3 ms·

I agree with you. We are actually at huge risk. "Western Civilization" rose out of our stable European climate and that is over now. However, we need a global

I agree with you. We are actually at huge risk. "Western Civilization" rose out of our stable European climate and that is over now. However, we need a global consensus for geoengineering. That's just how that works... the Jet Stream. Meanwhile one country believes that global warming is a benefit, aka Russia. They currently appear to have control of the West.. so what in the actual f? For a far more dire diatribe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49427651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49427651

estearum 2mo ago
Global consensus would be great, but "reliable mechanism" would be a decent start. In lieu of that, there's nothing to build consensus around.
- eightysixfour 2mo ago
  Atmospheric sulfur seems to be the "default."
  - estearum 2mo ago
    Yes which is an extremely dangerous and completely unproven idea.
  - apothegm 2mo ago
    Because when we did that accidentally the outcomes were so great?
pfisch 2mo ago
>However, we need a global consensus for geoengineering. Why? Does china or the us need a consensus before taking existential risks like making ai? Or detonating a nuke that had a tiny chance of setting the atmosphere on fire? Or attacking random countries with almost no rationale or plan? This kind of thinking is why the EU is screwed. No other major power cares that much because they aren't at the same level of risk as the eu.
- consumer451 2mo ago
  > Why? Well, let's say we use sulfur. For the sake of argument, let's say it's not the EU, but some private SV-funded org. So, what is the legal/geopolitical liability for that? What if >99% scientific consensus says that that org's upper atmo sulfur injection led to the most insane monsoon/desertification half-century in 1 billion's people area, in known history? What then? What if the EU's geoengineering dropped Russian temps by -2C on average? Do you realize the geopolitical b.s. that would start? Forget the fake NATO bullshit, now they have a real argument! We live on one tiny globe ffs, we need to agree on this shit. By agree, I mean we need to allow risk to be diversified, like we need a global risk pool for geoengineering, and we better get on that soon! It sounds like it's a huge problem, doesn't it? Well, one of the benefits of giving all the power to around 3000 billionaire dudes is that this is a far smaller number to get to agree on something. Instead of multi-billion citizen democracy, and all the issues that involves... we just need to convince 3000 dudes. Is this actually a potential benefit of wealth & power concentration? It really seems like it is!
  - red75prime 2mo ago
    > What if >99% scientific consensus says that that org's upper atmo sulfur injection led to to the most insane monsoon/desertification That's unrealistic. Climate models aren't good enough to predict the regional-level consequences of large-scale interventions (not to mention that scientists are people, and they might be averse to creating an international flashpoint). Realistically, it will create/exacerbate international tensions. The monsoon/desertification will be linked to geoengineering with or without scientific consensus and whether or not they were really caused by geoengineering. As the climate models improve by incorporating active intervention data it will be possible to decrease adverse consequences. It's a risky approach, but, when the consequences of climate change will become undeniably bad, some countries/individuals might try. But, yeah, I agree with you in the end.
    - consumer451 2mo ago
      > It's a risky approach, but, when the consequences of climate change will become undeniably bad, some countries might try. That will be far too late. I mean, nearly the entire EU has reached record temps this year... if not now, then when? Wait until AMOC stops? Does anyone have any idea the havoc that this will create? We will be a dry arctic climate. Ireland and UK first, the rest of us next. We need multiple Manhattan Project-level projects in the EU, for insulation + renewables + batteries. When we let Northvolt die, I almost cried. Fuck the German bankers who are somehow beholden to Moscow, and we cannot pray for Norwegian money. We need to take care of this shit. We are more exposed to climate change and economically to China-focused manufacturing than any large group on the planet. However, we are larger than the USA, we can do this. We have to do this. Meanwhile, we have to get the entire planet on-board, especially by getting Moscow out of the 19th Century, and their insane imperialist ambitions. No big deal. At the rate of Reform/AfD/KO/Rassemblement National election projections, we in Europe are entirely fucked. What the fuck? Forget "EU regulations," is anyone actually paying attention to what actually matters?
LargoLasskhyfv 2mo ago
What's shaping the Jet Stream is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex Maybe it will be shaped some more by another supervolcanic 'burpie', like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga%E2%80%93Hunga_Ha%CA%BBapai_eruption_and_tsunami https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga%E2%80%93Hunga... saturating the atmosphere with water vapor like Hunga Tonga did, or Sulfur dioxide, or black soot/carbon in form of fine particular matter, Methane, or whatever. It all depends on the nature of the eruption. If humanity as a species could do anything about events of that magnitude, it would have to cover the earth and the oceans with a grid of giant atmospheric processors like in the movie Alien, not too far apart, powered by at least nuclear, if not by fusion. And then some bigger rock impacts from above, which is not a question of IF, but when, as history shows over and over again. Got any ideas about how to achieve that in time? With all the other shit already going on?
autoexec 1mo ago
> However, we need a global consensus for geoengineering. We already have global consensus for an alternative to the gamble of geoengineering, and that alternative is 100% certain to work. It just means making changes to the unsustainable practices of massive corporations which will eat into their profits. Everyone knows it needs to happen. Even if geoengineering was successful and didn't end up making things much much worse, it would only be putting of the inevitable. The wealth of these corporations is so great that they're able to bribe the leaders of nations into ignoring the actual solution to the problem they are causing, so now they're pushing the world to roll the dice on geoengineering so they can keep profits growing year after year.
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]

estearum 2mo ago

Global consensus would be great, but "reliable mechanism" would be a decent start. In lieu of that, there's nothing to build consensus around.

