The Analysis of Sea Levels.

[kerbiloid]

biodiversity == low productivity

(Unless you treat pines and apples as pineapples.)

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 minute ago, kerbiloid said:

biodiversity == low productivity

(Unless you treat pines and apples as pineapples.)

Depends on the purpose of your planting.  For economic, monoculture is king.  For restoration / carbon capture?  Biodiverse

 

[kerbiloid]

Just now, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Depends on the purpose of your planting.  For economic, monoculture is king.  For restoration / carbon capture?  Biodiverse

 

Other eight billions agreed.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

2 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Other eight billions agreed.

1970.  World population 3.3 billion.  Global food crisis.  People fear population boom.

2022 Food production chart:

How we feed the world today - OECD

And people say the Pax Americana is problematic.  Free trade baby!

Free trade can prevent hunger caused by climate change: International trade can compensate for regional food shortages and reduce hunger -- ScienceDaily

[darthgently]

2 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

1970.  World population 3.3 billion.  Global food crisis.  People fear population boom.

2022 Food production chart:

How we feed the world today - OECD

And people say the Pax Americana is problematic.  Free trade baby!

Free trade can prevent hunger caused by climate change: International trade can compensate for regional food shortages and reduce hunger -- ScienceDaily

Exactly.

We are surrounded to virtual infinity with all the elbow room and resource and energy imaginable and so far as we currently know are the cleverest creature to ever walk, and even capable of humbly saying "I don't know" on occasion while feverishly planning to find out the answers. 

The idea that we should curl up inside an imaginary Karmann line shell and talk about government mandated population control (every nation has "experts" that bring it up) instead of using our minds to spread terrestrial, not just human, life outward is patently absurd.  It isn't hard to know what to do.  Just look at any other living creature that isn't self-hating.  Grow, keep the tree of life alive.  As far as we know to date, we are in the only tree of life that has ever existed.  That could change, but even so, we have s responsibility to life

[SunlitZelkova]

1 hour ago, Beamer said:

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I like to think I keep up to date on my internet memes, but until 2 weeks ago I never heard of this Mr Beast. When I did and had a look at a few of his videos, I wondered the same thing I always wonder about 'personality' centered YT channels. But hey if he gets the good message out there, he's got my blessing

It’s speculated he has a seat on DearMoon. He posted a cryptic video wearing a SpaceX shirt or something a year or so ago.

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

2022 Food production chart:

How we feed the world today - OECD

Spoiler

 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/charts-of-note/?topicId=e89b8f30-8792-47cc-b00a-633d3cb27fa7

Quote

Drought conditions in Western States in summers of 2021, 2022 were the most intense in 20 years

Even in the USA, not the overpopulatedest country in the world.

Irrigation is limited by water, irrigatable plowland, and power requirements to get and deliver the fresh water.
And by the waste heat of all these processes, too.

***

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_scarcity

Spoiler

 

A typical dry lakebed is seen in California, which is experiencing its worst megadrought in 1,200 years, precipitated by climate change, and is therefore water rationing.^[28] Water scarcity and lack of water security present an existential threat.

 

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

How we feed the world today - OECD

Spoiler

"Today", you say?

This is today...

... and this is tomorrow.

15..30 = fertile age.

Spoiler

Median age per CIA World Factbook 2018 and 2020 (ranked) estimates^[2]

Country/Territory	Rank	Median ages in years
		2018 median	2020 medians
		Combined	Combined	Male	Female	Difference (female minus male)
Niger	230	15.4	14.8	14.5	15.1	0.6
Uganda	229	15.8	15.7	14.9	16.5	1.6
Angola	228	15.9	15.9	15.4	16.4	1
Mali	227	15.8	16.1	15.6	16.5	0.9
Chad	226	17.8	16.1	15.6	16.5	0.9
Democratic Republic of the Congo	225	18.6	16.7	16.5	16.8	0.3
Malawi	224	16.5	16.8	16.7	16.9	0.2
Zambia	223	16.8	16.9	16.7	17.0	0.3
Mozambique	222	17.2	17.0	16.3	17.6	1.3
Benin	221	18.2	17.0	16.4	17.6	1.2
Burundi	220	17.0	17.7	17.4	18.0	0.6
Burkina Faso	219	17.3	17.9	17.0	18.7	1.7
Liberia	218	17.8	18.0	17.7	18.2	0.5
Guinea-Bissau	217	20.1	18.0	17.4	18.6	1.2
Palestine (Gaza Strip)	216	17.2	18.0	17.7	18.4	0.7
Tanzania	215	17.7	18.2	17.9	18.4	0.5
Sudan	214	19.9	18.3	18.1	18.5	0.4
Somalia	213	18.1	18.5	18.7	18.3	-0.4
Cameroon	212	18.5	18.5	18.2	18.8	0.6
South Sudan	211	17.3	18.6	18.9	18.3	-0.6
Nigeria	210	18.4	18.6	18.4	18.9	0.5
Sierra Leone	209	19.0	19.1	18.5	19.7	1.2
Guinea	208	18.9	19.1	18.9	19.4	0.5
Sao Tome and Principe	207	18.4	19.3	18.9	19.7	0.8
Senegal	206	18.8	19.4	18.5	20.3	1.8
Republic of the Congo	205	19.7	19.5	19.3	19.7	0.4
Afghanistan	204	18.9	19.5	19.4	19.5	0.1
East Timor	203	18.9	19.6	18.9	20.2	1.3
Rwanda	202	19.0	19.7	18.9	20.4	1.5
Yemen (2016 & 2018 estimates)	201	19.5	19.8	19.6	19.9	0.3
Ethiopia	200	17.9	19.8	19.6	20.1	0.5
Togo	199	19.8	20.0	19.7	20.3	0.6
Kenya	198	19.7	20.0	19.9	20.1	0.2
Central African Republic	197	19.7	20.0	19.7	20.3	0.6
Madagascar	196	19.7	20.3	20.1	20.5	0.4
Eritrea	195	19.7	20.3	19.7	20.8	1.1
Equatorial Guinea	194	19.8	20.3	19.9	20.7	0.8
Cote d'Ivoire	193	20.9	20.3	20.3	20.3	0
Zimbabwe	192	20.0	20.5	20.3	20.6	0.3
Comoros	191	19.9	20.9	20.2	21.5	1.3
Mauritania	190	20.5	21.0	20.1	22.0	1.9
Gabon	189	18.6	21.0	21.4	20.6	-0.8
Iraq	188	20.0	21.2	20.8	21.6	0.8
Ghana	187	21.1	21.4	21.0	21.9	0.9
Western Sahara (2018 & 2019 estimates)	186	21.1	21.5	21.0	21.9	0.9
Namibia	185	21.2	21.8	21.1	22.6	1.5
The Gambia	184	21.0	21.8	21.5	22.2	0.7
Palestine (West Bank)	183	21.1	21.9	21.7	22.2	0.5
Pakistan	182	23.8	22.0	21.9	22.1	0.2
Vanuatu	181	22.0	23.0	22.6	23.5	0.9
Guatemala	180	22.1	23.2	22.6	23.8	1.2
Syria	179	24.3	23.5	23.0	24.0	1
Solomon Islands	178	22.5	23.5	23.2	23.7	0.5
Jordan	177	22.5	23.5	23.9	22.9	-1
Eswatini (Swaziland)	176	21.7	23.7	22.5	24.7	2.2
Marshall Islands	175	22.9	23.8	23.6	23.9	0.3
Belize	174	22.7	23.9	23.0	24.8	1.8
Papua New Guinea	173	23.1	24.0	24.0	24.0	0
Laos	172	23.0	24.0	23.7	24.4	0.7
Tonga	171	23.0	24.1	23.6	24.5	0.9
Philippines	170	23.5	24.1	23.6	24.6	1
Haiti	169	23.0	24.1	23.8	24.3	0.5
Egypt	168	23.9	24.1	23.8	24.5	0.7
Honduras	167	23.0	24.4	23.5	25.2	1.7
Lesotho	166	24.2	24.7	24.7	24.7	0
Djibouti	165	23.9	24.9	23.0	26.4	3.4
Tajikistan	164	24.5	25.3	24.6	26.0	1.4
Nepal	163	24.1	25.3	23.9	26.9	3
Bolivia	162	24.3	25.3	24.5	26.0	1.5
Samoa	161	24.4	25.6	25.3	26.0	0.7
Kiribati	160	24.6	25.7	24.8	26.6	1.8
Botswana	159	24.5	25.7	24.5	26.7	2.2
Libya	158	28.9	25.8	25.9	25.7	-0.2
Oman	157	25.6	26.2	27.2	25.1	-2.1
Federated States of Micronesia	156	25.1	26.3	25.5	27.1	1.6
Cambodia	155	25.3	26.4	25.6	27.2	1.6
Tuvalu	154	25.7	26.6	25.6	27.6	2
Cape Verde	153	25.4	26.8	25.9	27.6	1.7
Nauru	152	26.4	27.0	28.2	25.9	-2.3
American Samoa	151	25.5	27.2	26.7	27.7	1
Nicaragua	150	25.7	27.3	26.4	28.2	1.8
Kyrgyzstan	149	26.5	27.3	26.1	28.5	2.4
Guyana	148	26.2	27.5	27.2	27.9	0.7
El Salvador	147	27.1	27.7	26.2	29.3	3.1
Dominican Republic	146	28.1	27.9	27.8	28.1	0.3
Bangladesh	145	26.7	27.9	27.1	28.6	1.5
South Africa	144	27.1	28.0	27.9	28.1	0.2
India	143	28.1	28.7	28.0	29.5	1.5
Ecuador	142	27.7	28.8	28.0	29.6	1.6
Algeria	141	28.1	28.9	28.6	29.3	0.7
Peru	140	28.0	29.1	28.3	29.9	1.6
Morocco	139	29.3	29.1	28.7	29.6	0.9
Bhutan	138	27.6	29.1	29.6	28.6	-1
Turkmenistan	137	27.9	29.2	28.7	29.7	1
Malaysia	136	28.5	29.2	28.9	29.6	0.7
Burma	135	28.2	29.2	28.3	30.0	1.7
Mexico	134	28.3	29.3	28.2	30.4	2.2
Jamaica	133	26.0	29.4	28.6	30.1	1.5
Guam	132	29.0	29.4	28.7	30.2	1.5
Maldives	131	28.2	29.5	29.2	30.0	0.8
Paraguay	130	28.2	29.7	29.5	29.9	0.4
Kuwait	129	29.3	29.7	30.7	27.9	-2.8
Mongolia	128	28.3	29.8	28.8	30.7	1.9
Fiji	127	28.9	29.9	29.7	30.1	0.4
Venezuela	126	28.3	30.0	29.4	30.7	1.

