> You don't seem to be denying human caused, or maybe you'd say accelerated, climate change. If we could flip a switch and spread the future warming over a millennium instead of half a century I think everyone would take that deal.

You know, that's yet another major problem. You're wrong. If we did that, meltwater water supply would essentially stop (in somewhere between 8 months and 2 years), everywhere on the planet. Big, highly populated areas of our planet will dry up (Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Ganges valley in India depends significantly on meltwater. That's easily 2 billion people)

In the past century, humanity has adapted itself to constant climate change. Any variable that depends on the temperature delta that we depend on will rapidly become problematic if we stop accelerating global warming.

Now I live in Europe. I don't expect water problems here (or only temporary). I do however expect problems. I'm not even sure what but there is a fuckton of things that will change back if global warming slows and I highly doubt that will just go down smoothly.

I know the theory behind green parties is "let's just stop doing what humanity is doing, and nature will save us". I'm kind of hoping people will realize that that, too, is bullshit. We will need to decide and agree what we want the climate to do, and then make it happen. No matter the choice made, this will have existential consequences for a bunch of places on this planet, and nothing can help that.

"Let's stop global warming" is not a solution to ecological problems, and not necessarily a better solution than continuing it. We WILL need to take control of the climate, and that includes dealing with the consequences of whatever decision we make. "stop CO2" is as much a soundbite, and as stupid, as "drill, baby, drill". Thunberg is as problematic as Trump, it's just harder to realize that that is the case.

Not that I think there's a chance in hell that global warming will stop or even just slow down whatever we decide to do in the west. Getting China, South Asia, and now more and more India and in the future Africa to agree to not use fossil fuels is not politically feasible. There is no solution there either.

So my vote? Aerosols to cool the planet. Which one, and how to spread? TBD. And, yes, that may mean the planet cools again BUT ALSO parts of the planet become uninhabitable. We'll need to agree and deal with that.

> If we did that, meltwater water supply would essentially stop (in somewhere between 8 months and 2 years), everywhere on the planet

How? Why? Meltwater comes from the temperature difference between summer and winter, how does it have anything to do with this?

> Any variable that depends on the temperature delta that we depend on will rapidly become problematic if we stop accelerating global warming.

What variable depends on a temperature _delta_?

> Now I live in Europe. I don't expect water problems here (or only temporary).

We have water problems right now. Agriculture has problems, nuclear reactors have to shut down because of too warm(France) or missing (Romania) water. Dry forests leading to more fire.

> I know the theory behind green parties is "let's just stop doing what humanity is doing, and nature will save us".

I have never heard of this, I have a hard time that anybody relevant claims this.

> If we did that, meltwater water supply would essentially stop (in somewhere between 8 months and 2 years)

If we stopped CO2 emissions today and, like you said, warming would continue unabated for decades, why would the meltwater situation change in 2 years?

> You're wrong. If we did that [spread manmade climate change over next millennium], meltwater water supply would essentially stop (in somewhere between 8 months and 2 years), everywhere on the planet.

What exactly are you talking about here? Meltwater amounts would be roughly the same compared to the last millennium, until glaciers start vanishing (only, in that obviously favorably scenario, in 500ish years instead of this century).

I get the impression that you think that manmade climate change is somewhat helpful compensation for natural trending towards ice age. This is not the case at all, because the rate of change is too high. See https://xkcd.com/1732/.

A (natural) looming ice age is not problematic or threathening at all because that happens so slowly that we get many centuries to act.