3 ms·

We could end warming tomorrow, but emissions will take some time.

by leesec 3y ago

surfmike 3y ago
Isn’t it the other way around?
toss1 3y ago
ummm, seems you have that backwards? We could, in theory and with massive disruption, end emissions tomorrow. But even if we did, warming would continue for some time as the baked-in increases from the already high-levels of greenhouse gasses continued heating the planet (and this assumes that we haven't already triggered a tipping point such as melting permafrost releasing more gigatons of methane, further exacerbating warming). Or, do you have some plan to eliminate warming instantly?
- abeppu 3y ago
  IDK about "tomorrow" but I think they mean something on the spectrum of non-emissions-reductions geoengineering interventions that ranges from seawater-pumping to create clouds for albedo increases to stratospheric sulfur to intentional algal blooms for carbon capture, etc. I don't think they're achievable _immediately_, but I think there are reasons to believe that we could make rapid progress there (in _addition_ to emission reductions) if we could agree on how to do it without just wrecking the planet in a new and creative way.
  - toss1 3y ago
    >>how to do it without just wrecking the planet in a new and creative way YUP. That is kind of the issue. Among the geoengineering ideas, the only one that seems to be at least reasonably reversible and tunable would be solar shields orbiting or at L1. Even that, the feedback loops are long. Overshooting/undershooting could easily get into the wrecking-and-not-recovering zone. Likely the only sure thing is C02/Methane capture, at massive scale, which currently would burn insane amounts of energy
    - abeppu 3y ago
      I dunno, I think intentional geo-engineering shouldn't have to hold itself to a higher standard of caution than everyone else on the planet. When this past summer, we saw record high ocean surface temps b/c container ships had cut back on their sulfur emissions and produced less artificial cloud cover, that highlighted to me that we're _already_ doing these things, but we hold ourselves to a much higher standard if doing it intentionally than if doing it on accident. Somehow a shipping companies does it on accident for decades that's not so scary, but if a group wants to do it intentionally (say, with seawater so it doesn't produce acid rain), that's irresponsible. There's a spectrum of how controllable these things are (how large a region do you impact? how long does the effect persist after you shut your operation down?), and there are things at the more local / shorter-lived end of the spectrum that I think we should be trying. Are they a "sure thing"? No, not absolutely. But billions of us are pumping carbon into the air and nitrogen runoff into rivers and plastic absolutely everywhere. We're already gambling, but we gotta start picking better things to bet on.
FeepingCreature 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injectio... Correct.
- worik 3y ago
  What could possibly go wrong?
  - kagakuninja 3y ago
    That's how we get Highlander 2 and the Shield Corporation.
    - blooalien 3y ago
      Hey, why not? We're already fighting to make "Mad Max", "The Matrix", and "Terminator" into reality. What's one or two (dozen) more dystopian / apocalyptic movies made real? Might as well, since it's clear that our "leaders" intend the death of all living things in the quest for infinite profits. Feels like our planet's leadership has been infiltrated by "Star Trek" Ferengi.
  - leesec 3y ago
    What could possibly go wrong if we stay on our current course of action? If you need 100% certainty you'll never do anything and just die by default.
- culi 3y ago
  Famines, droughts, hurricanes. https://www.carbonbrief.org/unregulated-solar-geoengineering-could-spark-droughts-and-hurricanes-study-warns/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/unregulated-solar-geoengineering... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeRcFe9VM5o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeRcFe9VM5o
  - FeepingCreature 3y ago
    As opposed to global warming?
leesec 3y ago
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2023/06/06/we-should-not-let-the-earth-overheat/ https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2023/06/06/we-should-not-... Some reading.
- RetroTechie 3y ago
  Interesting. And appears to make sense in theory. a) Would need massive upscaling. b) Would it work as theory predicts? (and is there scientific consensus it would?). Do the economics pan out as hoped? Unintended consequences? We don't know. I'd be very hesitant to most geo-engineering plans for these reasons alone. It's a gamble, and we've done enough harmful geo-engineering already. c) Politics. Say 1 country wants to do this. But neighbouring countries do not, and regard it as cross-border pollution. Good luck... Pretty much the only certainty here is available raw materials (rocks to crush, and heaps of 'waste' sulfur).
  - leesec 3y ago
    We know about most unintended consequences because of volcanos. Remember the alternative is letting the planet get to hot to live and everyone dying

