1y ago

It's Time to Engineer the Sky: Global warming is so rampant that some scientists say we should begin altering the stratosphere to block sunlight, even if it jeopardizes rain and crops | SciAm

www.scientificamerican.com It’s Time to Engineer the Sky

Global warming is so rampant that some scientists say we should begin altering the stratosphere to block incoming sunlight, even if it jeopardizes rain and crops

57 comments

- Exactly the line in my head while reading this post. Ready to become batteries guys (or we already are?).

some scientists say we should begin...
Article says two scientists say that, and 400 more have signed a letter saying DO NOT FUCKIN DO THAT
Trash journalism
- 110 scientists signed a letter saying this process should be studied in more depth, according to the article. So it's not that simple either.

I know. Instead of doing what we know needs to be done, let's come up with an over-complicated geoengineering solution that we absolutely do not have the capacity to manage or even predict the outcomes of!
- Exactly this. I call these phenomena technological antisolutions.
  
  Great essay

what could go wrong?

Well that sounds like a plan that can't possibly go wrong.
If real life was a Roland Emmerich movie, this article would be paying on the TV in the background while the protagonist eats one slice of toast from the massive breakfast spread his wife has prepared before running off to a shit job.
- Well....
  The alternative is that it will go much MUCH more wrong very soon.
  Also, technically we already have been geoengineering this world to shit for centuries by pumping massive amounts of co2 into the atmosphere. Removing it will take decades to a century, waiting for it to dissolve by itself will take multiple centuries while we're baking.
  Getting that CO2 out by scrubbing and converting and storing it will require about double to triple the amount of energy we got from burning fossil fuels FOR THE PAST CENTURIES. We'd need to dedicate 30-50% of the world's energy output to CO2 scrubbing for centuries, basically. And in the meantime we are stuck with the results of our CO2 rampage.
  Meanwhile, pushing sulfuric compounds into the stratosphere would lower solar energy reaching earth, it would make things cooler,temporarily. These compounds would dissipate much faster than CO2 so their effects would also disappear much faster.
  Again, we already sort of did this before and we had the results, temperatures were temporarily lower, due to enormous air pollution. Removing air pollution actually made global temperatures worse due to the CO2 still being there.
  So how about instead of again polluting the crap out of our lower atmosphere, we push specific compounds in the higher atmosphere. We can use airplanes to do this, just add it in small doses to the kerosene.
  This will temporarily lower temperatures, we bake less, survive better whilst we spend double, tripple to ten times more on the energy we use, because that is what will be required to return the world to normal.

In general, this kind of thing has big issues at aren't really resolved
You need to continue doing it for longer than civilizations last. People don't really have a good track record of that kind of thing.
We end up with a smaller pole-to-equator temperature gradient, with real impacts on weather
These changes can alter rainfall patterns in ways that might cause significant food supply issues in some countries. This creates a governance problem. (eg: should China nuke India if the changes needed to prevent lethal heatwaves in India result in famine in China)
It does nothing about ocean acidification, so we still end up losing a big chunk of marine ecosystems
Addressing climate change this way means we don't get any of the co-benefits of reduced air pollution we would otherwise get from phasing out fossil fuels
Probably other stuff we don't know about because it's not well studied
- Fully agreed, but o think the proble is that we're kind of in a pickle here with less and less options.
  Yes, we need to remove our co2 dependance like there (literally) is no tomorrow. It still won't save us, it still won't fix the problem. The CO2 already there will remain there for pretty much centuries. And we're currently very close (or likely already over) the threshold where nature will start dumping more CO2 into he atmosphere all by itself.
  So meanwhile we bake and bake more... we have to spend energy to remove the CO2 which will require beyond enormous amounts of energy (think 30-50% of the world's energy budget per year, every year, for probably centuries) and what do we do in the meantime?
  It's a shit solution, I agree. But do we have other options left at this point?
  Plus, please remember... we've know about this issue for over a century. We didn't do anything, we actually just added more. We've know it's potentially civilization ending proportions for at least the past 4 decades, especially the last 2 decades and we (humanity) haven't done anything more beyond a few pretty words, a few worthless treaties from which the US even withdrew even though it didn't do anything.
  Humanity won't do anything real to solve this for at least another decade, or two, when people start dying by the millions or billions.
  Then questions Neill be asked. Why didn't we do something before? Well, the shareholders were important too, you know!
  And by then, options truely will be very limited. I see this happening because humanity is shit. We won't solve this problem in any meaningful way until it's too late.
- I was surprised acid rain wasn't mentioned in the article, too. Isn't atmospheric sulfuric acid one of the causes of acid rain?
  
  It is, but there are options for chemicals which don't use SO2

Wouldn't increasing drought and famine be worse?
- That will happen regardless, might as well try something
  
  Burn that bridge before we cross it instead of after. That's certainly a strategy.

or, and i know this is an outlandish idea, we could eat plants instead of animals.
- ChatGPT tier take
- Which wouldn't end global warning
  
  it'd put a massive dent into global warming.

Geoengineering isn't solarpunk, it's a yet another manifestation of man's hubris towards the natural world. Solarpunk is living in harmony with and improving the diversity of the natural world, not dominating it like a science project.
- I disagree. I think what distinguishes solarpunk from anarcho-primitivism and anarcho-agrarianism is the belief that more advanced technology can help humanity to regain harmony with the rest of the natural world. Solar panels replacing coal burning power plants is one example. So is geoengineering, and CO2 capture, and an army of seagoing drones scooping plastic - don't we have not just a need but a duty to use our technology to cure some of the wounds our technology has inflicted?
  
  Of course solarpunk means that advance technology can further develop humanity's place in compliment rather than in contradiction with the natural world, but geoengineering ain't it.
  Your reply reads as if you lack engagement with real literature on what geoengineering entails. Many plants and animals have slowly adapted to a warming climate. Blocking the sun would cool the climate too fast to cause a catastrophic shock to ecosystems worldwide. If geoengineering is attempted, it cannot be stopped because to stop it would cause yet another catastrophic shock to the ecosystems that survived the initial shock would have begun to adapt to the cooler climate. That's two additional catastrophic mass extinction events that could be caused by adding sulfur dioxide to the climate, not to mention the amount of sulfur dioxide needed would absolutely kill innumerable disabled people worldwide.
  Yeah, why don't we mess with our climate a second time instead of pursuing real solutions like renewable energy, degrowth, and decarbonization? I'm begging you to read up on geoengineering before making these uninformed comments.

If we implement an effective mitigation measure for global warming, why would those who profit from emitting CO2 feel any urgency to stop?
Despite the potential usefulness, i suspect it would find justification to allow continuation of fossil fuel consumption.