• Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I have a real issue with this.

    We have been (detrimentally) geoengineering the climate for centuries by pumping out co2 and that has been done by nations wherever and whenever they have wanted.

    If a country wants to start a program of beneficial geoengineering why should that be stopped?

      • Fat Tony@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Excuse my ignorance but with the way things are going. It’s doesn’t look like we have much to lose.

        • 768@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do you remember hearing about Tambora, Krakatoa and their global effects? Do you remember ozone crisis? How we found out about the severity of the impact lead had on people? Acid rain? Nuclear winter?

          Effective and thus extensive geoengineering requires an understanding of biogeochemical processes that we don’t have.

          • Fat Tony@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Well we didn’t solve those by doing nothing. And given how unwilling we seem to be in reducing our footprint. I’d say this is our only viable way.

            • 768@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The only way is endangering food supply and if we stop we might have hyper climate change?

        • Evehn@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          But we HAVE so much to loose. At the moment, even a worse case scenario is one when earth goes on and adapts. Even humans would likely survive. And it’s not even decided we’ll get that.

          But as proven time and time again by the shitty predictions we are getting, we don’t have anything close to a true understanding of the systems in which we live.

          So on top of that, you’d prefer a single nation, most likely with economic interests well active in their decision making, to try and forcefully modify the system we don’t really understand?

          Count me out.

          • joel_feila@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I would love to live in a world where a few powerful nation did have such influnce that their economic interests didn’t screw over the world. But i was born in a world like that.

          • Fat Tony@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            At the moment, even a worse case scenario is one when earth goes on and adapts. Even humans would likely survive. And it’s not even decided we’ll get that.

            What makes you think this? Do you have a source for this? I am genuinely curious here.

            • Krauerking@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Because we could eat phytoplankton and moss which could take care of oxygen production. We couldn’t swim in the oceans or spend much time outside but we create digital fake worlds for ourselves.

              Humans are unfortunately and fortunately very scrappy inventive creatures that a lot would have to happen to completely wipe us out. It’s not to say the future wouldn’t be miserable and unlike anything we currently know but the will to keep on living is very strong on average.

              It’s unlikely and pretty hard to get a runaway Venus effect on earth but not impossible, but it would be likely to restabilize at some point and life would go on. It takes a lot of effort to sterilize a planet even if not nearly as much to fuck with its balance.

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Agreed. Hell, when we decided that the global shipping industry should not use the dirtiest fuel possible, the lack of sulfur oxide being emitted raised the ocean temperature quite a bit almost immediately. There are things we can do that will have the same effect without the massive negative consequences that sulfur oxide carries.

    • Kaliax@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also consider climate cycles such as ice ages. Imagine a coalition finds a wildy successful heat reduction strategy and it impacts well beyond what was anticipated? How would things go if we accelerrated glaciation down to the gulf of Mexico? The Earth’s wobble and axial tilt are part of this process over incredible periods of time… CFC’s and the ozone are a good example of rapid and unanticipated results of human inputs. No easy answer even with stakes as high as they appear.

        • Kaliax@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not arguing to do nothing, just attempting some clarity on the broader strokes of the issues. Much of our understandings of natural processes are still immature and incomplete - appreciating that fact should be a guiding principle for any near-to-hand actions.

      • deafboy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Luckily, we’re experts at rising the temperature. If we accidentally bring in the next ice age early, it’s back to coal.

        • Krauerking@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well except we burned a shit ton of it already and could struggle to burn enough without seeding thicker clouds thus making the glaciation worse.

          Part of the problem is cloud coverage acts as a reflector and if you get enough of it how do you get clear skies again? To stop it?