 

List of candidates (they got blues on the picture).

 

The fertilizers, of course, play a role, too.
https://www.aiche.org/resources/publications/cep/2016/september/introduction-ammonia-production

Spoiler

Of course, you know that they are made out of hydrocarbons (oxygen and nitrogen a from air, hydrogen from water, but the carbon... carbon...)
Ouch, water is required for irrigation. Either water, or food.

As we can see, the curve is far from a horizontal asymptote.

Of course, double people need double food, so double irrigation, double fertilizers.
See again that median age table above.

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

And people say the Pax Americana is problematic.  Free trade baby!

Free trade and China to provide the goods for the free trade.

  

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Free trade can prevent hunger caused by climate change: International trade can compensate for regional food shortages and reduce hunger -- ScienceDaily

Quote

Researchers investigated the effects of trade on hunger in the world as a result of climate change. 

The problem is not in climate change, as you can see. The future will hit the fan much sooner, regardless of anti-methane plugs for cows and other ecological efforts.

The "free trade" can just move the food between the pockets, but not make five fishes from one, especially when the lake got dry.

Edited November 16, 2022 by kerbiloid

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

"free trade" can just move the food between the pockets, but not make five fishes from one, especially when the lake got dry

You are correct that FT does not solve all problems, and we can be guaranteed that despite the problems we have and know of now - new problems will arise. 

My point is that with free movement of goods and services, we (humanity) have a better ability to deal with problems than the world did in the bad old days of competing empires and hegemonies. 

[Beamer]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

biodiversity == low productivity

(Unless you treat pines and apples as pineapples.)

True, but that's only a bad thing if you think in terms of the length of a political career. Over the long term, monocultures = no productivity at all. Just look at the Gros Michel, and the Cavendish doesn't seem far behind that example.

 

[kerbiloid]

22 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

My point is that with free movement of goods and services, we (humanity) have a better ability to deal with problems than the world did in the bad old days of competing empires and hegemonies. 

A very optimistic generalization. 

The free trade is a tool. Somewhere applicable, somewhere not.

When there is no vital resource deficit, free exchange helps redistribute them optimally.
That's its only advantage and purpose.

When there is a deficit, the optimal strategy is resource concentration, and then the so-called "free trade" is limited with the area of no resource deficit.
That's how the states and nations have appeared. By resource concentration, not by free trade.

Trying to recall, what was the North American continent traded for from the native dwellers...
No, that's probably something different, the free trade comes when you have the gun to hold the market and call it free,

Another advantage of the free trade over the command economy is that a CEO can fool a tax inspector, can bribe his boss, but he can't continuously get greater income from wrong desisions, especially from the ones he was forced to do.
So, there is area for free trade, but no absolutism in this question is viable.

7 minutes ago, Beamer said:

True, but that's only a bad thing if you think in terms of the length of a political career. 

In terms of food for eight billions (and keeps growing).

8 minutes ago, Beamer said:

Over the long term, monocultures = no productivity at all.

Spoiler

 

Edited November 16, 2022 by kerbiloid

[Beamer]

On 11/16/2022 at 9:10 PM, kerbiloid said:

On 11/16/2022 at 9:09 PM, Beamer said:

Over the long term, monocultures = no productivity at all.

  Hide contents

I was aiming at genetic monocultures, hence the banana example. There are dozens if not hundreds of different rice cultivars.

Even then crop protection is a major headache for rice because of monoculture in the agricultural sense, with a lot of research going on (and fortunately progress being made with combining crops as well as combining it with fish 'farming', which is pretty clever IMHO). And that's for a staple food of which many varieties exist and which is primarily grown by small (in modern western crop-growing terms: absolutely tiny) farmers, so arguably one of the 'lesser monocultured' staple foods out there.

You can't really compare the present day agricultural practices to those of even a few hundred years ago. When there's only a few hundred million people on earth, you can throw away a plastic bottle or drop a mercury thermometer once in a while without destroying entire ecosystems. With 8 billion not so much. Scale changes a lot of things that we once took for granted, and that includes rice cultivation.

Edit: Just wanted to add, anyone interested in a great future dystopian sci-fi novel tackling the subjects of global warming, rising sea levels, post-carbon energy and genetic monoculture I would recommend to read The Windup Girl by Paolo Bacigalupi, winner of both the Nebula and Hugo awards for best novel in 2010. I was going to say it's definitely in my top 10 best of the last 10 years until I looked up the wiki link and once again was confronted with how time flies, so let's say top 12 of the last 12 years

 

 

Edited November 19, 2022 by Beamer

[kerbiloid]

3 hours ago, Beamer said:

I was aiming at genetic monocultures, hence the banana example. There are dozens if not hundreds of different rice cultivars.

I mean, every non-apple plant takes available room in the garden from the apple trees.

So, more roses = less apples. When there is enough apples, you can let the roses. But otherwise there is no choice but apples.

