195
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Philosoraptor@hexbear.net 94 points 4 days ago

I did a two-year post-doc in a climate modeling lab at a major research university studying exactly this proposal. I have peer-reviewed publications on it. I cannot overstate what a bad idea it is. It would kill--at minimum--tens of millions of people, and set off the worst refugee crisis the world has ever seen as global precipitation patterns shifted--and those are the effects we know about. Once we start it, we will have to run it indefinitely or incur absolutely apocalyptic snap-back temperature increases.

Still, I will be absolutely flabbergasted if we don't implement this sometime in the next 15 years. It's cheap, effective at controlling temperature increases, and will let us continue to kick the can down the road for meaningful climate action.

[-] Monk3brain3@hexbear.net 35 points 4 days ago

Still, I will be absolutely flabbergasted if we don't implement this sometime in the next 15 years

sadness-abysmal

[-] Gorb@hexbear.net 35 points 4 days ago

Ah but have you considered I still want my funkopops delivered with same day amazon delivery

[-] invalidusernamelol@hexbear.net 5 points 3 days ago

Who needs blue skies

[-] carpoftruth@hexbear.net 28 points 4 days ago

It would kill--at minimum--tens of millions of people

What is the mechanism for this?

[-] Philosoraptor@hexbear.net 11 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Primarily precipitation pattern shifts. Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) is highly likely to result in less precipitation falling globally overall, but it's really the distribution that's worrying. Our natural model for this--the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the 1990s--caused an almost perfect inversion of global precipitation patterns: places that usually get a lot of rain turned dry, and places that are usually dry got a lot of rain. The effect was detectable for more than two years, and appeared and disappeared right along with the temperature reduction signal.

Here's the precipitation anomaly and Palmer Drought Severity index data for 1991 and 1992, immediately after the eruption. Warmer colors mean less water:

Computational modeling of SAI has indicated that this was not a fluke, and that the degree of change will likely increase with more aerosols in the stratosphere. Both elements of the switch are bad: if you're used to dry conditions, excess precipitation brings flash flooding, erosion, and mudslides. If you're used to rainy conditions, a lack of precipitation brings drought, famine, and fire. SE Asia--and other places that rely on a stable seasonal monsoon--are likely to be especially hard hit, and we have every indication that the shift would be permanent for as long as we kept up SAI. That's why I said it would set off the worst refugee crisis in the world's history.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Farvana@lemmygrad.ml 24 points 4 days ago

Shifting precipitation patterns.

Drought in moist regions, floods in arid regions, massive shifts in farming methods that would be necessitated by famine/crop failure, drying of wells and rivers that provided drinking water.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml 91 points 4 days ago

I remember back around maybe...15 years ago or so? There was a lot of fearmongering about the Bad Guy Countries potentially doing this because they want to be "lazy" and don't want to invest in green energy.

Well, now that China is the #1 producer of green energy, suddenly all the capitalist bootlickers are insisting we should scorch the sky Matrix style to own the commies.

[-] DragonBallZinn@hexbear.net 35 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

They actually said that? Pfft. That's rich.

I had to see a both sidesed video in school where it presented one of the drawbacks of green energy as "will we have to say goodbye to the American way of life?" Even I saw the situation as American businessmen and governments alike simply being too lazy, too hedonistic to do the right thing. We all know it's the right thing to do, but nope too lazy.

Even as a liberal kid that was an enthusiastic yes from me. Brits were on one side getting unviersal healthcare and living in a beautiful country with tons of architecture and I'm stuck on some boring ass shithole with nothing to do but go to walmart and consoom corn syrup?

Sorry, my inner BMF was coming out.

[-] PM_ME_YOUR_FOUCAULTS@hexbear.net 69 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

By the way, Ive been saying for years that they are 100% going to do this shit. They are going to keep the pedal to the floor on carbon emissions until it becomes impossibility to ignore any longer and then sell this as a magical technocratic solution. This is going to be a liberal consensus position in like ten years

[-] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 76 points 4 days ago

I suppose if I was this much of a ghoul, I'd also be deathly scared of socialism because there's no way someone who's ready to gas the whole planet is only a Nazi about this one specific thing.

[-] BeanBoy@hexbear.net 42 points 4 days ago

I think I see a negative externality on the wall over there. Maybe he should go and get a closer look.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] came_apart_at_Kmart@hexbear.net 61 points 4 days ago

yeah, we should totally reduce and disrupt the constant source of clean, pure energy streaming into the earth which drives the biosphere's staggering complexity, so we can keep burning the concentrated, dirty pockets of stored and buried sunlight from millions of years ago that is overheating the place and polluting our bodies, air, land, and water.

[-] NPa@hexbear.net 61 points 4 days ago
[-] YuccaMan@hexbear.net 33 points 4 days ago

Doesn't China produce more new solar capacity than the rest of the world has like every year?

[-] hotcouchguy@hexbear.net 28 points 4 days ago

Yeah but why wouldn't they want to spend a bunch of money to make their solar panels 1% less effective for the benefit of the US imperial order? Just makes sense really.