We could end warming tomorrow, but emissions will take some time.

by leesec 3y ago

We could end warming tomorrow, but emissions will take some time.

surfmike 3y ago

Isn’t it the other way around?

toss1 3y ago

ummm, seems you have that backwards? We could, in theory and with massive disruption, end emissions tomorrow. But even if we did, warming would continue for some time as the baked-in increases from the already high-levels of greenhouse gasses continued heating the planet (and this assumes that we haven't already triggered a tipping point such as melting permafrost releasing more gigatons of methane, further exacerbating warming). Or, do you have some plan to eliminate warming instantly?

abeppu 3y ago
IDK about "tomorrow" but I think they mean something on the spectrum of non-emissions-reductions geoengineering interventions that ranges from seawater-pumping to create clouds for albedo increases to stratospheric sulfur to intentional algal blooms for carbon capture, etc. I don't think they're achievable _immediately_, but I think there are reasons to believe that we could make rapid progress there (in _addition_ to emission reductions) if we could agree on how to do it without just wrecking the planet in a new and creative way.
- toss1 3y ago
  >>how to do it without just wrecking the planet in a new and creative way YUP. That is kind of the issue. Among the geoengineering ideas, the only one that seems to be at least reasonably reversible and tunable would be solar shields orbiting or at L1. Even that, the feedback loops are long. Overshooting/undershooting could easily get into the wrecking-and-not-recovering zone. Likely the only sure thing is C02/Methane capture, at massive scale, which currently would burn insane amounts of energy
  - abeppu 3y ago
    I dunno, I think intentional geo-engineering shouldn't have to hold itself to a higher standard of caution than everyone else on the planet. When this past summer, we saw record high ocean surface temps b/c container ships had cut back on their sulfur emissions and produced less artificial cloud cover, that highlighted to me that we're _already_ doing these things, but we hold ourselves to a much higher standard if doing it intentionally than if doing it on accident. Somehow a shipping companies does it on accident for decades that's not so scary, but if a group wants to do it intentionally (say, with seawater so it doesn't produce acid rain), that's irresponsible. There's a spectrum of how controllable these things are (how large a region do you impact? how long does the effect persist after you shut your operation down?), and there are things at the more local / shorter-lived end of the spectrum that I think we should be trying. Are they a "sure thing"? No, not absolutely. But billions of us are pumping carbon into the air and nitrogen runoff into rivers and plastic absolutely everywhere. We're already gambling, but we gotta start picking better things to bet on.

FeepingCreature 3y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injectio... Correct.

worik 3y ago
What could possibly go wrong?
- kagakuninja 3y ago
  That's how we get Highlander 2 and the Shield Corporation.
  - blooalien 3y ago
    Hey, why not? We're already fighting to make "Mad Max", "The Matrix", and "Terminator" into reality. What's one or two (dozen) more dystopian / apocalyptic movies made real? Might as well, since it's clear that our "leaders" intend the death of all living things in the quest for infinite profits. Feels like our planet's leadership has been infiltrated by "Star Trek" Ferengi.
- leesec 3y ago
  What could possibly go wrong if we stay on our current course of action? If you need 100% certainty you'll never do anything and just die by default.
culi 3y ago
Famines, droughts, hurricanes. https://www.carbonbrief.org/unregulated-solar-geoengineering-could-spark-droughts-and-hurricanes-study-warns/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/unregulated-solar-geoengineering... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeRcFe9VM5o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeRcFe9VM5o
- FeepingCreature 3y ago
  As opposed to global warming?

leesec 3y ago

https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2023/06/06/we-should-not-let-the-earth-overheat/ https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2023/06/06/we-should-not-... Some reading.

RetroTechie 3y ago
Interesting. And appears to make sense in theory. a) Would need massive upscaling. b) Would it work as theory predicts? (and is there scientific consensus it would?). Do the economics pan out as hoped? Unintended consequences? We don't know. I'd be very hesitant to most geo-engineering plans for these reasons alone. It's a gamble, and we've done enough harmful geo-engineering already. c) Politics. Say 1 country wants to do this. But neighbouring countries do not, and regard it as cross-border pollution. Good luck... Pretty much the only certainty here is available raw materials (rocks to crush, and heaps of 'waste' sulfur).
- leesec 3y ago
  We know about most unintended consequences because of volcanos. Remember the alternative is letting the planet get to hot to live and everyone dying