64
submitted 1 week ago by silence7 to c/climate

It's rather alarming that this is being done without public modeling to make sure that they're not creating losers from the change in rainfall distribution patterns and such.

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 16 points 1 week ago

That's a pretty good article considering it's the NYT, who proudly accepts direct fossil fuel blood money on the regular and even produces pro-fossil advertorial content. I wonder if anyone posting on this thread will have actually read it? It's not advocating for the tech at all. Almost everything in there is people saying it's a terrible, dangerous idea.

The reality is, this tech is going to happen. There will be countries that deploy it to try and produce cooling effects for themselves. China is ALREADY doing similar things. Better to do the research on it than pretend it doesn't exist and wait for magical space faeries are going to come down and sing a song that sparks a global moment of kumbaya. Especially since the most likely outcome of research on the tech is going to be the conclusion that it is not a viable mitigation strategy at any useful scale. Because of course it is. Even though we know it's possible to modify atmospheric reflectivity to create cooling effects, it's obviously a maddening act of hubris to think it ever could go smoothly.

[-] Greyghoster@aussie.zone 5 points 1 week ago

Is a radical idea that has insufficient study to give us confidence that it will work as intended. Research is necessary.

Certainly the major effort behind this as a solution is the fossil fuels industry as it smacks of a tech solution that deflects from the fact that we aren’t focused on rapidly reducing greenhouse emissions. There is a lot of these and the underlying problem is that CO2 pollution is continuing unabated. Greenwashing until emissions reduce.

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

If it turns out sun shielding can be used to create winners and losers, it will quickly be done on purpose. We humans are unwise in the presence of weaponry.

[-] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

"Build more shit, that'll help!"

Maybe try building less for. achange and see what happens. Turn down production 20% for a couple months will ya?

[-] drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 week ago

Anything but solutions

[-] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

I'd rather we all reduce our client emissions. Still seems prudent to look into alternatives even if they're crazy.

this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2024
64 points (91.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

4281 readers
700 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS