I like to call them "news prangs": those happenchance occasions when two very separate, yet often contradictory, stories reach our collective antennae on the same day and combine to teach us much more than they otherwise would in isolation. Today's news prang is brought to you jointly by the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and the scientists aboard the Polarstern research vessel currently located somewhere in the Southern Ocean.
First, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has published a new study, led by US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which concludes that climate change is "largely irreversible" for the next 1,000 years even if we were to somehow halt carbon dioxide emissions overnight.
Second, we learn that Germany's coalition government is now bickering with itself over its initial decision to authorise an international group of scientists conducting an ocean research experiment called Lohafex (an acronym with the air of a Star Wars baddie) to set sail for the Southern Ocean to try out a little bit of geoengineering in the hope it could teach us how to reverse climate change.
By sprinkling six tonnes of dissolved iron over 300 square kilometres (115 square miles) of ocean, the scientists had hoped to trigger rapid growth in phytoplankton which, after absorbing lots of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as it grew, would then sink to the bottom of the ocean, thereby locking it away for a few millennia.
But the project has been put on hold while the German government argues over the legalities of conducting such an experiment in international waters. Not a bad idea given that there are legitimate fears that dumping iron in the sea could trigger large algal blooms that could "kill" a large area of the ocean by stripping it of oxygen.
Here we have two stories at either end of the "what to do about climate change" debate. The first suggests that the game is basically up and it's only really now a matter of adapting and protecting ourselves against the unstoppable impacts of climate change. However, the second story suggests that desperate times call for desperate measures and we should now be throwing everything we have at our disposal at tackling this problem, even it means risking negative side-effects.
So, where do you stand? Do you think we just need to expend all our efforts hunkering down for the coming storm and make sure as many people are under shelter as possible? Or should we be conducting increasingly risky experiments in the hope we somehow stumble across a "Get Out of Jail For Free" card at the last moment?
And here's one other story to throw into this particular news prang (do three stories make it a "news pile-up"?): McKinsey and Co has just published a report estimating that if we are to keep global warming in check – namely, ensure that global temperatures don't rise by more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels – then nations collectively need to spend at least 200bn euros a year until 2030. We'd better start looking down the back of all our sofas.