4 ms·

Can we please start the geoengineering R&D work now? Let's not have those positive feedback loops start spiralling out of control.

tsimionescu 5y ago
No. That is by far the most dangerous option, at least as likely to make the problems worse as it is to help at all. Geoengineering is absolutely to be discarded in these discussions. Technology will kot save us this time.
- civilian 5y ago
  hmmm. Everything has a trade-off, including of risk. I think your blanket statement against geoengineering has got to be wrong. Geoengineering is a broad category, and it'd probably be better if we split it into specific strategies. Why are olivine beaches at least as likely to make the problem worse? Why is injecting Sulfur dioxide in the upper atmosphere at least as likely to make the problem worse? Why are shade satellites at least as likely to make the problem worse? Are the risks associated with these strategies really worse than 2.7+ C of global warming?
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    Olivine beaches: unknown impact of this mineral in large quantities on local life, plankton, general ocean life. Since ocean life is a major component of climate (through the vast amount of carbon sequestered), this could have unpredictable consequences. Probably one of the less crazy options. Sulfur dioxide in the upper atmosphere: unknown impact on ozone layer. Unknown possible chemistry in high radiation environment. Unknown effect on weather patterns. Unknown chance to fall back down to earth. Reductions of incoming solar radiation have unknown effects on all ecosystems on the planet. Extremely dangerous to try. Shade satellites: similar concerns as above, except for ozone layer, chemical reactions, risk of raining down. Production of the huge number of satellites needed to matter has risky environmental costs. Huge number of objects in orbit will greatly accelerate orbital collisions, may destroy the constellation before it has any real effect. The risks are currently inestimable, while the risk of 2.7C is at least understood. On the other hand, reducing carbon emissions is doable, and has little risk of negatively impacting the environment. It's the right solution, and any time wasted by delaying it with promises of Geoengineering is criminal.
    - dr_dshiv 5y ago
      > any time wasted by delaying it with promises of Geoengineering is criminal. We know a lot about sulfur dioxide in the upper atmosphere, because volcanos. We should really try all these things at a small scale, with science and R&D, so we can learn and reduce the unknowns. It isn't extremely dangerous. For instance, the best geoengineering is cloud creation (marine cloud brightening) which literally just involves lofting seasalt into the lower atmosphere. Why not? "Technology caused the problem, so it can't solve it", that sort of thing?
civilian 5y ago
shade satellites, let's go! also, olivine beaches.
jobigoud 5y ago
Who's funding? What's the business model? How do we convince people that we need to experiment directly on the live system even though we don't really know what we are doing? It feels too big and without tangible ROI for private companies, too long term for politics, too hard for governments to justify the shot in the dark.
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  1. Funding: NSF? Hell, how about DARPA. It isn't big money. It's a few science grants of $10 million, which, let's be honest, is pocket change compared to coastal flooding. 2. Business model: government contracting. Or carbon credits, eventually. 3. How to convince people: Good question. Probably by doing it small scale and getting convincing scientific evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that Stratospheric aerosol injection "is the most-researched SRM method, with high agreement that it could limit warming to below 1.5°C." People might not believe the IPCC, but with more empirical evidence they might. Tangible ROI: avoiding rapid climate change and enabling companies to transition out of fossil fuels. It's happening, we just need another couple decades. It isn't a shot in the dark, it is building on a scientific legacy. This isn't crazy business. It's science and engineering.
- kergonath 5y ago
  > How do we convince people that we need to experiment directly on the live system even though we don't really know what we are doing? This. All these “geoengineering now!” pleas are infuriating. It’s like a programmer’s simplistic solution to a complex problem, except that we don’t get to roll back a dodgy patch. We already have tools to avoid the worst if we wanted to, and waiting 20 years for the next technological breakthrough is dangerously stupid, particularly considering how little we know about how the biosphere works in general and the likelihood to fuck it up.
  - dr_dshiv 5y ago
    Have you read any scientific articles on this topic? This is the WHOLE earth we are talking about. Lofting a few hundred pounds of salt or sulfur to conduct research isn't going to "fuck it up." It's going to help us "know about how the biosphere works" If we learn that doesn't make sense to do it, we shouldn't do it. But we shouldn't ban the science and sit on our hands, waiting for people to stop having children (children are far and away the biggest contributor).