eightysixfour 2mo ago
Atmospheric sulfur seems to be the "default."
- estearum 2mo ago
  Yes which is an extremely dangerous and completely unproven idea.
- apothegm 2mo ago
  Because when we did that accidentally the outcomes were so great?

pfisch 2mo ago

>However, we need a global consensus for geoengineering. Why? Does china or the us need a consensus before taking existential risks like making ai? Or detonating a nuke that had a tiny chance of setting the atmosphere on fire? Or attacking random countries with almost no rationale or plan? This kind of thinking is why the EU is screwed. No other major power cares that much because they aren't at the same level of risk as the eu.

consumer451 2mo ago
> Why? Well, let's say we use sulfur. For the sake of argument, let's say it's not the EU, but some private SV-funded org. So, what is the legal/geopolitical liability for that? What if >99% scientific consensus says that that org's upper atmo sulfur injection led to the most insane monsoon/desertification half-century in 1 billion's people area, in known history? What then? What if the EU's geoengineering dropped Russian temps by -2C on average? Do you realize the geopolitical b.s. that would start? Forget the fake NATO bullshit, now they have a real argument! We live on one tiny globe ffs, we need to agree on this shit. By agree, I mean we need to allow risk to be diversified, like we need a global risk pool for geoengineering, and we better get on that soon! It sounds like it's a huge problem, doesn't it? Well, one of the benefits of giving all the power to around 3000 billionaire dudes is that this is a far smaller number to get to agree on something. Instead of multi-billion citizen democracy, and all the issues that involves... we just need to convince 3000 dudes. Is this actually a potential benefit of wealth & power concentration? It really seems like it is!
- red75prime 2mo ago
  > What if >99% scientific consensus says that that org's upper atmo sulfur injection led to to the most insane monsoon/desertification That's unrealistic. Climate models aren't good enough to predict the regional-level consequences of large-scale interventions (not to mention that scientists are people, and they might be averse to creating an international flashpoint). Realistically, it will create/exacerbate international tensions. The monsoon/desertification will be linked to geoengineering with or without scientific consensus and whether or not they were really caused by geoengineering. As the climate models improve by incorporating active intervention data it will be possible to decrease adverse consequences. It's a risky approach, but, when the consequences of climate change will become undeniably bad, some countries/individuals might try. But, yeah, I agree with you in the end.
  - consumer451 2mo ago
    > It's a risky approach, but, when the consequences of climate change will become undeniably bad, some countries might try. That will be far too late. I mean, nearly the entire EU has reached record temps this year... if not now, then when? Wait until AMOC stops? Does anyone have any idea the havoc that this will create? We will be a dry arctic climate. Ireland and UK first, the rest of us next. We need multiple Manhattan Project-level projects in the EU, for insulation + renewables + batteries. When we let Northvolt die, I almost cried. Fuck the German bankers who are somehow beholden to Moscow, and we cannot pray for Norwegian money. We need to take care of this shit. We are more exposed to climate change and economically to China-focused manufacturing than any large group on the planet. However, we are larger than the USA, we can do this. We have to do this. Meanwhile, we have to get the entire planet on-board, especially by getting Moscow out of the 19th Century, and their insane imperialist ambitions. No big deal. At the rate of Reform/AfD/KO/Rassemblement National election projections, we in Europe are entirely fucked. What the fuck? Forget "EU regulations," is anyone actually paying attention to what actually matters?

LargoLasskhyfv 2mo ago

What's shaping the Jet Stream is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex Maybe it will be shaped some more by another supervolcanic 'burpie', like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga%E2%80%93Hunga_Ha%CA%BBapai_eruption_and_tsunami https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Hunga_Tonga%E2%80%93Hunga... saturating the atmosphere with water vapor like Hunga Tonga did, or Sulfur dioxide, or black soot/carbon in form of fine particular matter, Methane, or whatever. It all depends on the nature of the eruption. If humanity as a species could do anything about events of that magnitude, it would have to cover the earth and the oceans with a grid of giant atmospheric processors like in the movie Alien, not too far apart, powered by at least nuclear, if not by fusion. And then some bigger rock impacts from above, which is not a question of IF, but when, as history shows over and over again. Got any ideas about how to achieve that in time? With all the other shit already going on?

autoexec 1mo ago

> However, we need a global consensus for geoengineering. We already have global consensus for an alternative to the gamble of geoengineering, and that alternative is 100% certain to work. It just means making changes to the unsustainable practices of massive corporations which will eat into their profits. Everyone knows it needs to happen. Even if geoengineering was successful and didn't end up making things much much worse, it would only be putting of the inevitable. The wealth of these corporations is so great that they're able to bribe the leaders of nations into ignoring the actual solution to the problem they are causing, so now they're pushing the world to roll the dice on geoengineering so they can keep profits growing year after year.

deleted 1mo ago

[deleted]