[Beamer]

Just now, kerbiloid said:

I mean, every non-apple plant takes available room in the garden from the apple trees.

So, more roses = less apples. When there is enough apples, you can let the roses. But otherwise there is no choice but apples.

What about pears?

 

[kerbiloid]

1 minute ago, Beamer said:

What about pears?

 

Apples are edible. Pears are edible. Ergo, pears are apples.

[Beamer]

Story developing: https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/legal/  /  https://www.thedailybeast.com/white-house-admits-we-might-need-to-block-the-sun-to-stop-climate-change

Finally!

In 2010 the UN (in)famously placed a ban on any geoengineering projects in what I at the time believed (and still do) was the biggest mistake they ever made. Although I (and more importantly, the scientists involved) am well aware of the potential dangers of large scale geoengineering, they didn't just ban geoengineering, they banned even the small scale (in the field) research on such projects (there were some vague loopholes in the treaty however considering the burden of proof necessary to be allowed to run projects like this it effectively ruled out anything that went beyond "let's put a CO2 filter on this chimney"). See for example https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19660-what-the-un-ban-on-geoengineering-really-means/

Seems like at least some politicians are starting to wake up. although whether it lasts beyond this presidency time will have to tell...

 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, Beamer said:

Story developing: https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/legal/  /  https://www.thedailybeast.com/white-house-admits-we-might-need-to-block-the-sun-to-stop-climate-change

Finally!

In 2010 the UN (in)famously placed a ban on any geoengineering projects in what I at the time believed (and still do) was the biggest mistake they ever made. Although I (and more importantly, the scientists involved) am well aware of the potential dangers of large scale geoengineering, they didn't just ban geoengineering, they banned even the small scale (in the field) research on such projects (there were some vague loopholes in the treaty however considering the burden of proof necessary to be allowed to run projects like this it effectively ruled out anything that went beyond "let's put a CO2 filter on this chimney"). See for example https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19660-what-the-un-ban-on-geoengineering-really-means/

Seems like at least some politicians are starting to wake up. although whether it lasts beyond this presidency time will have to tell...

 

Block the sun.  Stupidity at its finest.

[kerbiloid]

A dust cloud at the Lagrange point.

Edited November 21, 2022 by kerbiloid

[Beamer]

3 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Block the sun.  Stupidity at its finest.

Thanks to the ban on research, we don't have reliable data to make that assertion. What is stupid is acting without knowledge, and by extension blocking the gathering of said knowledge.

Given the fact that a) all stars are variable, even stable ones like our sun, and b) our civilization requires stability to survive, it seems only inevitable that we will eventually start regulating the amount of energy the earth receives from the sun. Better we know how to do that safely before we actually start doing it.

 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

32 minutes ago, Beamer said:

Thanks to the ban on research, we don't have reliable data to make that assertion. What is stupid is acting without knowledge, and by extension blocking the gathering of said knowledge.

Given the fact that a) all stars are variable, even stable ones like our sun, and b) our civilization requires stability to survive, it seems only inevitable that we will eventually start regulating the amount of energy the earth receives from the sun. Better we know how to do that safely before we actually start doing it.

 

Um....

First point: given the timeframes involved and the absolute power of our sun compared to any of the planets... that's not exactly feasible.  The GeoEngineering nonsense is a panic-attack-driven piece of nonsense that seeks to address human pollution caused warming by interfering with another source of warming; our primary one.  In other words - MOAR Pollution... but with good intentions.  (And... don't forget which road is paved with good intentions!)  If and or when the sun decides to get variable enough to mess with our planet in any life-threatening way... there ain't a durn thing we can do about it (aside from getting off this wet rock).

