few to no intermediate scales, and mostly irreversible? I'm calling DESIGN FAIL on these proposals.
How about the radically less expensive and conservative options of: treeplanting* and coolroofs/whitewashing surfaces.^
*added bonuses: biodiversity migration, flood control, soil runoff control, possible food/browsing/fuel/lumber material values too.
^even with deposited grit and regular washings, the higher albedo will be worth the savings.
Kim Stanley Robinson has some interesting speculation about just what kind of geo-engineering it might take to mitigate rapid climate change in his series of books that starts with "40 Days of Rain."
Things like dumping massive amounts of salt to restart the Gulf Stream. Pumping out water onto the Sahara to mitigate rising sea levels. Can you deacidify the oceans? And so on....
Those are not radical ideas, those are palatable ideas.
Riding a ******* bicycle is a radical idea.
So we've reached the point of having to terraform the Earth in order to provide an Earth-like environment for our descendants to live in?
Ladies and gentleman, we have well and truly shit the bed.
Mr. Burns tried to block the sun back in the 90's and it didn't bode well for him. If I recall he was gunned down. My friend Morpheus also told me that blocking the sun's light/ rays will drive humanity toward the earth's core. There's CHUDS down there!
Maybe we should just leave everything alone and hope it works out.
how can blocking out some percentage of sunlight have no side effects? Plants and other animals rely on sunlight for more then just heat. Doesn't a cloud of reflective disks have the potential to make crop yields lower by reducing sunlight?
Since God is responsible, we should make God pay for fixing it. For every 1/2 degree change, He (or His associates here on earth) should cough up $5 trillion. This will send a strong signal to Him that He should quit messing with us.
Actually, buying Canada is probably the right answer. Solving this problem is so f*****g hopeless considering we have other problems of equal or greater magnitude that aren't being addressed.
I'd _really_ rather try terraforming some other world before we do anything too large to our own. We don't understand the system well enough to know what would be too much, or how and how much to correct it.
Cutting down net greenhouse gas production is a Good Thing generally. (And I'm not convinced that sequestration is really more than, quite literally, sweeping the problem under the rug.) Directly tampering... Definitely last ditch.
Now THERE'S an evil scheme worthy of a Bond Villain.
I guess there's nothing wrong with throwing these ideas around, but I hope rational people realize that we still don't understand the Earth's climate systems well enough to screw around on this kind of scale just yet- even to negate the damage we're already causing. Experimentation is a risky proposition when you've only got one subject.
Steven King has some interesting speculation about just what kind of geo-engineering it might take to mitigate rapid climate change in his series of books that starts with "The Stand."
@ #37
Not exactly the same delivery method but still interesting and perhaps relevant to your question:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/research/2008-02-29-china-weather_N.htm
Radical? Here you go! Drop a few nukes somewhere! It will lead to nuclear winter - the ultimate and quick way to bring the temperature a bit down!
@#14
"We are not dinosaurs (as much as evidence can point to it) and we can adapt."
True. I think we are adapting, right now, maybe just without realizing.
Why is NASA so hot to put people in space all of a sudden? My theory is it has nothing to do with getting the public back on the public team. It's already been outlined by a wise man discredited by his association with drugs: Dr. Timothy Leary. His SMILE concept sums it up nicely: "Space Migration, Increased Intelligence, Life Extension."
Now it's just a matter of making sure the wealthiest 1% aren't the only ones to make it into the ships, though I imagine that is their exact plan. It would be a shame if we let them serve as the rest of the universe's introduction to Terrans; I don't think they would be all that well liked.
How about building a giant rocket engine to push the Earth a little further away from the sun? We could call it the Annihilatrix...
anonymoust at 18 - your solution to "plant trees" shows a gross misunderstanding of the scope of the problem.
Yes, trees collect and store carbon. Very true.
And over a couple million years all those trees (and algae, etc) store it away. And it turns into coal.
Which we dig up, and burn.
The problem is that we are overloading the system. It takes millions of years for trees to turn into a stable storage of CO2.
So how are we actually going to get all that carbon from 300 million years ago BACK into storage?
The answer is simple, we're not.
We're going to play our fiddles.
legislating a tax against bottled water, and use the money to subsidize a charging station infrastructure for electric cars seems like a good idea
and reliable, high speed rail.
harvesting the pacific garbage patch for recycling materials wouldn't be the worst idea ever either.
if only action required less politics and more logic, we'd have doubled our life expectancies and be living in moon condos right now.
@9 with the kid energy:
In Palo Alto a contractor built a great kid's playhouse including windmills, solar panels and a trampoline attached to a flywheel. Kids jump or turn a crank-- profit!
@10- If it makes you feel any more secure, we've already staked the survival of probably a couple billion people on the infrastructure to make artificial fertilizer. If that fails, there's not quite enough food to go around.
