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.
Volcanoes also haven't caused massive changes to living conditions globally. If fact they almost never do.
If a few powerful individuals can just do it on their own and screw everybody, then shouldn't you be in favor of an international, organized attempt to do it? So that they won't attempt it on their own in a haphazard manner because it's being done by serious people?
When you ignore a cheap, effective way to do something like this people everywhere rightly say "these morons, I wish I could just do it myself", some have the capability, and then potentially screw up something that should be safe - like that Titan sub for instance.
This isn't even theoretical. Make Sunsets was releasing aerosols commercially to sell carbon credits before they were stopped (for now). This is only the beginning and if it's outlawed they'll just do it in secret from their islands.
You can't just censor and try to hide things you're scared of. You have to confront them and deal with them in a rational way. I don't know if you've ever read the IPCC reports, but there's no consideration at all given to any technological means of removing or reducing the impact of CO2 in the atmosphere - this is your true recipe for disaster.
If a few powerful individuals can just do it on their own and screw everybody, then shouldn't you be in favor of an international, organized attempt to do it?
A few powerful individuals are also capable of poisoning the continental US water table too, why I should prefer an organized international attempt to do it before them? Those aren't the only two options. What I want is, like wantonly releasing waste into the water table, for the idea to be reviled as irresponsible and to have legally enforced punishments for people who gamble with others' lives and health like that. In fact given the lack of consequences for the Ohio train crash, I want even stricter punishments than that.
Also I question why the fuck you're even here if you think organized international projects just happen spontaneously from the will of the global populace, and aren't almost universally the result of the will of a handful of global political elites (the very definition of a few powerful individuals).
You can't just censor and try to hide things you're scared of. You have to confront them and deal with them in a rational way.
The fuck do you think I'm censoring here? I'm very happy to talk openly to any idiot who wants to advocate covering their eyes and shooting randomly at the stratosphere to defeat the global warming boogeyman. Censoring ideas and punishing actions are very different. Talk about geoengineering all you want, just don't try and do it if you don't want me to join the line to beat some sense into you with a baseball bat. The idea that you're just supposed to allow anyone to take whatever risks they want with your life is smoothbrain cuck delusion.
It's not currently a cheap, safe, effective, solution to a problem. It's not safe, multiple times in recent years have solutions been proposed and published based on computer modelling, then revised within a few years with an "oops that would actually destroy the ozone layer, don't do that, my bad". It's not proven to be a solution, other theoretical plans have been later revised to show negligible cooling effects, or even to actually accidentally warm the troposphere up. Hell it's not even proven there's a problem, that the amount of warming that would happen without intervention would cause more harm than good to human civilization.
It's just cheap to get results from, whether that's improving our living conditions or destroying them is yet to be seen or adequately proven.
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.
Volcanoes also haven't caused massive changes to living conditions globally. If fact they almost never do.
If a few powerful individuals can just do it on their own and screw everybody, then shouldn't you be in favor of an international, organized attempt to do it? So that they won't attempt it on their own in a haphazard manner because it's being done by serious people?
When you ignore a cheap, effective way to do something like this people everywhere rightly say "these morons, I wish I could just do it myself", some have the capability, and then potentially screw up something that should be safe - like that Titan sub for instance.
This isn't even theoretical. Make Sunsets was releasing aerosols commercially to sell carbon credits before they were stopped (for now). This is only the beginning and if it's outlawed they'll just do it in secret from their islands.
You can't just censor and try to hide things you're scared of. You have to confront them and deal with them in a rational way. I don't know if you've ever read the IPCC reports, but there's no consideration at all given to any technological means of removing or reducing the impact of CO2 in the atmosphere - this is your true recipe for disaster.
Uh huh, right, whatever you say chief, it's never happened before.
A few powerful individuals are also capable of poisoning the continental US water table too, why I should prefer an organized international attempt to do it before them? Those aren't the only two options. What I want is, like wantonly releasing waste into the water table, for the idea to be reviled as irresponsible and to have legally enforced punishments for people who gamble with others' lives and health like that. In fact given the lack of consequences for the Ohio train crash, I want even stricter punishments than that.
Also I question why the fuck you're even here if you think organized international projects just happen spontaneously from the will of the global populace, and aren't almost universally the result of the will of a handful of global political elites (the very definition of a few powerful individuals).
The fuck do you think I'm censoring here? I'm very happy to talk openly to any idiot who wants to advocate covering their eyes and shooting randomly at the stratosphere to defeat the global warming boogeyman. Censoring ideas and punishing actions are very different. Talk about geoengineering all you want, just don't try and do it if you don't want me to join the line to beat some sense into you with a baseball bat. The idea that you're just supposed to allow anyone to take whatever risks they want with your life is smoothbrain cuck delusion.
It's not currently a cheap, safe, effective, solution to a problem. It's not safe, multiple times in recent years have solutions been proposed and published based on computer modelling, then revised within a few years with an "oops that would actually destroy the ozone layer, don't do that, my bad". It's not proven to be a solution, other theoretical plans have been later revised to show negligible cooling effects, or even to actually accidentally warm the troposphere up. Hell it's not even proven there's a problem, that the amount of warming that would happen without intervention would cause more harm than good to human civilization.
It's just cheap to get results from, whether that's improving our living conditions or destroying them is yet to be seen or adequately proven.