I have an idea to protect the Arctic ice from melting

Interesting article on Albido (measure of the diffuse reflection of solar radiation out of the total solar radiation) in Wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org/.../Albedo

" ... Earth's average surface temperature due to its albedo and the greenhouse effect is currently about 15 °C. If Earth were frozen entirely (and hence be more reflective), the average temperature of the planet would drop below −40 °C. If only the continental land masses became covered by glaciers, the mean temperature of the planet would drop to about 0 °C. In contrast, if the entire Earth was covered by water – a so-called ocean planet – the average temperature on the planet would rise to almost 27 °C. ... ".

White snow and clouds reflect quite a lot of solar radiation back in to space.  Maybe have artifical clouds, some white or refective material to combat greenhouse effect?

I don't want to get into the whole global warming thing but if you do some digging, all of the data is false - London was supposed to be under water by 2000.      The whole 97% on scientists agreeing is an outright lie - and you'd be horrified at how they faked the numbers to get to that answer.

That's worrying. Perhaps mankind's fate is sealed, and we will be reduced to a very small population if the sea gobbles up a lot more of the land and all the ice caps melt and we end up with not much drinking water left which the glaciers have provided.

Anything you do to move energy creates heat - so no, it's a problem.    Also, the amount of energy needed for what you're talking about is probably many times the entire energy production of the world.      The earth's temperature is completely driven by the sun - the energy levels are staggering.

Ah, I'm stumped now! There needs to be a way of moving that energy somewhere harmless. Could it be blasted out into space? Or deep down into the earth's molten crust?

When you use the word Cartesian is that in the philosophical sense? Are you saying that the Spaniards colonised Mexico in a way that was justified through a theory rather than through practical sensibility?

There's a huge problem - energy cannot be destroyed so to cool one place, you have to move the energy away to somewhere else which will heat that place.     Also, the effort in moving the energy will also generate more heat so the net effect of trying to cool something is that you actually generate heating.

I certainly agree with that. They would willingly wreck their home planet for the sake of their bloody isms. In light of the President of Mexico this week calling on the Vatican to apologise for its having sponsored the Cortesian annihilation of the Aztecs civilisation, I really wonder if colonisation has ever really achieved anything positive at all.

I can't really see much future at all for manned spaceflight. Colonisers of Mars, for instance would probably end up with horrendous schizophrenia problems. Although it is possible that if they stayed put, they would still suffer the same here from an increasingly toxic planet; along with the vast majority of the rest of us who can't afford to live anywhere else. Indeed, could this already runaway global tendency be at least part of the reason why we are now hovering around 1 in 68?

As regards wildfires, they suggest that the original indigenous populations were at least in some sort of equilibrium with the places where they live. We would be well-advised to return to some of the more traditional land management practices. Fire was always part of the cycle in such areas; but fires are now worse because we have abandoned  the flexible way of life that formerly prevailed in areas where fire was formerly a means of environmental regeneration.

I would say that we have long been engaged in terraforming the Earth, and it has long been disastrous. Australia, for just one instance, has a very long history of introducing outside species in a totally uncontrolled way, and suffering from them immensely in the long run. The current system of outback agriculture is a lot more precarious (and uneconomic) than most people realise.

i think I have just re-reminded myself why I am in favour of people acknowledging they are on the spectrum. It's, I believe, a necessary first step towards at least making some sort of effort towards living a more sensible life. The alternative is to continue propping up this house of cards! Can't claim to be very optimistic, though!

What irritates me is many of the world's richest billionaires are spending a fortune on space exploration and travel which may not necessarily ever deliver returns. It would be much cheaper and more prudent I think to invest in protecting and nurturing our own planet.

It is sort of already under-consideration, to actually terraform our existing planet. But most experts are still highly sceptical about it. Now (I'm most definitely NOT expert.) But think of it like this. If you buy a solar panel, you always have to factor in the amount of energy necessary for its creation. Now in my example, the energy necessary is probably just about justified; especially as they are now beginning to design panels that also work with non-visible solar radiation. Freezing equipment is still notoriously inefficient; especially when used in a non-enclosed space. This is why I have no intention of using air-con anytime soon. (It does nothing good for your respiratory health either.) there are quite a few of these terraforming projects under consideration. i saw one just last week that involved scattering glass fragments on the Greenland icecap. Most of the global-warming experts seem very unimpressed by this; and i imagine they have computer projections to back up their scepticism. But what do I know? i'm from Basildon!