Second, I will point out that not knowing something - i.e. not having the data - isn't the same thing as it being smart to start doing reckless tinkering with stuff you don't understand.  Put plainly, we don't know what we're doing.  We have some data that shows that at least once (Pinatubo)* a volcanic eruption had a cooling effect.  The process is poorly understood.  There have also been other volcanic eruptions that may have increased warming (Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai)**.   Historically, massive volcanic imputs into the atmosphere have been linked to mass extinctions (Deccan Traps / K-T boundary).  So, to even begin to attempt a volcanic level of atmospheric tinkering... we'd have to dump hundreds of tons of material into the stratosphere... which may be a really stupid thing to do.  Further, if you look at smaller-scale attempts at geoengineering, like seeding clouds, our efforts produce mediocre results.***  Again, we have good ideas, but don't know what we're doing.

So when I hear people saying its too hard to address pollution and human behavior - that the only thing to do is reckless geoengineering on a global scale?  I'm not impressed.

 

 

 

 

 

*Global Effects of Mount Pinatubo (nasa.gov)

**Tonga volcano sent tons of water into the stratosphere, which could warm Earth : NPR

***Cloud seeding - Wikipedia

 

 

 

Edited November 21, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Beamer]

25 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Um....

First point: given the timeframes involved and the absolute power of our sun compared to any of the planets... that's not exactly feasible.  The GeoEngineering nonsense is a panic-attack-driven piece of nonsense that seeks to address human pollution caused warming by interfering with another source of warming; our primary one.  In other words - MOAR Pollution... but with good intentions.  (And... don't forget which road is paved with good intentions!)  If and or when the sun decides to get variable enough to mess with our planet in any life-threatening way... there ain't a durn thing we can do about it (aside from getting off this wet rock).

Second, I will point out that not knowing something - i.e. not having the data - isn't the same thing as it being smart to start doing reckless tinkering with stuff you don't understand.  Put plainly, we don't know what we're doing.  We have some data that shows that at least once (Pinatubo)* a volcanic eruption had a cooling effect.  The process is poorly understood.  There have also been other volcanic eruptions that may have increased warming (Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai)**.   Historically, massive volcanic imputs into the atmosphere have been linked to mass extinctions (Deccan Traps / K-T boundary).  So, to even begin to attempt a volcanic level of atmospheric tinkering... we'd have to dump hundreds of tons of material into the stratosphere... which may be a really stupid thing to do.  Further, if you look at smaller-scale attempts at geoengineering, like seeding clouds, our efforts produce mediocre results.***  Again, we have good ideas, but don't know what we're doing.

So when I hear people saying its too hard to address pollution and human behavior - that the only thing to do is reckless geoengineering on a global scale?  I'm not impressed.

 

 

 

 

 

*Global Effects of Mount Pinatubo (nasa.gov)

**Tonga volcano sent tons of water into the stratosphere, which could warm Earth : NPR

***Cloud seeding - Wikipedia

 

 

 

I think you're missing the extent to which this research goes. Phrases like "blocking the sun" is exactly the kind of rhetoric that is used to scare politicians into blocking research, and it's complete nonsense. Nobody is blocking the sun, we're talking about small scale research into regulating the amount of sunlight that reaches the surface or the atmosphere of the earth. The particular project that scared the UN into this treaty in 2010 was a proposal by NASA to do some small scale experiments with reflective dust in low earth orbit. It would have had zero effect on the global climate, it would have been a short duration experiment, and it would have given us a lot of useful data, not only about how effective (or ineffective) such measures could potentially be but also on the effect of sunlight on cloud formation and wind patterns.

I don't subscribe to the notion that simply 'bettering our ways' with regards to pollution is going to save us. All the data we have says that it most definitely will not. And it irks me greatly that people keep pushing that nonsense. We're way to far down the slope to just 'stop being bad' for the environment. The amount of damage we have already done requires active regulation to solve, reducing our climate footprint can only prevent future damage, not repair past damage. Until people start realizing this, we will keep sliding down the slope until we hit the bottom hard enough to form a crater.

Edit: It is worth considering that the situation we find ourselves in is in itself the result of large scale global geoengineering, albeit unintentional, and without knowledge. Research into actively altering the climate stands to also give us a lot of knowledge in how to prevent altering it unintentionally.