[-] Justice@lemmygrad.ml 26 points 4 days ago

"Relatively wealthy"

It's probably appropriate for Americans (and Amero-weebs aka "guys who think they're on the team but absolutely are not" (looking at you Eastern Europeans who love America)) to stop this cope over PERSONAL WEALTH and consumption as a measure of a nationstate's wealth overall.

By every measurement I can think of and data exists for, China's population is "wealthier" than America. Oh, except in the areas of, you know, the shitty things. Like concentrating wealth in a top 1% and top top 0.1% of families. Or endlessly consuming shit for no purpose other than to distract from your meaningless life. As far as what I'd call true measures of a nation's wealth, things like (nutritious) caloric intake and availability, literacy rates, availability of healthcare (meaning the cost as well), child and adult educational opportunities and attainment, public works projects like building roads, energy grids and production ability, building rail and high tech trains... on and on. America has been declining for at least ~50 years in all of those areas. As in it just gets worse and worse. While China has been going up and up and skyrocketing in the recent decade or two.

This kinda cuts into the roots of the "GDP discussion" or rather the insistence of capitalist-minded (or biased) economists and random people on using the irrelevant GDP figure to "show" that capitalism and the US/EU specifically are "superior" economically. Goes back to the USSR as well and now days it's still moronically being clung to. A measurement of economic consumption means nothing about the "wealth" of nations. Unless your only measure of wealth is how many PlayStations can you buy...

Of course all the discussions of economics between US/China also leaves out the obvious history of one nation being a settler colonial slave state turned into dominant imperial power post-world war 2. That only makes the current state of the US more pathetic. The biggest head start perhaps in history, built on immeasurable human suffering, only to throw it all away so that Elon can jump on stage and try to do an X with his body, while people are homeless on the streets and the state can only find endless funding to support genocide. I don't think future civilizations (or whatever species might replace humans as the dominant intelligent life form if we blast ourselves from existence) will even believe what they are reading when they learn about the last few hundred years. It's just beyond comprehension

[-] jolliver_bromwell@hexbear.net 26 points 4 days ago

i will probably nuke this guy

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Cowbee@hexbear.net 64 points 4 days ago

Note that the "negative externalities" are implied and not listed.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] DragonBallZinn@hexbear.net 61 points 4 days ago

In tech

Are you sure you and your lot aren't just trying to sell us something? I think people forgot there's other smart people in the world other than folks in the tech industry.

[-] FunkYankkkees@hexbear.net 65 points 4 days ago

The tech sector seems to have a high concentration of people who believe that because they understand one complex thing, they must inherently understand other complex things
"I can program well in 5 languages therefore my opinions on economics are valuable"

[-] Thordros@hexbear.net 43 points 4 days ago

We don't know who struck first—Us, or Them—but we know that it was Us that scorched the sky.

"Externalities" are a capitalism thing because it externalizes the environment and many other things for the sake of perpetuating an abstract economy based on capital accumulation. An economy based on rational use of resources wouldn't externalize those things in the first place.

[-] kleeon@hexbear.net 46 points 4 days ago

They genuinely think some bazinga movie plot involving aerosols and asteroid mining is a more realistic way of fighting climate change than overcoming capitalism zizek-preference

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Frank@hexbear.net 48 points 4 days ago

This is a whole ass type of guy all by himself.

"Negative externalities" jfc.

[-] Beaver@hexbear.net 35 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Especially when talking about air pollution, the literal textbook case of negative externalities. Just throwing bad sounding terms at things you don't like.

[-] Feline@hexbear.net 38 points 4 days ago

The capitalists are conspiring to block the sun like they're Mr. Burns 😭

[-] barrbaric@hexbear.net 23 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Death penalty for tech dipshits who would rather do geofascism than ecosocialism.

[-] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 27 points 4 days ago

Maybe this is below criticism, but saying "all the smart people I talk to in tech" has no clear difference from "all the people I agree with who I talk to in tech" when you're making an argument like this.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Budwig_v_1337hoven@hexbear.net 34 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Blue skies? A sacrifice this guy and his friends in tech are apparently willing to make -, for all of us

[-] kleeon@hexbear.net 32 points 4 days ago

Tech people don't go outside so they think they'll be fine

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] kristina@hexbear.net 24 points 4 days ago

Maybe dudes in tech aren't the people you should be discussing altering the climate with, maybe climate scientists? Idk just a fucking thought

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] theredchecker@lemmygrad.ml 32 points 4 days ago

This guy writes like he just discovered these words a few minutes ago and is trying to use them everywhere he can.

[-] CantaloupeAss@hexbear.net 30 points 4 days ago

This is just robotic engagement farming, right?

Like, who actually goes on Twitter to write about what they care about? Honestly why does it exist lol

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2024
195 points (99.0% liked)

the_dunk_tank

15911 readers
576 users here now

It's the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS