3 ms·

Also, I am endlessly fascinated by all the ways we have figured out Geo-engineering problems/externalizes. If the only metric we are focusing on is temperature,

Also, I am endlessly fascinated by all the ways we have figured out Geo-engineering problems/externalizes. If the only metric we are focusing on is temperature, we can potentially cause a whole lot of other issues. Reduce incoming light via sulfates works, but could cause crop failures due to said light reduction. Sea water cloud seeding, potential for it to rain salt water. Greening deserts, possibility to change weather patterns over great distances. And so on and so on. Anything but stop digging! So we would have to make responses to the response. This is not a case of, don't do anything but an acknowledgement of the predicament. Damned if with do, damned if we don't. I don't like talking about this stuff much because I have seen it many times get picked up by folks as a reason to 'burn baby burn!'.

lucb1e 2y ago
> Reduce incoming light via sulfates works, but could cause crop failures due to said light reduction. The temperature change and extreme weather events will also do that. Can it be localized to have its main effect over the ocean and deserts instead? (Afaik it's spread by airplanes anyway.) Or would the amount of light reduction needed to move the needle back from, say, +3°C to +2°C be enough to actually starve plants of light? We're talking of small percentages of light afaik and crops are surely able to deal with cloudy conditions; some even work great with agrivoltaics (but none of this is my specialty; there's a lot I don't know here). Not sure I'm adequately responding to, or understanding, your overall point though. On the one hand, I read "we can potentially cause a whole lot of other issues." with examples, which sounds like we shouldn't even try, but on the other you say "This is not a case of, don't do anything but an acknowledgement of the predicament." which sounds like the comment might be meant as at least not opposed to trying alternatives since we are increasingly finding ourselves in a climate (figurative and literal) where prevention has failed
- DaoVeles 2y ago
  I get it is small percentages of light but it can impact some plants fairly heavily, it is a non-linear feed back. They can handle cloudy days but that is a temporary phenomena and the dimming would be on top that already existing trait. As for the acknowledgement of the predicament, this come down to the problem of first movers on any technology. Those that do not consider the blow back will be the first to deploy and the first to potentially make a big mistake. I fear that a country that is being hit hard by climate change will be pushed into a corner and just deploys something quickly without considering all the multi-order events downwards. Or even knowingly aware of impact that will benefit them at the expense of other nations.

lucb1e 2y ago

> Reduce incoming light via sulfates works, but could cause crop failures due to said light reduction. The temperature change and extreme weather events will also do that. Can it be localized to have its main effect over the ocean and deserts instead? (Afaik it's spread by airplanes anyway.) Or would the amount of light reduction needed to move the needle back from, say, +3°C to +2°C be enough to actually starve plants of light? We're talking of small percentages of light afaik and crops are surely able to deal with cloudy conditions; some even work great with agrivoltaics (but none of this is my specialty; there's a lot I don't know here). Not sure I'm adequately responding to, or understanding, your overall point though. On the one hand, I read "we can potentially cause a whole lot of other issues." with examples, which sounds like we shouldn't even try, but on the other you say "This is not a case of, don't do anything but an acknowledgement of the predicament." which sounds like the comment might be meant as at least not opposed to trying alternatives since we are increasingly finding ourselves in a climate (figurative and literal) where prevention has failed

DaoVeles 2y ago
I get it is small percentages of light but it can impact some plants fairly heavily, it is a non-linear feed back. They can handle cloudy days but that is a temporary phenomena and the dimming would be on top that already existing trait. As for the acknowledgement of the predicament, this come down to the problem of first movers on any technology. Those that do not consider the blow back will be the first to deploy and the first to potentially make a big mistake. I fear that a country that is being hit hard by climate change will be pushed into a corner and just deploys something quickly without considering all the multi-order events downwards. Or even knowingly aware of impact that will benefit them at the expense of other nations.