/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14680214
>>14680219
Even super negative global warming predictions aren't really a huge deal. If you're worried about massive deaths and reduction in quality of living, nuclear proliferation, bioweapons, "meteors" (misc. deadly cosmic phenomena) and AI safety are much bigger deals. Global warming can be solved by moving to nuclear, pulling CO2 out of the ocean, a sunshade or lense in L1, or other smaller less ambitious ideas like marine cloud brightening. Pre-starship NASA listed a sunshade at 100B, even if we take an ultra-negative estimated, and say 500B contingent on a working Starship, global warming is solved permanently for less than what we already spend on defense in a single year. Once global warming becomes a big enough problem that it actually tangibly effects people who matter, they'll be willing to pay up, and engineers will solve it within a decade.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1859907/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4550401/

Probably worth a serious feasability study before declaring it the ultimate climate panacea, but you can throw a dart and hit a relatively serious, promising way of materially affecting global warming. Again, worst case scenario, we just start ripping CO2 out of the ocean and sticking it somewhere. That'd be disgustingly expensive, but we could do it with technology that exists now, and it would work.