• @silence7OPM
      link
      1512 days ago

      It doesn’t fully stop it — we still end up with ocean acidification and an altered pole-to-equator temperature gradient, with significant impacts on rainfall patterns.

      • @Mikufan@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        512 days ago

        With his version yes, but i personally think it would be more efficient to “just” deploy gigantic reflecting satellites that block the sun partially. This would be with way less risks, although higher initial investment it would probably be cheaper in the long run as well.

        Spraying particles in large scale into our atmosphere isn’t a good idea. Also because regulating the density of them is way harder than to send a signal to a satellite to do something differently.

        • @silence7OPM
          link
          812 days ago

          We can’t actually do that though, let alone keep it functional for the hundreds of thousands of years the earth will remain warmed by today’s CO2 emissions

          • @Mikufan@ani.social
            link
            fedilink
            612 days ago

            We only need to keep it working for at most 200 years until we switched to carbon neutral and started reverting it.

            And actually satellites are pretty easy to maintain, especially outside our cloud of space junk. There is no rust and nothing that would break it, it however would need shielding against the EMPs our sun bombards us with from time to time.

            It would probably be necessary to build them in space, as such large structures can’t be shot into space directly. But we do have the technology necessary. We just need to start doing it.

            Its just one step of many.

              • @Mikufan@ani.social
                link
                fedilink
                412 days ago

                I said we have the technologies to do that and not that it’s easy. Also nobody said it has to be one fucking gigantic one, many “small” ones would do the same. And yes, i said we have to also get to a negative carbon output, within about 200 years that is possible. Its however way less problematic than to put gigantic amounts of rare chemicals (or pounders) into the air, wich would also cause problems with many idiots.

                • @silence7OPM
                  link
                  612 days ago

                  Many small ones implies a huge and ongoing launch schedule.

                  And no, if we do this, we’re not going to stop burning fossil fuels, or remove significant amounts of carbon — schemes like this mostly serve as propaganda for the fossil fuels industry to create continued permission to extract and burn.