We have been (detrimentally) geoengineering the climate for centuries by pumping out co2 and that has been done by nations wherever and whenever they have wanted.
If a country wants to start a program of beneficial geoengineering why should that be stopped?
Do you remember hearing about Tambora, Krakatoa and their global effects? Do you remember ozone crisis? How we found out about the severity of the impact lead had on people? Acid rain? Nuclear winter?
Effective and thus extensive geoengineering requires an understanding of biogeochemical processes that we don’t have.
Nuclear winter didn’t happen and the jury is out of it could happen that way. Everyone knew lead was bad but the thought was because it was heavier than air the dust would settle quickly, tests in real life conditions showed that it didn’t. The ozone thing yeah give you that.
But we HAVE so much to loose. At the moment, even a worse case scenario is one when earth goes on and adapts. Even humans would likely survive. And it’s not even decided we’ll get that.
But as proven time and time again by the shitty predictions we are getting, we don’t have anything close to a true understanding of the systems in which we live.
So on top of that, you’d prefer a single nation, most likely with economic interests well active in their decision making, to try and forcefully modify the system we don’t really understand?
I would love to live in a world where a few powerful nation did have such influnce that their economic interests didn’t screw over the world. But i was born in a world like that.
At the moment, even a worse case scenario is one when earth goes on and adapts. Even humans would likely survive. And it’s not even decided we’ll get that.
What makes you think this? Do you have a source for this? I am genuinely curious here.
Because we could eat phytoplankton and moss which could take care of oxygen production. We couldn’t swim in the oceans or spend much time outside but we create digital fake worlds for ourselves.
Humans are unfortunately and fortunately very scrappy inventive creatures that a lot would have to happen to completely wipe us out. It’s not to say the future wouldn’t be miserable and unlike anything we currently know but the will to keep on living is very strong on average.
It’s unlikely and pretty hard to get a runaway Venus effect on earth but not impossible, but it would be likely to restabilize at some point and life would go on. It takes a lot of effort to sterilize a planet even if not nearly as much to fuck with its balance.
How? All the ideas that are being looked at come from natural cycles that are being exploited. No one is talking about releasing some chemical that no one understands up there they are talking about causing algae blooms, inducing acid rain in the middle of the oceans, and painting stuff white. This isn’t cutting edge. Also it isn’t a one and done deal, it will require constant infusing of cash.
We know that sulfur and dust in the area lowers temperatures. The experiment has been run before. Look at average temperatures and see what happens around the WW2 era where steel has to be made using cheap dirty sulfur rich coal quickly.
We know painting stuff white makes it reflect more energy.
We know that alga eats a lot of carbon and sinks. We also know that alga is always limited by a few trace elements it can’t get enough of.
None of this stuff is new. All of it is going to cost a fortune every single year. Presumably if somehow someway painting stuff white made things go crazy we would stop spending tax dollars on it.
We know what we need to do (stop using fossil fuels for starters), but corporations and governments won’t do it, so yeah, we’re probably pretty screwed.
Agreed. Hell, when we decided that the global shipping industry should not use the dirtiest fuel possible, the lack of sulfur oxide being emitted raised the ocean temperature quite a bit almost immediately. There are things we can do that will have the same effect without the massive negative consequences that sulfur oxide carries.
Well they are allowed to use it they just have to use scrubbers and even then it is the conditions of the water and how close too shore. It was to stop acid rain.
Also consider climate cycles such as ice ages. Imagine a coalition finds a wildy successful heat reduction strategy and it impacts well beyond what was anticipated? How would things go if we accelerrated glaciation down to the gulf of Mexico? The Earth’s wobble and axial tilt are part of this process over incredible periods of time… CFC’s and the ozone are a good example of rapid and unanticipated results of human inputs. No easy answer even with stakes as high as they appear.
I’m not arguing to do nothing, just attempting some clarity on the broader strokes of the issues. Much of our understandings of natural processes are still immature and incomplete - appreciating that fact should be a guiding principle for any near-to-hand actions.
I have a real issue with this.
We have been (detrimentally) geoengineering the climate for centuries by pumping out co2 and that has been done by nations wherever and whenever they have wanted.
If a country wants to start a program of beneficial geoengineering why should that be stopped?
It might backfire and cause more problems.
Excuse my ignorance but with the way things are going. It’s doesn’t look like we have much to lose.
