Well for one super eruptions might make volcanoes the no. 1 cause of mass extinction events in terrestrial history, and two they're not all that analogous to volcanoes going off because most proposals I've seen don't plan to use simple "ash and particulates" but aerosols meant to stay suspended and effective for far longer, so if they're wrong we're just semi-permanently fucked. Unless you plan to go up there and start scrubbing the stratosphere clean, which is a hundred times harder than just shooting the junk up there in the first place.
Geoengineering is powerful, dangerous stuff up there with messing with nukes. If you're contemplating it over some hysterical screeching over laughably flawed models, then you're not competent enough to touch it.
If we took all of the energy we produce in all the world we couldn't even get to 1% of the energy released by a supervolcano like Yellowstone caldera. This is completely a red herring.
The same aerosols are also released by volcanoes and are what cool the planet most, not the ash. What's being proposed is literally the same thing as a volcano erupting except cleaner.
If you're afraid of geoengineering I hate to tell you this but we're doing it all the time in huge ways with industry. But unlike this proposal those other thousands of ways are being done accidentally with no study or thought to the global consequences.
If we took all of the energy we produce in all the world we couldn't even get to 1% of the energy released by a supervolcano like Yellowstone caldera. This is completely a red herring.
What an irrelevant metric, volcanic eruptions are a horribly inefficient way to launch things into the stratosphere, most of that energy has nothing to do with how much energy it would take us to launch that mass up there. Do you really think NASA should have built a giant artificial volcano at Houston instead of choosing rocketry to reach orbit?
The same aerosols are also released by volcanoes and are what cool the planet most, not the ash. What's being proposed is literally the same thing as a volcano erupting except cleaner
Most new plans for SRM stratospheric injections I see are proposing alumina and calcite aerosols, not sulfates (which make up the vast majority of natural volcanic stratospheric aerosol ejections) anymore, for more longevity and power per pound. I guess it's technically true that a small amount of those are ejected by super volcanoes too, but on a scale we could definitely outstrip by human endeavour.
If you're afraid of geoengineering I hate to tell you this but we're doing it all the time in huge ways with industry. But unlike this proposal those other thousands of ways are being done accidentally with no study or thought to the global consequences.
And like with volcanoes all those accidental geoengineering results are a tiny fraction of the output of those activities, a concerted effort to actually geoengineer would have immediate effects that dwarf those byproducts
a concerted effort to actually geoengineer would have immediate effects that dwarf those byproducts
Just fearmongering. You're imagining a worst case scenario if everybody acted irrationally.
Same reason you brought up supervolcanos.
There were problems with the ozone layer due to industry and we fixed it, but I wasn't only talking about the atmosphere. Like overfishing for instance looks to be a big problem.
I brought up super eruptions because you brought up "it's just like volcanoes" like volcanoes haven't caused massive damage to living conditions for the entire planet before.
And the problem is there's no need for everyone to be irrational, just a few powerful individuals could ruin living conditions for everyone else. Go ahead and keep banking on everyone being a perfectly rational actor for your risk taking if you want, but it's not like that delusion hasn't bitten many economists or would-be social engineers in the ass before.
You can call caution about burning bridges fearmongering all you like too, unlike you I think it's better not to play with fire until you at least have a clue what you're doing.
Well for one super eruptions might make volcanoes the no. 1 cause of mass extinction events in terrestrial history, and two they're not all that analogous to volcanoes going off because most proposals I've seen don't plan to use simple "ash and particulates" but aerosols meant to stay suspended and effective for far longer, so if they're wrong we're just semi-permanently fucked. Unless you plan to go up there and start scrubbing the stratosphere clean, which is a hundred times harder than just shooting the junk up there in the first place.
Geoengineering is powerful, dangerous stuff up there with messing with nukes. If you're contemplating it over some hysterical screeching over laughably flawed models, then you're not competent enough to touch it.
If we took all of the energy we produce in all the world we couldn't even get to 1% of the energy released by a supervolcano like Yellowstone caldera. This is completely a red herring.
The same aerosols are also released by volcanoes and are what cool the planet most, not the ash. What's being proposed is literally the same thing as a volcano erupting except cleaner.
If you're afraid of geoengineering I hate to tell you this but we're doing it all the time in huge ways with industry. But unlike this proposal those other thousands of ways are being done accidentally with no study or thought to the global consequences.
What an irrelevant metric, volcanic eruptions are a horribly inefficient way to launch things into the stratosphere, most of that energy has nothing to do with how much energy it would take us to launch that mass up there. Do you really think NASA should have built a giant artificial volcano at Houston instead of choosing rocketry to reach orbit?
Most new plans for SRM stratospheric injections I see are proposing alumina and calcite aerosols, not sulfates (which make up the vast majority of natural volcanic stratospheric aerosol ejections) anymore, for more longevity and power per pound. I guess it's technically true that a small amount of those are ejected by super volcanoes too, but on a scale we could definitely outstrip by human endeavour.
And like with volcanoes all those accidental geoengineering results are a tiny fraction of the output of those activities, a concerted effort to actually geoengineer would have immediate effects that dwarf those byproducts
Just fearmongering. You're imagining a worst case scenario if everybody acted irrationally.
Same reason you brought up supervolcanos.
There were problems with the ozone layer due to industry and we fixed it, but I wasn't only talking about the atmosphere. Like overfishing for instance looks to be a big problem.
I brought up super eruptions because you brought up "it's just like volcanoes" like volcanoes haven't caused massive damage to living conditions for the entire planet before.
And the problem is there's no need for everyone to be irrational, just a few powerful individuals could ruin living conditions for everyone else. Go ahead and keep banking on everyone being a perfectly rational actor for your risk taking if you want, but it's not like that delusion hasn't bitten many economists or would-be social engineers in the ass before.
You can call caution about burning bridges fearmongering all you like too, unlike you I think it's better not to play with fire until you at least have a clue what you're doing.