7 ms·

Yes, they are totally irrelevant with respect to modelling, but my point was that we shouldn't take the future as given as per our models, because it is not. T

Yes, they are totally irrelevant with respect to modelling, but my point was that we shouldn't take the future as given as per our models, because it is not. The IPCC does speak towards SRM etc. but I think large scale geoengineering isn't really part of the proper menu there. So no, the IPCC isn't all covering and all conclusive. EDIT: in the sense that it treats certain things as high risk and rather theoretical - which is true, but doesn't mean they should be off the menu.

esarbe 5y ago
If it really comes to the point where geoengineering becomes a serious consideration we are - in my opinion - already royally fucked sideways. If we cannot even agree on simply cutting fossil fuels, how on earth can we ever agree on large scale geoengineering projects that will have massive negative consequences for many countries involved?
- RandomLensman 5y ago
  Because there is no agreement needed - those who can do might just do.
  - esarbe 5y ago
    So, it's war, then?
    - RandomLensman 5y ago
      I don't see why it would be. Just as it is not war now with respect to pollution and might also not be in the future. Before it is being cited: of course, the defense establishment sees risks of war everywhere, including climate - but that is their business.
      - esarbe 5y ago
        There are already existing tensions and conflicts about resources like water. Some of these do not need much more pushing to escalate into war[0]. Further climatic disruptions will make the already dire situations in many countries untenable. That situations like that do not tend to improve by unilateral actions of their neighbors if the threaten to make a barely acceptable situation even worse. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-first-water-war-is-uncomfortably-close-n9bjctvgn https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-first-water-war-is-un...
    - inkywatcher 5y ago
      What do you suppose will happen when hundreds of millions of people find that their local geography no longer supports human habitation? They will be welcomed into neighboring regions with open arms?
      - esarbe 5y ago
        Of course they will be. That's just what happened during the Syrian civil war; the refugees were welcomed with open arms in Europe, Germany didn't experience any political turmoil that reverberates to this day at all. I guess I'm in a sarcastic mood today. Yes, of course that will cause mayhem. It's one of the reasons I see climate change as such a threat to our all civilization. We're fearsome tribal creatures and the coming waves of desperate peoples will almost certainly play into the hands of nationalist fearmongers and firebrands. I wonder if we will see some kind of -literally - ecofashism rise from that.
      - dane-pgp 5y ago
        Unfortunately, killing hundreds of millions of starving people can be done very easily -- much more easily than solving the underlying problem. The areas that become uninhabitable will then not be able to produce more starving people, so such an atrocity need only be carried out once. The worst part is, once the killing starts, people will rationalise it to themselves, saying "We didn't have a choice".

esarbe 5y ago

If it really comes to the point where geoengineering becomes a serious consideration we are - in my opinion - already royally fucked sideways. If we cannot even agree on simply cutting fossil fuels, how on earth can we ever agree on large scale geoengineering projects that will have massive negative consequences for many countries involved?

RandomLensman 5y ago
Because there is no agreement needed - those who can do might just do.
- esarbe 5y ago
  So, it's war, then?
  - RandomLensman 5y ago
    I don't see why it would be. Just as it is not war now with respect to pollution and might also not be in the future. Before it is being cited: of course, the defense establishment sees risks of war everywhere, including climate - but that is their business.
    - esarbe 5y ago
      There are already existing tensions and conflicts about resources like water. Some of these do not need much more pushing to escalate into war[0]. Further climatic disruptions will make the already dire situations in many countries untenable. That situations like that do not tend to improve by unilateral actions of their neighbors if the threaten to make a barely acceptable situation even worse. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-first-water-war-is-uncomfortably-close-n9bjctvgn https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-first-water-war-is-un...
  - inkywatcher 5y ago
    What do you suppose will happen when hundreds of millions of people find that their local geography no longer supports human habitation? They will be welcomed into neighboring regions with open arms?
    - esarbe 5y ago
      Of course they will be. That's just what happened during the Syrian civil war; the refugees were welcomed with open arms in Europe, Germany didn't experience any political turmoil that reverberates to this day at all. I guess I'm in a sarcastic mood today. Yes, of course that will cause mayhem. It's one of the reasons I see climate change as such a threat to our all civilization. We're fearsome tribal creatures and the coming waves of desperate peoples will almost certainly play into the hands of nationalist fearmongers and firebrands. I wonder if we will see some kind of -literally - ecofashism rise from that.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      Unfortunately, killing hundreds of millions of starving people can be done very easily -- much more easily than solving the underlying problem. The areas that become uninhabitable will then not be able to produce more starving people, so such an atrocity need only be carried out once. The worst part is, once the killing starts, people will rationalise it to themselves, saying "We didn't have a choice".