7 ms·

I guess at some point we will start geoengineering which will either work or kill a lot of people.

by chefkoch 3y ago

polotics 3y ago
Looks like this is already documented: Termination Shock, by Neal Stephenson.
boxed 3y ago
We already do massive geoengineering. That's what all that CO2 is doing! We're just doing it incompetently.
- wsc981 3y ago
  For reference: all that CO2 is equal to about 0.04% of human atmosphere. Of which 3% is from human activity. So 0.0012% of CO2 in atmosphere caused by humans. Nature is responsible for the remaining 0.0388% in atmosphere.
  - chefkoch 3y ago
    That's a bit dishonest as the CO2 level has risen by almost 50% from pre industrial times so you would need a very narrow definition of human activity.
    - wsc981 3y ago
      It's been much lower and higher in the past. In reality, CO2 has little, if any, effect on climate change. Much more impactful are the sun and clouds.
      - chefkoch 3y ago
        Sure, all the climate scientist are wrong and some random guy in the internet knows more.
        wsc981 3y ago
        Actually there are various climate and other scientists who have this position. These scientists usually don't depend on grants and such for research. The thing is, whomever I will link, you will have some accusation that the scientist’s opinion cannot be trusted for whatever reason. So discussion regarding this issue is kinda pointless anyway. Time will proof these scientists opposing the human induced climate change narrative to be correct however. - https://twitter.com/CO2Coalition/status/1755024453174542740 https://twitter.com/CO2Coalition/status/1755024453174542740 - https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1753863552790618203 https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1753863552790618203 - https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1753863954638459008 https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1753863954638459008 - https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1753861517043208485 https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1753861517043208485 - https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1752397688526569944 https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1752397688526569944 - https://twitter.com/Denachtzuster1/status/1745099826230874149 https://twitter.com/Denachtzuster1/status/174509982623087414... - https://twitter.com/WimKoning/status/1747299988231577860 https://twitter.com/WimKoning/status/1747299988231577860
      - boxed 3y ago
        It doesn't matter if the sun and the clouds have more effect. It only matters that one variable is changing, slowly but surely pushing the equilibrium.
  - Shrezzing 3y ago
    >So 0.0012% of CO2 in atmosphere caused by humans. Nature is responsible for the remaining 0.0388% in atmosphere. Unless you're discussing literal "human expelled co2", as in "the measure of peoples exhalations during breathing", then you're out by several orders of magnitude. The pre-industrial co2 concentration in the atmosphere trends between 180ppm - 300ppm. In the last hundred years, the concentration has increased to 420ppm. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ For reference, each 1ppm in the atmosphere is around 7.8 gigatonnes of CO2. Humans currently create around 40gigatonnes of CO2 per year, roughly equating to 5ppm added per year. We add equivalent to 0.8% of the atmospheric CO2 per year.
  - defrost 3y ago
    Kind of silly to compare the amount that actually insulates and traps heat to nitrogen and oxygen that don't. It's a 50% increase in insulating gases due to human activity that's the problem here .. not the thermally inert gases.
    - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
      "I don't know what you're complaining about, I only increased the amount of cyanide in your body by 0.002% of your body weight."
jowea 3y ago
Is there a point to starting geoengineering after the situation is already disastrous? Because that's the only case I see it happening. The big advantage is that it could be done unilaterally.
- therealdrag0 3y ago
  Why wouldn’t there be a point?
  - jowea 3y ago
    Maybe it would take too long for it to be worth starting when the situation is already very bad, but at least wikipedia implies the most well know aerosol injection is fast. I'm no climate scientist.
- chefkoch 3y ago
  I think it being done unilateral is an even bigger risk. If China thinks x hast the best outcome for them but it is a desaster for Chile? Tough luck for them.
  - jowea 3y ago
    Yes it's risky but I feel it might work better with the world of states we have today.

I guess at some point we will start geoengineering which will either work or kill a lot of people.

polotics 3y ago

Looks like this is already documented: Termination Shock, by Neal Stephenson.

boxed 3y ago

We already do massive geoengineering. That's what all that CO2 is doing! We're just doing it incompetently.

wsc981 3y ago
For reference: all that CO2 is equal to about 0.04% of human atmosphere. Of which 3% is from human activity. So 0.0012% of CO2 in atmosphere caused by humans. Nature is responsible for the remaining 0.0388% in atmosphere.
- chefkoch 3y ago
  That's a bit dishonest as the CO2 level has risen by almost 50% from pre industrial times so you would need a very narrow definition of human activity.
  - wsc981 3y ago
    It's been much lower and higher in the past. In reality, CO2 has little, if any, effect on climate change. Much more impactful are the sun and clouds.
    - chefkoch 3y ago
      Sure, all the climate scientist are wrong and some random guy in the internet knows more.
      - wsc981 3y ago
        Actually there are various climate and other scientists who have this position. These scientists usually don't depend on grants and such for research. The thing is, whomever I will link, you will have some accusation that the scientist’s opinion cannot be trusted for whatever reason. So discussion regarding this issue is kinda pointless anyway. Time will proof these scientists opposing the human induced climate change narrative to be correct however. - https://twitter.com/CO2Coalition/status/1755024453174542740 https://twitter.com/CO2Coalition/status/1755024453174542740 - https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1753863552790618203 https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1753863552790618203 - https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1753863954638459008 https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1753863954638459008 - https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1753861517043208485 https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1753861517043208485 - https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1752397688526569944 https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1752397688526569944 - https://twitter.com/Denachtzuster1/status/1745099826230874149 https://twitter.com/Denachtzuster1/status/174509982623087414... - https://twitter.com/WimKoning/status/1747299988231577860 https://twitter.com/WimKoning/status/1747299988231577860
    - boxed 3y ago
      It doesn't matter if the sun and the clouds have more effect. It only matters that one variable is changing, slowly but surely pushing the equilibrium.
- Shrezzing 3y ago
  >So 0.0012% of CO2 in atmosphere caused by humans. Nature is responsible for the remaining 0.0388% in atmosphere. Unless you're discussing literal "human expelled co2", as in "the measure of peoples exhalations during breathing", then you're out by several orders of magnitude. The pre-industrial co2 concentration in the atmosphere trends between 180ppm - 300ppm. In the last hundred years, the concentration has increased to 420ppm. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ For reference, each 1ppm in the atmosphere is around 7.8 gigatonnes of CO2. Humans currently create around 40gigatonnes of CO2 per year, roughly equating to 5ppm added per year. We add equivalent to 0.8% of the atmospheric CO2 per year.
- defrost 3y ago
  Kind of silly to compare the amount that actually insulates and traps heat to nitrogen and oxygen that don't. It's a 50% increase in insulating gases due to human activity that's the problem here .. not the thermally inert gases.
  - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
    "I don't know what you're complaining about, I only increased the amount of cyanide in your body by 0.002% of your body weight."

jowea 3y ago

Is there a point to starting geoengineering after the situation is already disastrous? Because that's the only case I see it happening. The big advantage is that it could be done unilaterally.

therealdrag0 3y ago
Why wouldn’t there be a point?
- jowea 3y ago
  Maybe it would take too long for it to be worth starting when the situation is already very bad, but at least wikipedia implies the most well know aerosol injection is fast. I'm no climate scientist.
chefkoch 3y ago
I think it being done unilateral is an even bigger risk. If China thinks x hast the best outcome for them but it is a desaster for Chile? Tough luck for them.
- jowea 3y ago
  Yes it's risky but I feel it might work better with the world of states we have today.