In short, failure of industrial civilization is going to be a big enough hit to the human species that global warming's the last thing the (few) survivors would have to care about.
Hanging my clothes in the sun makes me feel a bit better about things. That and pumping the bathwater into the garden. Conservation puts the *rad* in *radical*. :) High tech solutions are good, too.
Relating to giant boats that spray water to create low level clouds: wouldn't that cause fog, which easily mixes with pollutants creating Acid Fog?
There was an idea years & years ago suggesting we use the temperature differential between surface & deeper water to power Fountains who's less fine spray would wash Smog components out of the air, but unfortunately making the sea around them more acidic.
why can't we just desalinate ocean water? ocean levels will be rising. there's water scarcity the world over. it won't do much to reverse global warming, but when dealing with inevitable climate change, it seems like a layup to me.
The thing about trees is that they make life on earth a little more hospitable. As UV effects increase over time, we will be glad to have the protection from the searing rays of the sun. Though we may be doomed, still, plant trees. Fruit, nut and shade trees...
Even if the people die, at least there will be something left for the animals. :)
"Plant trees" sounds like a wonderful idea, but please keep in mind the only places to do so on a large scale are the places we keep clear, like farmland and logging areas. Everywhere else, trees are already trying to move in.
And adding trees only helps when the total goes up, because they're a carbon store rather than sink. If they become fossil fuels, that's a sink, but when they are eaten or decompose the carbon is released right back into the atmosphere.
And adding trees only helps when the total goes up, because they're a carbon store rather than sink.
Funnily enough, a forest is cooler than a parking lot. Carbon storage is not the only issue. Shade and evaporative cooling are also factors.
File under: No shit, Sherlock...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island
I don't get the carbon obsession. I guess it's because mega-corporations and governments have created the carbon credit industry, it makes sense to reduce all climate concerns to a salable commodity.
The carbon obsession has to do with the effects of concentrations of carbon compounds (CH4, CO, CO2, and others) on the atmosphere. Thus, the carbon emission permits and markets are an attempt at a direct market solution to the problem.
Trouble is, it's toothless, and is therefore a distraction.
Well, talking about carbon is the simplest way to understand the core problem. We've dug up large stores of carbon compounds that had been buried for millenia, and burnt them, releasing them as gases (mainly carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere. Therefore, the cumulative mass of carbon released is the simplest measure of the problem, and removal of some fraction of this mass of carbon is the simplest way to talk about the scale of the solution.
The latest research calculates we can afford to burn approximately 1 trillion tonnes of carbon ever (i.e. from the dawn of industrialization to centuries into the future) if we want to keep within the threshold of 2 degrees global temperature rise. See:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/abs/nature08019.html
The trouble is, we've burnt about half that much already, and will burn through the rest in less than 30 years if we don't slow down rapidly. Much of the remaining oil, coal and gas deposits have to stay in the ground if we're to meet this target. The hard part is that no political system in the world today is capable of agreeing to forego the riches associated with digging up the remaining fossil fuels...
The problem there is it's nearly impossible to predict how climate will change, therefore adaptation is difficult. Sure Greenland might have better climate right now, but that could change in 10 years time and no one can tell us for sure how.
One of the biggest problems with climate change is that it can alter the major ocean currents. If one of these major ocean currents changes (and they've been essentially the same since the last ice age) then pretty much all of the ocean currents will be altered which then in turn changes all the major wind patterns.
Of course none of this is predictable and near impossible to calculate. Like trying to work out how a pool table will look after the break except instead of the usual 15 balls and the white ball you have 15trillion balls, 100million white balls and 600millions players all playing different rules at the same time on the same table.
Folks- we literally *DO NOT KNOW* enough yet to even begin laying out a predictable model. It's become fashionable to overlook or even deny the reality of how little accurate data we have. Well, It's more a set of cases where we risk objective science being absent. With astronomical amounts of money at stake-selectively cherrypicking data for financial gain's a temptation inestimable in it's danger.
So we need a Super Due Process level of auditability in our science! As if we dont?
We already have the spectacle of ideologically opposing group saying two divergent fates are inescapable. At least absent unprecedented efforts. Depending on who's propaganda you take at face value. Either we're going to boil our oceans,or replicate Ice-9 if the propaganda's taken as "Gospel Ad Absurdium"
I'd consider reading some of the postings on Jerry Pournelle's site as they-both Jerry's and his commentators- advocate finding out the truth before going off half baked..
My summation of what might be a good start then starts by:
Factoring the Sunspot records and core ice samples plus tree rings. Historical cross checking the data points is needed too. With textual evidences in diaries or literal flyleaf of family bible recorded commentary "Our crops perished in a late frost on 17 May 1889." ALL such stories need to be weighed as data indica. Capture enough of them to smooth the jaggies and trend determination gains credence. We have Sumerian grain harvest dates to anchor one end of time curves if the translation and calendar revisions can be compensated for. And a mass deployment of Cheap yet Accurate weather sensors in areas where man's footprint is averaged out. Then plotting those sensor reports on a grand scale over time as backup to whatever else we do or don't do.
oren beck - you sound to be as full of it as your cousin glen.
