261–270 of 272 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Entire countries? IPCC projections don't indicate any island nations going underwater in the next two centuries.
If Bloomberg is to be believed ( https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-07/climate-c... ), climate change is killing an Ireland's worth of people every year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sulfur dioxide is naturally occurring, released by volcanoes in massive amounts. In these kinds of qualities it’s pretty safe by comparison. I think we’re being way too cautious when it comes to geoengineering, at a time when we should be aggressively testing hypotheses to get some actual options on the table.
Arsenic, uranium, almost everything is naturally occurring. Forest fires and, as you note, volcanoes are naturally occurring. That doesn't make them safe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
presumably the point at which it's potentially dangerous is the point at which governments have a plausible justification to start getting involved, not when you're doing safe experiments to find out whether the potentially dangerous thing has potential benefits that might justify riskier experiments also sulfite isn't within the usual meaning of 'toxic chemical', it's a common antioxidant food additive, although lik…
> presumably the point at which it's potentially dangerous is the point at which governments have a plausible justification to start getting involved Who decides where that point is? Some people with money or the people of Mexico?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Bloomberg is to be believed ( https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-07/climate-c... ), climate change is killing an Ireland's worth of people every year.
What's that have to do with sea level rise?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Arsenic, uranium, almost everything is naturally occurring. Forest fires and, as you note, volcanoes are naturally occurring. That doesn't make them safe.
Being natural does not make it safe. It is however a common food additive, and we’re talking very small quantities here. It’s really not the “toxic chemicals” as claimed by the OP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for clearing up this controversial topic and showing up to give a detailed explanation. Without your intervention, I would have kept some speculations as reasonable opinions.
Just read some academic papers and realize that anything we're doing right now to reverse global is a little too late. CDR, DAC, fusion, planting trees, solar, wind, nuclear, and nations coming together to decide we need to deploy stratospheric aerosol injection are all decades away while the planet warms 0.1C every decade. We deeply respect what scientists have been sounding alarm for years, but more people are worr…
> We deeply respect what scientists have been sounding alarm for years, but more people are worried about putting food on table than catastrophic weather events that might happen in the future.
The problem is political, and the fundamental political problem is certain segments of the US who have long insisted government and politics - and even democracy - are hopeless. And they also fail to do their essential part - it takes everyone - to make it happen, politically.
The correlation is powerful. Others can and do come together and get things done democratically. Other countries do it; parts of the country where the GOP isn't in power do it, including cities and states which pass environmental laws.
The rhetoric is self-serving or at least egocentric, that somehow only SV can save us, and that we should give SV more money and power. Isn't it transparent?
The problem is that rhetoric, which also spreads ignorance and despair to others - they are powerless. A powerless people is certainly not the legacy of the United States that was given to us; it's not at all what global warming deniers think. Instead of that rhetoric, let's hear you stand up for people coming together and getting things done, in Congress. It doesn't take decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something that is legal and regulated.
Why should it be legal? It spews massive amounts of chemicals and harmful pollution into the atmosphere. To the order of ~600g of SO2 and ~90 tonnes of CO2 over the average vehicle's lifespan. It's weird how, as mentioned in other parts of this thread, nobody gives two figs[1] about the atmospheric geoengineering we're all doing with our cars and our natural gas power plants. The Paris accord came and went and we are…
Good but irrelevant question. My point still stands: one is legalized, the other is not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just read some academic papers and realize that anything we're doing right now to reverse global is a little too late. CDR, DAC, fusion, planting trees, solar, wind, nuclear, and nations coming together to decide we need to deploy stratospheric aerosol injection are all decades away while the planet warms 0.1C every decade. We deeply respect what scientists have been sounding alarm for years, but more people are worr…
> Just read some academic papers and realize that anything we're doing right now to reverse global is a little too late. CDR, DAC, fusion, planting trees, solar, wind, nuclear, and nations coming together to decide we need to deploy stratospheric aerosol injection are all decades away while the planet warms 0.1C every decade. > We deeply respect what scientists have been sounding alarm for years, but more people are…
There is a land war in Europe, what makes you think the world can "come together" if we should or should not experiment with stratospheric aerosol injection? Most likely what will happen is the US or some other developed nation will unilaterally decide we need to do this without any governance, and they will choose us as the deployment partner.
>Instead of that rhetoric, let's hear you stand up for people coming together and getting things done
So far our customers have been law profs, SW engineers, IT professionals, accountants, retired pharma exec, students, and other white-collar jobs. This supports my theory that only the people who have time to worry about global warming is a privileged class, and this comment thread further proves that we have the luxury to discuss such topics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I indeed knew the scale, it's plastered all over this thread, but it's not relevant to the point being made. The whole scheme is harebrained regardless of the amount, what depends on the amount is the harm it can cause, in the range .
Your stated point was acid rain. And the amounts are too low to cause that, making your point invalid.
Since we already have SO2-induced acid rain on a warming planet, and there is no real motive to believe such intentional releases will be confined to the upper layers of the atmosphere, it follows that such climate engineering attempts will have a measurable effect on acid rain.
So the point is perfectly valid even if you won't follow it through to the logical conclusion. Just like these clowns here.