Kind of thought sea-level was a global thing b/c water. Thankfully only China's sea-level is rising and the rest of the world is safe?

... yes, the machine learning technique used (PRIMO) was trained on simulation data. And the original image itself was derived from the actual image data based on several assumptions made on what we currently think black holes should be like; yes they refined the original image until it aligned with what simulations said it should look like. So this _latest_ image is based on a series of guesses and assumptions applied to a series of guesses and assumptions, rather than being an actual image of a black hole. It's like claiming Jurassic Park shows you what real dinosaurs looked like.

I've heard many a manager say they want good docs and maintainable code but in practice deadlines mean that fast output reins supreme in most companies. I think it's because there's always some imagined time in the future where 'it will get done then'. Rarely happens.

"... and released into the ocean at a small concentration." So how's that work? Collect CO2, presumably lots of it, then release it into the ocean in small concentrations?

You know the ocean is even less understood than the atmosphere, right?

All the fear-mongering over climate change has come to schemes like this. At which point it seem reasonable to say that it is easier to live with climate change than to apply potentially more dangerous "solutions". Let's call climate change a lesson learned and try to do better in terms of wastefulness going forward.

I read the report unfortunately _after_ I posted ("And voila, ...") The report finds SRM is not yet ready, engender unknown risks, etc. In fact, this has to be a test of how slashdot people react because beneath the title in the summary is a direct contradiction to the title:

"Even if we knew more, it's not a be-all-end-all climate solution, said UNEP's chief scientist, Andrea Hinwood"

... now only remains to see who will profit as it certainly won't be humanity.

Government money is the prize, scientific belief that 'we know everything we need to know', and the average person's desire 'I want it now!'.

Human avarice, arrogance, and impatience writ large.

"Hell yeah we can fix the planet! A little money and our experts will sort it out now!"

If you wonder, have a look at the first few paragraphs of this Guardian article. The machinations of any body are mostly political and you see it manifest especially in fields that achieve public prominence and/or where funding is important. Right now, playing on the fear of the "climate change emergency/crisis" gets you money and street cred. So more than ever take every story with a grain of salt ... "peer-reviewed" or not.

Just wondering given this recent slashdot article. Really, it's already known so many studies are not reproducible and it only gets found out _if_ someone gets interested for some reason eg. political. So pointing out that a study or article is "peer-reviewed" is kind of meaningless.

The "climate change deniers" weren't so much denying climate change as fearful of the downstream effects of the fear-mongering.

And so here we are with a multitude snake oil peddlers stepping up with the quick fix. Can we really fundamentally believe that there is a single thing that can be done to slow/stop/reverse something so complex as the planet's climate? Dumping something in to the ocean, blocking sunlight, injecting something in to the atmosphere ... can these all seem more reasonable than altering wasteful consumption?

And yes that last applies to renewables. Nuclear has a plan from mining to disposal. Hydro electric is preceded by years of impact studies and post-construction forecasting/planning. What's the plan for the solar, EV's, and wind turbines? There is no cradle to grave plan for those, just more of the same approach as with 'fossil" fuels ie. extract raw materials as cheaply as possible, construct as cheaply as possible, ship as cheaply as possible and walk away ... someone else can deal with disposal. Wasteful consumption is the problem and _nothing_ is being done about that.

Instead of the increasing number of quick fix proposals based on gapped science, why don't we patiently start winding down on our extraordinarily wasteful practices in energy and food production?

The whole fear-mongering approach to climate issues is exposing us to snake oil peddlers of every kind and it will end up making things much worse rather than better.

... or just pushing the problem off to a future generation ... or is this yet another scam enabled by the constant fear-mongering over climate change emergency/crisis?

Also:
- who/how is the success of this (or any) approach measured?
- given the earth is a closed system, what is the impact of sequestering in the long term?

... it's really hard to get rats that have suffered brain injury unless their families took prompt action to get them medical treatment.

Beware biologists esp. those in medicine.

Exactly _why_ are we doing this? So we can create a creature that will live in captivity with no hope of a mate or society while the captors take guesses (in the case of mammoth and dodo) at what it eats and what diseases it is susceptible to? This is so random you wonder if it's like a lame apology for having killed off the species ... or is it a cover for genetic experimentation that would otherwise be deemed unethical? What if we used the money to prevent further extinctions eg. give poachers in Africa income so that don't have to poach?

How long can we 'permanently' remove CO2 from the air? It's a closed system right? So what are the long term effects of sequestration?

Yeah, didn't think anyone had even looked at that.

... every dog that ever entered the household 'got it' almost immediately, ring the bell to get let out. It seems almost instinctive ... which raises a lot of questions.