3 ms·

Exactly. Stratospheric aerosol injections are ready to roll today. They're extremely well understood because we have so many historical records of natural volca

Exactly. Stratospheric aerosol injections are ready to roll today. They're extremely well understood because we have so many historical records of natural volcano eruptions lowering global temperatures. The technology is already mature. The cost is dirt cheap. On the order of $10 billion/year to completely neutralize all warming since the industrial revolution. Are stratospheric aerosols perfect? No, of course not. There's still peripheral issues associated with ocean acidification. It's also not a permanent solution, since the aerosols have to be refreshed every year. But the tech solves 90%+ of the issues with climate change instantly. It also requires no global coordination that's been the perennial issue with emissions reductions. It's cheap enough that even a mid-sized military could unilaterally undertake it. There's absolutely zero reason that we shouldn't start a pilot program today. Start testing at small doses equivalent to 0.1 C temperature reduction, then scale up quickly over the next 10 years.

qayxc 5y ago
> There's absolutely zero reason that we shouldn't start a pilot program today. Famous last words? It's funny how armchair climatologists claim to know the solutions for problems that aren't even fully understood...
- thereddaikon 5y ago
  While actual climatologists advocate for programs that require an unprecedented level of societal and governmental cooperation? Seems to me a partially proven out technology technology that can be done unilaterally is more feasible than a a cooperative initiate that to this point has zero success. Hell, China has slid back on CFC's, something that was supposed to be solved in the 80's. International cooperation is a pipe dream. Global politics are zero sum game and always will be.
lozenge 5y ago
"90%+ of the issues with climate change instantly" Reducing the global warming (average global temperature) isn't the same as solving climate change. The stratospheric aerosols will affect regions differently and in uncertain ways, just like global warming itself. You also still have the rest of the climate change to deal with, such as ocean acidification, and any other effects of CO2.
Workaccount2 5y ago
I totally support spraying, but I also am scared that it will be like giving a heroin addict a narcan autoinjector on the condition that they stop using heroin.
arbitrary_name 5y ago
Arguments like this are utterly hilarious to me. After decades of 'oh whoops, this new compound we created has enormous unknown consequences, how could we have known' we should just accept that technology is going to get us out of this mess? Count me out, i will fight geo-engineering tooth and nail. It is not a viable choice, its just the choice that doesn't require any hard decisions or changes.
- radu_floricica 5y ago
  You know, this is why people keep saying climate change is a religion. A solution can't be just effective, it also has to be _right_. You can't even play with geoengineering because it's sacrilege. We have to abase ourselves and pay the sacrificial price in order to be clean and worthy again. Every practical solution is rejected out of hand. Carbon capture? Nah. Nuclear power? Dirty. Simply doing the math and trying to be efficient in what we cut? Racist. Suggesting it might not be all bad? Straight out sacrilege.
  - arbitrary_name 5y ago
    I actually support nuclear, oddly enough. And I'm not arguing anything out of hand. I would posit that the only rational position to take, when the situation has relentlessly worsened over generations, is to be suspicious of large scale environmental interference. It genuinely requires religious faith to believe that geo-engineering would be successful without significant consequences. You position myself and others taking my position as religious zealots, but tell me: why is it so upsetting to you that i might question technology's ability to save us? And why would it upset you so much, that i might not consider humanity in its current state, to be worth saving if it meant risking the global ecosystem? Humanism is a sick cult, and technologism even more so. Both will destroy us and the planet we live on.
    - radu_floricica 5y ago
      > Humanism is a sick cult, and technologism even more so. Both will destroy us and the planet we live on. QED :) Can't have a proper religion without an outgroup to hate on.

qayxc 5y ago

> There's absolutely zero reason that we shouldn't start a pilot program today. Famous last words? It's funny how armchair climatologists claim to know the solutions for problems that aren't even fully understood...

thereddaikon 5y ago
While actual climatologists advocate for programs that require an unprecedented level of societal and governmental cooperation? Seems to me a partially proven out technology technology that can be done unilaterally is more feasible than a a cooperative initiate that to this point has zero success. Hell, China has slid back on CFC's, something that was supposed to be solved in the 80's. International cooperation is a pipe dream. Global politics are zero sum game and always will be.

lozenge 5y ago

"90%+ of the issues with climate change instantly" Reducing the global warming (average global temperature) isn't the same as solving climate change. The stratospheric aerosols will affect regions differently and in uncertain ways, just like global warming itself. You also still have the rest of the climate change to deal with, such as ocean acidification, and any other effects of CO2.

Workaccount2 5y ago

I totally support spraying, but I also am scared that it will be like giving a heroin addict a narcan autoinjector on the condition that they stop using heroin.

arbitrary_name 5y ago

Arguments like this are utterly hilarious to me. After decades of 'oh whoops, this new compound we created has enormous unknown consequences, how could we have known' we should just accept that technology is going to get us out of this mess? Count me out, i will fight geo-engineering tooth and nail. It is not a viable choice, its just the choice that doesn't require any hard decisions or changes.

radu_floricica 5y ago
You know, this is why people keep saying climate change is a religion. A solution can't be just effective, it also has to be _right_. You can't even play with geoengineering because it's sacrilege. We have to abase ourselves and pay the sacrificial price in order to be clean and worthy again. Every practical solution is rejected out of hand. Carbon capture? Nah. Nuclear power? Dirty. Simply doing the math and trying to be efficient in what we cut? Racist. Suggesting it might not be all bad? Straight out sacrilege.
- arbitrary_name 5y ago
  I actually support nuclear, oddly enough. And I'm not arguing anything out of hand. I would posit that the only rational position to take, when the situation has relentlessly worsened over generations, is to be suspicious of large scale environmental interference. It genuinely requires religious faith to believe that geo-engineering would be successful without significant consequences. You position myself and others taking my position as religious zealots, but tell me: why is it so upsetting to you that i might question technology's ability to save us? And why would it upset you so much, that i might not consider humanity in its current state, to be worth saving if it meant risking the global ecosystem? Humanism is a sick cult, and technologism even more so. Both will destroy us and the planet we live on.
  - radu_floricica 5y ago
    > Humanism is a sick cult, and technologism even more so. Both will destroy us and the planet we live on. QED :) Can't have a proper religion without an outgroup to hate on.