Do you remember hearing about Tambora, Krakatoa and their global effects? Do you remember ozone crisis? How we found out about the severity of the impact lead had on people? Acid rain? Nuclear winter?
Effective and thus extensive geoengineering requires an understanding of biogeochemical processes that we don’t have.
Well we didn’t solve those by doing nothing. And given how unwilling we seem to be in reducing our footprint. I’d say this is our only viable way.
The only way is endangering food supply and if we stop we might have hyper climate change?
Nuclear winter didn’t happen and the jury is out of it could happen that way. Everyone knew lead was bad but the thought was because it was heavier than air the dust would settle quickly, tests in real life conditions showed that it didn’t. The ozone thing yeah give you that.
But we HAVE so much to loose. At the moment, even a worse case scenario is one when earth goes on and adapts. Even humans would likely survive. And it’s not even decided we’ll get that.
But as proven time and time again by the shitty predictions we are getting, we don’t have anything close to a true understanding of the systems in which we live.
So on top of that, you’d prefer a single nation, most likely with economic interests well active in their decision making, to try and forcefully modify the system we don’t really understand?
Count me out.
I would love to live in a world where a few powerful nation did have such influnce that their economic interests didn’t screw over the world. But i was born in a world like that.
What makes you think this? Do you have a source for this? I am genuinely curious here.
Because we could eat phytoplankton and moss which could take care of oxygen production. We couldn’t swim in the oceans or spend much time outside but we create digital fake worlds for ourselves.
Humans are unfortunately and fortunately very scrappy inventive creatures that a lot would have to happen to completely wipe us out. It’s not to say the future wouldn’t be miserable and unlike anything we currently know but the will to keep on living is very strong on average.
It’s unlikely and pretty hard to get a runaway Venus effect on earth but not impossible, but it would be likely to restabilize at some point and life would go on. It takes a lot of effort to sterilize a planet even if not nearly as much to fuck with its balance.
How? All the ideas that are being looked at come from natural cycles that are being exploited. No one is talking about releasing some chemical that no one understands up there they are talking about causing algae blooms, inducing acid rain in the middle of the oceans, and painting stuff white. This isn’t cutting edge. Also it isn’t a one and done deal, it will require constant infusing of cash.
We know that sulfur and dust in the area lowers temperatures. The experiment has been run before. Look at average temperatures and see what happens around the WW2 era where steel has to be made using cheap dirty sulfur rich coal quickly.
We know painting stuff white makes it reflect more energy.
We know that alga eats a lot of carbon and sinks. We also know that alga is always limited by a few trace elements it can’t get enough of.
None of this stuff is new. All of it is going to cost a fortune every single year. Presumably if somehow someway painting stuff white made things go crazy we would stop spending tax dollars on it.
Because we don’t know wtf we’re doing when it comes to geoengineering?
You are right, best do nothing as we slowly die.
We know what we need to do (stop using fossil fuels for starters), but corporations and governments won’t do it, so yeah, we’re probably pretty screwed.
Agreed. Hell, when we decided that the global shipping industry should not use the dirtiest fuel possible, the lack of sulfur oxide being emitted raised the ocean temperature quite a bit almost immediately. There are things we can do that will have the same effect without the massive negative consequences that sulfur oxide carries.
Well they are allowed to use it they just have to use scrubbers and even then it is the conditions of the water and how close too shore. It was to stop acid rain.
Also consider climate cycles such as ice ages. Imagine a coalition finds a wildy successful heat reduction strategy and it impacts well beyond what was anticipated? How would things go if we accelerrated glaciation down to the gulf of Mexico? The Earth’s wobble and axial tilt are part of this process over incredible periods of time… CFC’s and the ozone are a good example of rapid and unanticipated results of human inputs. No easy answer even with stakes as high as they appear.
Do we know what will happen if do nothing?
I’m not arguing to do nothing, just attempting some clarity on the broader strokes of the issues. Much of our understandings of natural processes are still immature and incomplete - appreciating that fact should be a guiding principle for any near-to-hand actions.
Luckily, we’re experts at rising the temperature. If we accidentally bring in the next ice age early, it’s back to coal.
Well except we burned a shit ton of it already and could struggle to burn enough without seeding thicker clouds thus making the glaciation worse.
Part of the problem is cloud coverage acts as a reflector and if you get enough of it how do you get clear skies again? To stop it?