(Barely brushes political stuff, doesn't invite argument about it. It won't hurt my feelings to have it removed.)

We are headed toward a Maunder minimum.

Maunder minimums are periods of minimum sunspot activity accompanied by reduced energy output from the sun, and thus cooler temperatures on Earth. A recent Maunder minimum, The Little Ice Age, lasted from ~1300-1800. Among other things, it greatly reduced the amount of food produced in the world, led to widespread malnutrition, which in turn magnified the effects of the bubonic plague. Large negative effects like this on human civilization for 500 years.

Speaking of ice ages, we are in an ice age, the Quaternary Glaciation, and have been for at least 2 million years. We started an interglacial period 11,000 years ago. It won't last forever.

We are predicted to have fusion in 50-100 years, and almost certainly in 200. Energy will be virtually unlimited, and virtually free. Very low cost, anyway. We will be able to do things we can do now, but don't because they're not energy efficient. Like desalinate ocean water, make as much of any element we want. We can do awesome but energy inefficient chemistry on as large a scale as we want.

(Brushing casually past politics.) Assume global warming is real and caused by CO2.

My Suggestion For The Near Future:

We need, absolutely need, to start pumping as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we possibly can. The Maunder minimum is coming, and we have no idea how long it will last. The only responsible course of action is to plan for the worst and try to mitigate the effects as much as possible. Pump that CO2! Burn that coal, tear down those solar panels and those windmills! We need massive amounts of CO2 pumped into the air starting yesterday! We need to stop selfishly conserving energy. We need to drill and pump and burn.

But wait, I hear you saying. What if the Maunder minimum isn't very bad at all and we pump too much CO2 into the atmosphere? We can sequester it! For example, we can combine CO2 and water to form hydrocarbons. That is carbon-neutral fossil fuels, for anybody keeping score.

Before we sequester, though, we have to think about the return of the glaciers. Without global warming, the glaciers will return in ~15,000 years. With global warming, it's ~35,000.

So. Think about future generations and go out and burn a tire in your backyard today!

No way in hell!

Complete nonsense in the end about suggesting rapid CO2 release procedures.

What you are imagining as possible is taking a century to unravel given past trends.

If it happened faster the correct thing is for people to basically stop multiplying at idiotic numbers. So be it.

There is no established agreement whether the climate is actually correlated as imagined to sunspot activity. Where is the evidence it works that way, where are the multiple data points?


The technological growth itself will release in the future so much more energy to the environment that every home will be getting warm by only its own artificial intelligence infrastructure.

We can always do what you propose within 10 years if it had to by using proper molecules that are creating more severe effects than CO2 in much smaller numbers.


Innovation can solve almost any of these issues even if it ever were to be true.


The risk sun experiences a severe fluctuation is always possible because we do not have proper records on such random events. Guess what activity is the most risky though (is heat or cold the harder to defend from? )!!! We must be ready to deal with it. We will deal with it. No need to destroy the planet based on some fear or fake claims that wants to make morons like Trump and other losers suddenly wizards of the future.


It's one thing to bring to the SMP the legitimate concern about the role of sun in the climate in ways that were not expected or are less promoted by media and another to then become effective cheerleader of reckless behavior.

If you are wrong we will destroy the world because our emissions do indeed screw up the system. If you are right we can still take climate to any direction within 100 years which is usually what it would take for something that remarkable to happen. It can happen faster too but we have no such evidence from past behavior. It is a lot more gradual than that.

The ol' bait and switch.

Baits you into thread about the future. Switches discussion into politics.

I've seen variations of this move. Always that awkward, creepily passionate guy, that people try to ignore at social gatherings.

Jesus Christ. It was humor, which is obvious to anybody but an *******.

It wasn't obvious to you, huh?

The thread is intended as a joke?

Generally, threads are for discussion; jokes for responses. I'm unfamiliar with your innovative approach.

It was obvious to me, veeddzz just has to try and look cool and insult strangers

Well done man, we all think youre so awesome now. Oh that's right, jb4 must be the person people ignore. Not the guy who doesn't get the joke and goes on to some "I'm a democrat and don't like your post so now I have to try and make you into a flawed person" routine.

Again, well done, you just look so awesome and mature and intelligent

Considering jb4 has 12 posts since ‘09 it’s prol not worth bothering with ignore. I assume your post is a joke too, and both you and OP should start out with shorter jokes until you get the hang of it before attempting long form