3 ms·

Can you explain what the solution is ? Is there even a geoengineering solution that is feasible? I’m imagining sulphates being something to do with it, but I

Can you explain what the solution is ? Is there even a geoengineering solution that is feasible? I’m imagining sulphates being something to do with it, but I really have no idea if this is practical etc.

VaxWithSex 4y ago
Switch to renewables and storage for energy production, switch over everything to electric, making it more efficient. Then let the natural systems deal with the remaining excess carbon how they deal with volcanic co2.
- bamboozled 4y ago
  Do the natural systems keep working though ? Once we’ve ruined everything? Do you mean rock weathering etc ?
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
The ipcc reports cover solar-radiation-modification/management and geoengineering generally along with mitigation and adaptation. Currently they say if we don't move to renewables, carbon fees etc. faster then we'll need to do some of this. But it would be cheaper to avoid it as much as we can: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-4/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-4/ Their summary on solar-radiation-modification is: > Uncertainties surrounding solar radiation modification (SRM) measures constrain their potential deployment. These uncertainties include: technological immaturity; limited physical understanding about their effectiveness to limit global warming; and a weak capacity to govern, legitimize, and scale such measures. Some recent model-based analysis suggests SRM would be effective but that it is too early to evaluate its feasibility. Even in the uncertain case that the most adverse side-effects of SRM can be avoided, public resistance, ethical concerns and potential impacts on sustainable development could render SRM economically, socially and institutionally undesirable (low agreement, medium evidence)
SturgeonsLaw 4y ago
> I’m imagining sulphates being something to do with it In a roundabout way they do. Back in the 70s-90s, sulphates were being pumped into the atmosphere in huge amounts due to fossil fuel combustion and other industrial processes. This was reacting with atmospheric water to produce hydrogen sulphate, otherwise known as sulphuric acid, which caused acid rain. The fix was not some grand geoengineering scheme, rather it was to implement a cap and trade system, much like what has been proposed for CO2. The result is that SOx emissions dropped precipitously, thus acid rain in the United States is a thing of the past. That's the real solution. To limit CO2 emissions. We know this, the world knows this, the people making money off the fossil fuel industry know this, the politicians they own know this. Yet here we are talking about spraying more shit into the air we breath because that's the easiest option that doesn't disrupt profit or inconvenience anyone.
- candiodari 4y ago
  Except of course that things are becoming ever more problematic in the natural cycle as well. The water supply in the Indus Valley, for example, does not support even 10% of the people living there. This issue will turn critical (ironically it will turn critical faster if global warming stops) in the next 100 years, maybe faster. They'll run out of water to grow crops, and they're sure as hell not going to be importing much food. Oh and if you're hoping for a political solution. 95% or so of Bangladesh lies in the Indus valley. You'll have to explain to 150 million people, first, that they'll all have to move and that they'll no longer have any political power at all, anywhere. The country will, essentially, die. Oh and the only places they can move are India, hostile to muslims and muslim immigration, and perhaps Myanmar, who let armies massacring and raping muslims run wild for a few years ... Good luck convincing them not having global warming is a good idea. Once the issue moves toward criticality, Good luck convincing them not to start a war ... WITH global warming, it's ~70 years before the issue becomes critical, without, perhaps 15. We need to take active control of the climate. It's not a choice, it's a necessity. One thing I find funny is that when you look at the issue globally, I think the best solution is, well definitely not cooling (and just as warming is totally unavoidable now, a cooling cycle will start perhaps as early as 2200. That will rapidly become a lot worse than global warming is now). Perhaps something like 0.5 degrees per century from this point forward. What we actually want is to slow and extend global warming for at least a few hundred more years.

VaxWithSex 4y ago

Switch to renewables and storage for energy production, switch over everything to electric, making it more efficient. Then let the natural systems deal with the remaining excess carbon how they deal with volcanic co2.

bamboozled 4y ago
Do the natural systems keep working though ? Once we’ve ruined everything? Do you mean rock weathering etc ?

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

The ipcc reports cover solar-radiation-modification/management and geoengineering generally along with mitigation and adaptation. Currently they say if we don't move to renewables, carbon fees etc. faster then we'll need to do some of this. But it would be cheaper to avoid it as much as we can: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-4/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-4/ Their summary on solar-radiation-modification is: > Uncertainties surrounding solar radiation modification (SRM) measures constrain their potential deployment. These uncertainties include: technological immaturity; limited physical understanding about their effectiveness to limit global warming; and a weak capacity to govern, legitimize, and scale such measures. Some recent model-based analysis suggests SRM would be effective but that it is too early to evaluate its feasibility. Even in the uncertain case that the most adverse side-effects of SRM can be avoided, public resistance, ethical concerns and potential impacts on sustainable development could render SRM economically, socially and institutionally undesirable (low agreement, medium evidence)

SturgeonsLaw 4y ago

> I’m imagining sulphates being something to do with it In a roundabout way they do. Back in the 70s-90s, sulphates were being pumped into the atmosphere in huge amounts due to fossil fuel combustion and other industrial processes. This was reacting with atmospheric water to produce hydrogen sulphate, otherwise known as sulphuric acid, which caused acid rain. The fix was not some grand geoengineering scheme, rather it was to implement a cap and trade system, much like what has been proposed for CO2. The result is that SOx emissions dropped precipitously, thus acid rain in the United States is a thing of the past. That's the real solution. To limit CO2 emissions. We know this, the world knows this, the people making money off the fossil fuel industry know this, the politicians they own know this. Yet here we are talking about spraying more shit into the air we breath because that's the easiest option that doesn't disrupt profit or inconvenience anyone.

candiodari 4y ago
Except of course that things are becoming ever more problematic in the natural cycle as well. The water supply in the Indus Valley, for example, does not support even 10% of the people living there. This issue will turn critical (ironically it will turn critical faster if global warming stops) in the next 100 years, maybe faster. They'll run out of water to grow crops, and they're sure as hell not going to be importing much food. Oh and if you're hoping for a political solution. 95% or so of Bangladesh lies in the Indus valley. You'll have to explain to 150 million people, first, that they'll all have to move and that they'll no longer have any political power at all, anywhere. The country will, essentially, die. Oh and the only places they can move are India, hostile to muslims and muslim immigration, and perhaps Myanmar, who let armies massacring and raping muslims run wild for a few years ... Good luck convincing them not having global warming is a good idea. Once the issue moves toward criticality, Good luck convincing them not to start a war ... WITH global warming, it's ~70 years before the issue becomes critical, without, perhaps 15. We need to take active control of the climate. It's not a choice, it's a necessity. One thing I find funny is that when you look at the issue globally, I think the best solution is, well definitely not cooling (and just as warming is totally unavoidable now, a cooling cycle will start perhaps as early as 2200. That will rapidly become a lot worse than global warming is now). Perhaps something like 0.5 degrees per century from this point forward. What we actually want is to slow and extend global warming for at least a few hundred more years.