There’s ‘insufficient scientific evidence’ backing efforts to artificially cool down the planet, according to the European Commission’s scientific advisers.
Scientific advisers to the European Commission are calling for a moratorium across the EU on efforts to artificially cool Earth through solar geoengineering. That includes controversial technologies used to reflect sunlight back into space, primarily by sending reflective particles into the atmosphere or by brightening clouds.
ONE TRAIN!!!
TAILIES UNITE!
Snow piercer reference?
👍
It also provides reams of material for weather control and contrail conspiracy theorists.
Did you hear about ocean temperatures rising several degrees in one year, 2023? It was because of certain emissions from ships, that suddenly had to be drastically removed.
I’d say that shows that this does work. Even if it’s far from the best approach.
I did read that: sulfur dioxide.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping-rules-are-affecting-global-warming/
I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with the article (just thought it was worth sharing), but I do think any geoengineering efforts need to be done carefully (if at all). There’s too many moving, interconnected parts we don’t fully understand, and blocking the sun is just treating the symptoms. I’m mostly afraid measures like this, and carbon capture, are just going to be excuses to keep polluting and not treat the root cause.
That said, not doing anything will probably be worse, so I really don’t know where I stand on the issue of geoengineering efforts.
This is unlikely to be sufficient to explain the spike in global sea surface temperature in recent weeks, which is around 0.2C above the prior record for this time of year.
- the article
According to the article, the drop in SO2 emissions may explain 0.02-0.035 degrees of warming in 2023, and even when it has all phased out of the atmosphere it’ll be 0.03-0.06 degrees of warming.
As the representative of the ethics committee that gave the advice that was summarised into the headline we’re discussing was quoted as saying in the OOP article:
These technologies do show some promise, but they are far from mature. Research must continue, but the opinion of the European Group on Ethics shows research must be rigorous and ethical, and it must take full account of the possible range of direct and indirect effects. It is also important that the scientific evidence on risks and opportunities of solar radiation modification research and deployment is periodically assessed.
Ye, fixing issues rather than preventing them is not the best approach
I don’t think solar geoengineering is fundamentally flawed so much as the specific technique of releasing aerosols into the atmosphere is flawed. There are multiple ways to potentially cool the Earth that may be cleaner.
Carbon dioxide makes people dumber so we need to get rid of it fast.
Yes, and other methods may also be attempted in parallel. There does not have to be only one effort to solve a complex issue like climate change.
There must be a unified effort to solve a planetwide catastrophe. First all methods must be prototyped in parallel, studied, and synthesised into the best possible plan. Without a map of all plans being followed, disastrous accidents happen, such as getting dependent on fossil fuel because of not funding electrical grids and battery research at the best moment, right before surging need; at the advent of cars. Leaded fuel was even stupider, easier to avoid with ethanol and hardened valve seat rings for piston engines.
We don’t go to war without a plan, but into the future we usually go blindly.