#1: Stop letting every architect and developer replace every tree with blacktop.
#2: Plant more trees.
#3: Stop using black asphalt roofing; mandate light-colored reflecting roofing.
Putting billions of dollars worth of ships in the ocean actively trying to change the climate wont help if you wont do those three things above...
Putting billions of dollars worth of ships in the ocean actively trying to change the climate wont help if you wont do those three things above...
too right, we are getting carried away, and losing sight of the big picture!
Putting billions of dollars worth of ships in the ocean actively trying to change the climate wont help if you wont do those three things above...
Seriously?
those three things will help with the microclimates in urbanized areas only. Those three are not global solutions (aside from being make work to allow people to feel like they're doing something helpful).
And Oren Beck - i'd like to clarify. You said Depending on who's propaganda you take at face value.. I have to take issue with that. If it's all just propaganda to you than please step aside, catch your breath, and let the grownups hash it out with facts.
Oren Beck: When you say "we literally do not know...", I assume you're taking a very narrow definition of the word "we". YOU appear to know fuck all. Luckily tens of thousands of talented scientists have learnt a hell of a lot about it over the last few decades. Go read some of their work, rather than exercising your ignorance.
Washington's textbook would be a good starting point:
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Three-dimensional-Modeling-Washington-Parkinson/dp/1891389351/
(unless, perhaps, you're too stupid to understand it).
Here's my my proposal for stopping Global Warming. This was a submission I made to this year's Buckminster Fuller Institute Challenge. (please excuse the one messed-up table on this archive page which I've been unable to fix between Wikia and Word...)
To sum it up; mass self-funding equatorial deployment of 100MW Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion plants using companion marine settlements as the basis of industrial scale polyspecies mariculture driven by a portion of OTEC cool water discharge. OTECs perform as a carbon sink in the same way as the wave-powered sea pumps proposed by James Lovelock (stimulating algae blooms and reproduction of vertical migratory sea salps feeding on the algae) but have the advantage of paying for themselves in renewable energy and sea food production. Hydrogen produced at the equator is delivered to continental urban centers by 'battery ships' carrying liquid hydrogen (or in early forms possibly vanadium redox, liquid borohydrides, or encapsulated hydrides) that use electric drive -like most new large ships- and so can function as temporary power plants providing power to the grid at the dock, eliminating the up-front cost to create a 'hydrogen infrastructure' at least in coastal urban areas. Each $300 million dollar OTEC plant (or several billion when you add it's additional industrial facilities) potentially produces about a billion per year in revenue. Thus the facilities pay for their own replication while continually increasing the global supply of renewable energy -which earns even more carbon credits while offsetting fossil fuel use and can use those carbon credits and its mariculture income to subsidize the energy prices to compete with oil were necessary. (and visa-versa when energy values are high enough to help subsidize competitive seafood prices, helping to drive the destructive old-fashioned fishing industry in general toward mariculture in order to compete)
Within 50 years we thus deploy enough OTEC facilities at the equator (roughly 10,000 plants) to meet all Earth's projected energy needs with carbon-neutral renewable energy, provide as much food as 4 times the entire terrestrial land mass combined eliminating world hunger, off-set then entire carbon production of the civilization stopping Global Warming cold, revitalize much of the world's natural fisheries, create a few million new jobs, and create a million or so lovely new homes for people on the sea.
Link didn't make it...
http://tmp2.wikia.com/wiki/Luz_Azul_Buckminster_Fuller_Challenge_Entry
If anyone in the NYC area wants to participate in a Doomsday Festival & Symposium, to attend a panel discussing this very topic (or any other doomsday scenarios) please email me at doomsdayfest@gmail.com.
The 1st Annual Doomsday Film Fest and Symposium is scheduled for the weekend before Halloween of this year (Friday Oct 23-Sunday Oct 25) at DCTV in NYC. The Fest will explore our collective fascination with the Apocalypse in Film, Art & Culture, featuring three days of films & expert panels wrestling with Our Certain Impending Doom (including but not limited to the subjects of deserted streets, blood-red skies, hazmat suits and near-total social breakdowns).
though artificial volcano method sounds effective but vat r its consequences???????
Check out the history. Human spread the world during the hardest weather.If our ancestor can survey soan we. But get a radical weather change a good idea? Dont we get better be humble to nature than act foolisherly? People just dont think now the just repeat others' story and add some extra of their own from thin air.
Do not destroy us all by foolish. Just because we love show off. By foolish all life end here.
If nature want life end I can accept but not our foolish.