In addition to actual reporting, the NYT creates newslike ads for the fossil fuels industry. This results in disproportionate attention on high-risk approaches that involve anything other than phasing out fossil fuel use.
Picture looks like he came up with the idea in time-out corner.
Hey, I’ve seen this one
/Images/Earthbig.jpg)
Me too!
Tell me, does it fail catastrophically?
There are a bunch of issues:
- It requires maintaining technical infrastructure for longer than civilizations last
- It changes the pole-to-equator temperature gradient, altering weather patterns worldwide
- It changes rainfall distribution in ways that we’re not clear on yet, potentially risking agriculture
Never in the history of humanity did any experiment cause unintended harm, ever. Except that one time. Oh and all the other times, fair. But… Well yes, there were those toads. And the camels. But that’s it! And … Well, all the rabbits as well. Ah screw that, I’m going home.
If you let a sabretooth tiger loose into a playground full of unsuspecting children in order to catch the rats that are eating all the shrubs, does it fail catastrophically? Or was it just catastrophic to begin with?
In the struggle against human-caused climate change, this is a completely new avenue for humans to change the climate.
Blocking the sun and letting the AI overthrow us? Sounds like a plan.
I have a great idea on how to block the sun!
They’re called trees.
Oh they help, but at scale, they help by removing CO2 from the atomsphere. You just can’t actually increase the forested area by enough to fully offset the damage we’re doing
We should focus on planting trees in downtown areas with sprawling pavement acting as giant radiators.
That’s a completely reasonable adaptation measure.
This is MUCH EASIER then just not giving CEOS Taxpayer Dollars to Continue Polluting and Killing Us!
This is the plot for Snowpiercer. So we should also start building a train that will circle the frozen planet
And Matrix, and Simpsons episode
Far safer to bump earth’s orbit a notch or two further out.
And while we’re at it, adjust the axis tilt a bit.
Let Musk handle it.
<covers mouth>
It is easier to think about blocking the sun than to overcome capitalism that is destroying the planet
Capitalist Realism in its essence
We’re doomed
Someone check if the scientist is a vampire or part of the thrall.
Delusional, just insane.
Technology will not save us, but guillotines will.
?
Global warming is nothing but a math equation at the end of the day. Change the input value, change the result.
The real problem is what you do with all the snakes after they eat the mice.
Earth isnt a machine, we cant just fix it like a broken machine. Earth is a body with a fever due to CO2 intoxication. We need to let Earth lash itself back into wellbeing, without our invasive engripments.
It’s a bit more than a math equation; things like how much ice there is are meaningfully path dependent. Just dropping CO2 concentrations won’t get us back the world we had.
Guillotines are technology, laser guillotines are what we should be developing.
This type of geoengineering feels real ripe for the law of unintended consequences.
I don’t doubt that. However, mobilizing a truly sufficient “mundane” response may fail. If it does, the end result may indtead be a global response in the form of drastic geoengineering when the consequences of climate change are truly starting to have an effect.
The fact that these sorts of solutions exist is also why I really don’t vibe with doomers. Climate change is not going to be the “end of the world”, or even the end of civilization. Humanity will prevail, the real question is how. Climate change is a (relatively) slow catastrophy, and the worst case isn’t everybody dead, but rather a miserable existence where where global standard of living is thrown back maybe a hundred years with the added bonus of our enviroment being generally miserable to live in.
The Simpsons did it already.
This petro puppet proposes perverse pseudoscientific prattle
That’s a really neat alliteration! And also very true!
Isn’t that what an umbrella is for?
At an individual level, yes.
Then we need umbrellas for all to solve climate change /s
