3 ms·

Yeah. Which is why things like this (limiting sunlight so greenhouse effects are mitigated) mixed with a push to 100% clean energy and carbon capture (both via

by CM30 4y ago

Yeah. Which is why things like this (limiting sunlight so greenhouse effects are mitigated) mixed with a push to 100% clean energy and carbon capture (both via trees and technology) are probably the way forward. You might get away with pushing to limit non reusable resources if companies were the targeted party though (so instead of asking people to recycle or reuse, governments outright demaded corporations stop providing as much disposable packaging).

candiodari 4y ago
And what happens when one realizes that limiting sunlight, of course, is an incredible weapon against your adversaries. Or, god forbid, ampliflying sunlight? And then, when the inevitable happens and it moves from theory to "you know ... actually ... our atellite could actually do that" and then to actually doing it against that really-evil-dude-that-totally-deserves-it du jour? Or we do it first to lessen the economic impact of a cold not-very-well-oiled winter in Europe? Plus, I'd like to point out that even when it goes perfectly smoothly, ironically, fixing climate change will make many climate change effects worse. For instance, currently meltwater is helping offset the draught in California (and in the nearly-1-billion-people Indus valley, and a hundred less important valleys). If we slow down climate change that meltwater contribution stops, today, almost entirely. The same with many other effects. For instance the greening of the Sahara will stop, we will not only see less extreme weather, but less rainfall ... everywhere. And that will do a lot to prevent the countries from growing.
- awb 4y ago
  Any technology can be weaponized. Nukes seem to be a very strong deterrent against excessive overt aggression.
mrtnmcc 4y ago
Wouldn't these sunshade concepts all reduce solar energy available to plants as well as total thermal radiation?
- splitstud 4y ago
- nashashmi 4y ago
  This is studied as global dimming. And the effects are bad. Global dimming is happening even now but contradicts the global warming narrative for some reason. In reality, global dimming is worse than global warming. Much of the co2 is absorbed by the ocean planktons powered by sunlight. There are other ramifications too.
  - mrtnmcc 4y ago
    Exactly, that seems underappreciated. It seems you'd want to block infrared where most of the thermal energy is transferred, while letting the shorter wavelengths through for plants/plankton.

by CM30 4y ago

candiodari 4y ago

And what happens when one realizes that limiting sunlight, of course, is an incredible weapon against your adversaries. Or, god forbid, ampliflying sunlight? And then, when the inevitable happens and it moves from theory to "you know ... actually ... our atellite could actually do that" and then to actually doing it against that really-evil-dude-that-totally-deserves-it du jour? Or we do it first to lessen the economic impact of a cold not-very-well-oiled winter in Europe? Plus, I'd like to point out that even when it goes perfectly smoothly, ironically, fixing climate change will make many climate change effects worse. For instance, currently meltwater is helping offset the draught in California (and in the nearly-1-billion-people Indus valley, and a hundred less important valleys). If we slow down climate change that meltwater contribution stops, today, almost entirely. The same with many other effects. For instance the greening of the Sahara will stop, we will not only see less extreme weather, but less rainfall ... everywhere. And that will do a lot to prevent the countries from growing.

awb 4y ago
Any technology can be weaponized. Nukes seem to be a very strong deterrent against excessive overt aggression.

mrtnmcc 4y ago

Wouldn't these sunshade concepts all reduce solar energy available to plants as well as total thermal radiation?

splitstud 4y ago
nashashmi 4y ago
This is studied as global dimming. And the effects are bad. Global dimming is happening even now but contradicts the global warming narrative for some reason. In reality, global dimming is worse than global warming. Much of the co2 is absorbed by the ocean planktons powered by sunlight. There are other ramifications too.
- mrtnmcc 4y ago
  Exactly, that seems underappreciated. It seems you'd want to block infrared where most of the thermal energy is transferred, while letting the shorter wavelengths through for plants/plankton.