• Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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?

      • Fat Tony@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Excuse my ignorance but with the way things are going. It’s doesn’t look like we have much to lose.

        • 768@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Fat Tony@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

            • 768@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The only way is endangering food supply and if we stop we might have hyper climate change?

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

        • Evehn@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • joel_feila@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

          • Fat Tony@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Krauerking@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • Kaliax@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • Kaliax@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

      • deafboy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Luckily, we’re experts at rising the temperature. If we accidentally bring in the next ice age early, it’s back to coal.

        • Krauerking@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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?

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.