3 ms·

This is indeed wildly stupid, but it’s stated as a form of activism. And there are many benefits that have been explored in the modelling community that are lo

This is indeed wildly stupid, but it’s stated as a form of activism. And there are many benefits that have been explored in the modelling community that are local and produce direct benefits to humans. Local reduction of the solar radiation above Greenland or Antarctic areas could reduce ice melt, or above cities during the hottest days of the year to counter the heat island effect. Then there’s large parts of the ocean that we could reduce to lower tyfoon strength. just to name a few. The question is always when-where-by how much, and how wide spread. There are obvious questions of drift because of climate and weather, of the clouds but I’m not an expert in these kind of systems. ideally this sulfer(compound) has a lifetime of just 24 hours and can be locally distributed, appropriately monitored, and has no other detrimental effects on the environment. This might just be one of the things we need in our tool box.

sennight 4y ago
> The question is always when-where-by how much.. Maybe the question should be "if". Despite the years of research, trillions of dollars, and multiple world ranked supercomputers dedicated to the task - climatologists still can't reliably predict anything from their models. I don't know that the accepted excuse is for it (though I suspect it is just never discussed), but I know that when my models fail - it is because I didn't sufficiently understand the system being modeled. The day these people can accurately predict global atmospheric conditions a year out, that is the day that we can begin discussing the sanity of geoengineering. Until then it is obviously insane. Also, the selling of "cooling credits"... obvious psychotic-money-grab is obvious.