 

Edited November 21, 2022 by Beamer
Afterthought

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Is Earth a self-regulating organism? New study suggests our planet has a built-in climate control (msn.com)

Y'all might find this interesting.

Not a cure, but it does talk about resilience.

[SunlitZelkova]

“Solar radiation management (SRM), also referred to as solar climate engineering and albedo modification, seeks to offset GHG-induced warming by either increasing the amount of sunlight reflected back to space or preventing radiation from reaching the earth’s surface in the first place. A number of different technologies fall within this category, as depicted in the figure above.

Compared to CDR, SRM is thought to be a quick fix because it masks warming rather than actually removing the buildup of GHG emissions. If SRM is not accompanied by effective mitigation efforts to simultaneously cut emissions, when it is curtailed, it can cause precipitous warming. The perpetual need for SRM is called “lock in,” which means once SRM is deployed, it may be difficult to safely stop.

SRM feasibility differs by technology. Energy inputs can be large and variable. It can be difficult to accurately track injected particles and anticipate dynamic atmospheric conditions. It may also be impossible to predict changes from place to place and season to season, avoid ozone depletion, and prevent disruptions to local weather patterns. There are numerous unanswered technical and environmental questions that require further investigation and vetting. Limiting the consequences will depend on developing a better understanding of related natural processes, chemical interactions, and physical alterations.

Second-order impacts revolve around the scale and distribution of effects. Even if SRM succeeds on a planetary scale, it may invoke local and regional conflicts due to real or perceived relative harms caused or relative benefits bestowed. For example, if regional water (or rainfall) quantity shifts or water quality varies within a region, cross-border tensions could rise.“

https://carnegieendowment.org/2017/08/21/understanding-climate-engineering-pub-72846
If anyone is interested, I recommend reading this whole thing. It is a pretty neutral/fair summary of the whole deal, going beyond SRM including carbon capture and beyond.

It does not sound like great news to me. Because this study would be done unilaterally by the US, it is bound to draw concerns regarding the weaponization of such a technology (this could be hyper Strangeloveian in an instant), and obviously the US alone won’t have the right to alter other countries’ climate conditions without their approval.

That said, I think it is good to study it so we know more about it. The only reason there is such a stigma around it is because we don’t know that much. But the US should make it clear that this is only a study and not a plan of action. Obviously, other countries that undertake such studies should do the same too.

I caution against studying it with the anticipation it is going to work though. If one looks for something specific they tend to find it, and it would be disastrous for research on this subject to fall into that trap.

[kerbiloid]

9 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Is Earth a self-regulating organism? New study suggests our planet has a built-in climate control (msn.com)

Y'all might find this interesting.

Not a cure, but it does talk about resilience.

The organic life is itself a self-regulation protective layer on top of the lythosphere.

It forms plastic soil which saves the minerals and water pools from erosion, it forms leaves which cause thermostatic conditions below, it has herbivorous animals as gardeners for this protective self-repairing layer, and it has predators to manage and make evolve the herbivorouses.

On the top of that there is a sapient species, which will in near future replace the randomly evolved biosphere with manageable, more effective system, and will be supporting it later to stay alive.

By spreading around across other star system, the humans will be reproducing the conditions of the Earth and it biosphere, eliminating the native ones, and making other habitable planets as close to the Earth as possible.

Thus, the Earth will be spreading its spores. infecting other planets, and making a colony of Earth-like planetary organisms, like any normal plant.

(Does anyone think that his preferences and intentions  is anything but his biological purpose?)

[DDE]

"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should"

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Another note on resilience.  

Earth’s protective ozone layer is slowly but noticeably healing at a pace that would fully mend the hole over Antarctica in about 43 years, a new United Nations report says.

... 

The report also warned that efforts to artificially cool the planet by putting aerosols into the atmosphere to reflect the sunlight would thin the ozone layer by as much as 20% in Antarctica.

The Associated Press

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/un-says-ozone-layer-slowly-healing-hole-mend-2066-rcna64927