Still it may be a necessity...

@distantmind956

Ай бұрын

True. We are currently 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. (EDIT: 1.5°C, not 0.5°C!) Corals are quickly going extinct due to the ocean overheating, the AMOC current is showing signs of weakening, arctic permafrost has become a net source of greenhouse gases, and we're seeing worse crop harvests every year from climate change induced extreme weather events. "It 'may' be necessary" is kind of an understatement.

1:44 We know enough about the certain effects of continuous climate breakdown to deduce that SRM is extremely likely to have a net benefit for the climate however horrendous the side effects. 1:52 Making the color of the sky whiter is not really that big of a tradeoff put up against the collapse of civilization and the loss of a liveable climate. 1:56 I highly doubt there are negative side effects from SRM that climate breakdown won't also do, on a far more destructive scale. 2:07 That depends on the type of aerosol used. Calcium carbonate has the same reflectivity, minus the ozone depleting properties. Besides, current research suggests even sulphur dioxide won't have as bad effect on the ozone layer as many fear. 2:14 Neither will mitigation. But it will buy us the much needed time for decarbonization and CDR, the REAL climate solutions, to do their thing. 2:43 Let's get to work on that like our lives and the lives of everyone we know and love depends on it, because they do. 2:48 That's not really a problem. Renewables are already winning. They're just not winning fast enough to avoid apocalypse. In order to do that, we'd need a time machine. We cannot decarbonize our civilization when it's collapsed, and we cannot survive if our civilization collapses due to existing aerosols from burning fossil fuels that currently cools the climate by 0.5-1.5°C. If we collapse, those aerosols rain down causing an even bigger termination shock than the one we're witnessing today brought upon us by IMO2020. Like it or not, SRM will most definitely be vital to our survival.

@HeWhoHasRisen3500

Ай бұрын

No. You are crazy.

@distantmind956

Ай бұрын

@@HeWhoHasRisen3500 Until you follow up your four word """"counter-argument"""" with an alternative and realistic suggestion for how to avoid the collapse of our climate, and ergo our global civilization; your 'argument' will be promptly ignored.

Our lives are on the line, and we have ethicists whining for pay checks.

Why not trigger a volcano rather than using planes? I guess it's too dangerous?

@distantmind956

Ай бұрын

Location and altitude is vital to make SRM as effective as possible. Volcanoes spew out all sorts of toxic particles and gases at a wide area. Not all are powerful enough to blast enough cooling aerosols up to altitudes where they stay for a year or two to cool the climate to a sufficient degree. Also, how would you even go about triggering a volcanic eruption artificially?

Lets just move Earth a little away from the Sun.

survive until june 24 and make it past psring.

1. istp estp 2. take 8 zyrtecs a day an watch howls moving castle and spirited away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Highlander II: The Quickening

Look up GEOENGINEERING: ASSESSING THE IMPLICATIONS OF LARGE-SCALE CLIMATE INTERVENTION

You guys doing clouds harvest and side effects is flooding and extreme rain downpours!!! It’s not about cost it’s about side effects and no money can fix the problem!!! Yea you don’t learn from your mistakes you just keep making them!!! Don’t try to make more mess but try to clean the mess you already made that is causing this problem!!!

Hey! SRM sounds very much like SMR! Will SRM spectacularly fail to keep up with its promises just like SMR did ? :-D

There are many problems with this approach. Sulfur Dioxide turns in sulfuric acid aka acid rain. Who pays for the resultant environmental issues? This seems like a foolish knee jerk short-term reaction to a long-term problem. Instead spend all of that money subsidizing solar rooftop power generation. Much better value proposition.

@distantmind956

Ай бұрын

In order to reduce global temps to preindustrial levels, we just need to inject roungly 5% of the amount of sulphur that has been reduced from shipping emissions since 2020 into the stratosphere annually or biannially. The likelihood of emitting a small amount of sulphur at high altitude being more harmful than releasing a large amount of sulphur at low altitude is extremely small. I agree we should speed up renewables, but considering existing aerosols from fossil fuels burning are cooling the global climate by 0.5-1.5°C; when we decarbonize, that cooling will disappear and likely trigger a tipping point or two and speeding up our biosphere's descent into mass extinction and collapse. Renewables are already winning, but they cannot win fast enough to avert collapse unless we buy the required time for renewables and CDR to do their thing.

@riddlerandsa8161

Ай бұрын

@@distantmind956 if reintroducing 5% were enough to drop temperatures to pre-industrial levels now, wouldn´t have eliminating 100% had an enourmous opposite effect? If not, please explain.

@distantmind956

Ай бұрын

​@@riddlerandsa8161 The area and altitude matters a lot. Injecting 5% of the aerosols cut from low altitude emissions into high altitude will cause them to stay longer and spread further, creating more evenly distributed and longer lasting cooling with 95% less negative side effects than emitting them at low altitudes.