Well, since people have been ignoring the science for decades now, one isn't hopeful.

Meanwhile Trump has found yet another idiot physicist who understands nothing of any real complexity to join his administration.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/15/trump-science-adviser-william-happer-climate-change-cult

Out of curiosity, what does freezing the Arctic solve? Aside from habitat issues for a couple of popular animals, the melting Arctic is a relatively beneficial symptom of CC, isn't it?

absolutely not. Ice has a far higher albedo than open water, so freezing the arctic will prevent a runaway warming of the arctic. Furthermore, keeping the arctic cold helps keep the climate stable to the south. If too much more fresh water gets dumped into the arctic, there's a chance that the gulf stream continues to slow, roughly converting the very mild climate of Europe into something more closely resembling Alaska. Furthermore, keeping the arctic cool might slow the release of clathates and carbon from the tundra and shallow artic sea that seems likely to drive runaway warming. Trust me, that isn't something you want to see.

characterizing the meltic of the arctic as "beneficial" is about like saying shooting a bullet through your head is beneficial because it dealt with the itchiness in the roof of your mouth.

While this specific plan seems silly, I'm growing more and more convinced that radical climate engineering is going to be necessary. I think a technical solution is far more likely than a social one at this point.

I suppose. It is vastly more expensive and far less effective. It seems to me that the same political stupidity that has blocked action on prevention is going to block any engineering solution as well. Frankly, I think civilization is extremely unlikely to survive at the end of the day.

Assuming that a technological solution can prevent climate change, be it ridiculous plans such as refreezing the arctic, but also more mainstream ideas, such as reliance on renewable energy or carbon sequestration, fails to address the underlying issues causing climate change: the unsustainable way of life we in the west live. It makes makes the broader populace assume they can continue to live their way of life without ever needing to face the consequences and gives politicians a way out of making the hard choices that are very necessary to advert disaster.

Melting Tundra ice releases previously trapped Methane which heats the planet even more too.

Or, we can say "fuck it" and start colonizing Mars.

Theres a ftf diplomacy tournament on mars in April. If you are interested in joining PM Valis. He said the first 25 players get free entry free and crepes.

Well, the one thing technology is decent at is being more efficient. Right now much of the west is horrendously inefficient. Indeed, renewables and efficiency technologies can go a long way toward slowing climate change. For example California has been requiring energy efficiency for decades across the economy. As a result our GDP per carbon has been increasing for a long time while emission have been relatively stable or declining. If the rest of the Us were to simply meet California's standards, US carbon emissions would drop by between a third to a half right there. And keep in mind that California is the most economically successful state or among a handful of modern states in the country. In other words, this whole "dealing with climate change will kill the economy" is as utterly false as every other conservative talking point. Still, in a nation where stupidity and delusion are points of national pride, there will be no action even though it would be cheap and easy to do relatively.

I'm don't understand the big deal. I kind of like the warmer winters. It's like I'm slowly moving south as I age... without having to uproot my family.

@Vashta : no, terraforming Mars is technically possible, but harder than, oh i don't know, any terraforming we do here on earth.

Why would we try to do something on mars which we don't know how to do on earth first??

@Ogion, the difference is, youcan charge to fix the problem, and thus solutions, or ideas which might attract investment will be proposed and discussed and eventualy attempted. Of course i think this one is really weird, because physics? I doesn't actually cool down the sea, heat is released by freezing... Where does that heat go? Sure you can re-freeze the arctic... But then what? (Apart from preventing runaway melting)

As for beneficial. I live on an island, rising sea levels it not my idea of a benefit.

Besides, wouldn't allowing the poles to melt and begin supporting plant life reduce carbon in the air? It seems like it is auto correcting by itself without all the man-made manipulation.

@Devonian, do you remember the polar vortex last year? It is not 'warmer winters' it is less predictable weather patterns, it is wilder weather, more extremes - which inckudes warmer winters and colder winters... Depending on where you are. And more difficulty predicting where the warmer or colder winters will be.

So, I get a few days of cold followed by a few days of warm. Is that so bad?

And no. The north pole melting will not allow more plant life to grow. Because it is in the sea.

It will also prevent the pole from reflecting sun light (as the sea is not white and reflecty)

And methane is something like 20 times as damaging as carbon dioxide...

Any gains, in terms of growth are likely to be balanced by losses in dessertified area nesr the equator

@"Devonian
So, I get a few days of cold followed by a few days of warm. Is that so bad?"

Yes.

Well I guess that settles that then. You've convinced me with that brilliant argument.

Do you like eating food, Devonian? Living on dry land? The issue is that climate disruption means that the extremes of weather will be out of control making stable food production very hard. You can't just move the entirety of the agricultural infrastructure thousands of miles every year hoping to chase the arable areas every year. Massive droughts and floods (see California) cause tremendous damage and disrupt food supplies. This is a massive driver of a lot of the instability in the Middle East and the refugee crisis.

In addition, with sea level rise many major cities will have to be simply abandoned by the end of the century. Do you have any idea how much lost production and investment that represents? The blow to the economy is massive and growing.

Furthermore, climate disruption is causing massive extinctions as well, with God knows what consequences that will have.

So, it is not "mild winters" since often it will means freezing winters followed by Summer's where large numbers of old people and kids drop dead because human physiology can't handle it.

It also means Europe freezing over, massive droughts worldwide, billions of people going without water...

This is all conjecture.

But, you even suggest another self balancing mechanism. People are the problem to begin with, and it will cause "large numbers of old people and kids to drop dead"

No, it isn't anywhere near conjecture. It's climate physics with a ton of evidence behind it. That's another bit of conservative stupidity and lies.

Although I guess you're being honest in your not giving a shit about millions of people dying. Let's me guess, you're "pro-life" too

Sigh

And no, because the people who are causing the problem, namely fat greedy Americans, are not the ones who are dying. The people suffering the most tend to be the ones with the lowest carbon footprints.

Remember the maldives? Thanks to climate change youll get to witness a culture vanish from rusing seas

But as long as Deinodon doesnt have to pay more on his heating bill; seems like a valid reason to be apathetic about displacing some 20,000 peoples

And I'm sure the fact that it happens to be millions of brown people he doesn't give a shit about is purely coincidental.

Not sure why you had to put a racist spin on it as opposed to just saying its a rather typical American way of thinking to see global heating as a positive.