tsimionescu 5y ago

No. That is by far the most dangerous option, at least as likely to make the problems worse as it is to help at all. Geoengineering is absolutely to be discarded in these discussions. Technology will kot save us this time.

civilian 5y ago
hmmm. Everything has a trade-off, including of risk. I think your blanket statement against geoengineering has got to be wrong. Geoengineering is a broad category, and it'd probably be better if we split it into specific strategies. Why are olivine beaches at least as likely to make the problem worse? Why is injecting Sulfur dioxide in the upper atmosphere at least as likely to make the problem worse? Why are shade satellites at least as likely to make the problem worse? Are the risks associated with these strategies really worse than 2.7+ C of global warming?
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  Olivine beaches: unknown impact of this mineral in large quantities on local life, plankton, general ocean life. Since ocean life is a major component of climate (through the vast amount of carbon sequestered), this could have unpredictable consequences. Probably one of the less crazy options. Sulfur dioxide in the upper atmosphere: unknown impact on ozone layer. Unknown possible chemistry in high radiation environment. Unknown effect on weather patterns. Unknown chance to fall back down to earth. Reductions of incoming solar radiation have unknown effects on all ecosystems on the planet. Extremely dangerous to try. Shade satellites: similar concerns as above, except for ozone layer, chemical reactions, risk of raining down. Production of the huge number of satellites needed to matter has risky environmental costs. Huge number of objects in orbit will greatly accelerate orbital collisions, may destroy the constellation before it has any real effect. The risks are currently inestimable, while the risk of 2.7C is at least understood. On the other hand, reducing carbon emissions is doable, and has little risk of negatively impacting the environment. It's the right solution, and any time wasted by delaying it with promises of Geoengineering is criminal.
  - dr_dshiv 5y ago
    > any time wasted by delaying it with promises of Geoengineering is criminal. We know a lot about sulfur dioxide in the upper atmosphere, because volcanos. We should really try all these things at a small scale, with science and R&D, so we can learn and reduce the unknowns. It isn't extremely dangerous. For instance, the best geoengineering is cloud creation (marine cloud brightening) which literally just involves lofting seasalt into the lower atmosphere. Why not? "Technology caused the problem, so it can't solve it", that sort of thing?

civilian 5y ago

shade satellites, let's go! also, olivine beaches.

jobigoud 5y ago

Who's funding? What's the business model? How do we convince people that we need to experiment directly on the live system even though we don't really know what we are doing? It feels too big and without tangible ROI for private companies, too long term for politics, too hard for governments to justify the shot in the dark.

dr_dshiv 5y ago
1. Funding: NSF? Hell, how about DARPA. It isn't big money. It's a few science grants of $10 million, which, let's be honest, is pocket change compared to coastal flooding. 2. Business model: government contracting. Or carbon credits, eventually. 3. How to convince people: Good question. Probably by doing it small scale and getting convincing scientific evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that Stratospheric aerosol injection "is the most-researched SRM method, with high agreement that it could limit warming to below 1.5°C." People might not believe the IPCC, but with more empirical evidence they might. Tangible ROI: avoiding rapid climate change and enabling companies to transition out of fossil fuels. It's happening, we just need another couple decades. It isn't a shot in the dark, it is building on a scientific legacy. This isn't crazy business. It's science and engineering.
kergonath 5y ago
> How do we convince people that we need to experiment directly on the live system even though we don't really know what we are doing? This. All these “geoengineering now!” pleas are infuriating. It’s like a programmer’s simplistic solution to a complex problem, except that we don’t get to roll back a dodgy patch. We already have tools to avoid the worst if we wanted to, and waiting 20 years for the next technological breakthrough is dangerously stupid, particularly considering how little we know about how the biosphere works in general and the likelihood to fuck it up.
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  Have you read any scientific articles on this topic? This is the WHOLE earth we are talking about. Lofting a few hundred pounds of salt or sulfur to conduct research isn't going to "fuck it up." It's going to help us "know about how the biosphere works" If we learn that doesn't make sense to do it, we shouldn't do it. But we shouldn't ban the science and sit on our hands, waiting for people to stop having children (children are far and away the biggest contributor).