Wer ist bereit, darüber nachzudenken, die Sonne auszublenden?

Alexander C. Kaufman: “For years, the idea of geoengineering—artificially lowering global temperatures through technological means—has been met with skepticism. Only a handful of dedicated and much-criticized scientists have argued for researching it at all, and when others weighed in, it was generally to trash the idea. This September, in a study published in the journal *Frontiers in Science*, more than 40 experts in climate change, polar geosciences, and ocean patterns warned that geoengineering was extremely unlikely to work and likely to have dangerous consequences. Spraying reflective aerosols into the atmosphere to deflect the sun’s heat, could, for instance, ‘cause stratospheric heating, which may alter atmospheric circulation patterns, leading to wintertime warming over northern Eurasia,’ they wrote …

“As the actual predictions for Earth’s future have become more dire, scientists are starting to agree. More than 120 of them signed on to a response to the Frontiers paper that argued that more research into geoengineering was, in fact, ‘urgently needed.’

“‘Within the scientific community, I don’t think there’s any question that there’s growing support for the research, just driven by the reality that climate change is progressing,’ Philip Duffy, the former top science adviser in the Biden administration, told me. ‘There’s a very strong realization now that some amount of overshoot is inevitable, and that mitigation alone can’t fix this.’ Hopes of cutting emissions quickly enough to limit the dangers of climate change are fading: This year’s United Nations climate summit concluded over the weekend with a final statement that avoided any mention of fossil fuels, in what was widely hailed as a victory for oil and gas producers. If the world cannot drastically, quickly overhaul global energy and agricultural systems before the planet reaches irreversible tipping points, then what?

“In theory, geoengineering could mean brightening marine clouds, or encouraging heat to bounce back into space by mirroring light off polar ice. The term has also been used to describe technology that removes carbon from the atmosphere, which is now widely accepted as a necessary tool to limit global warming. The most vexxing technology is what’s broadly referred to as solar-radiation management—those reflective aerosols that could prevent the sun’s heat from reaching the Earth.

“After years of being treated as fringe notions, all of these ideas are gaining traction.”

Read more: [https://theatln.tc/v2mwgT5T](https://theatln.tc/v2mwgT5T)

As an asthmatic and in general, someone who enjoys breathing clean air, I would rather NOT be breathing in these particulates personally. Also, how will it affect plant growth? Ocean water? weather cycles? Can we perhaps do just a little bit of research before we go spraying potentially harmful shit into our atmosphere and blocking out our only renewable source of heat, light and energy?

Did everyone forget the Matrix? What’s the company that wants to do this called, fucking Skynet?

Carbon capture is a fad, as is this. Its main purpose: get government money.

I am highly sceptical of these ideas.

I enjoy all the instances of warning about this from The Matrix to Futurama. I really love when the sun shield gets a tiny micro meteorite in it and slowly turns its lens toward Earth as a death ray.

I’d prefer the 1 giant 🧊 from space please.

It seems to me that nobody can really say one way or the other yet. Should we not research it? Perhaps it is a terrible idea. Perhaps it might actually work though?

I dont think anyone is suggesting we just start full throttle pumping the atmosphere with more garbage, but surely there is a way to start with smaller scale testing, and researching to find the right material that has the desired effects with the least negative impacts.

Consider that there have been many volcanic eruptions in history that have been big enough to make detectable changes to the climate, and it hasn’t destroyed the world yet. Sending a few test planes up is not going to doom us all to a Snowpiercer scenario.

If this is a possible lifeline, rather than speculating, lets just do the science please.

I live in Arizona. We could use a little less sunlight here

No one I hope. This would be hubris of the highest order and unlikely to actually work as expected.

Are we going the Matrix route of no sun and a robot war? I’d rather not.

Bill Gates wet dream coming closer to being a reality

Admit the climate crisis is out of control? Naw.
Turn down the sun. Yaw!

I, for one, welcome far more particulates and chemicals in my breathing air and food, as opposed to having a 1% higher temperature. Saving the planet. Science, f yea!

Yeah…. Anything introducing *more chemicals* or particulates into the atmosphere is a nonstarter for me.

Blocking sunlight or reflecting it is inevitable imo but not through this method. I think the most practical is artificial „ice“ reflecting light back from the poles but I feel like we’ll end up having to do more by launching solar shades into orbit or to L1. Something like that.

Sunlight is only a fraction of the problem though. Over abundance of CO2 is literally killing the biosphere in a number of ways. That needs to be solved or else blocking the sun is pointless. I am honestly surprised we haven’t found a way to convert CO2 into carbon materials and pure oxygen yet. Idk much about chemistry but I imagine something about the bonds between Oxygen and other elements makes that difficult.

What if we block out the sun by using the ashes of the 1% causing most of the pollution? History book say it’s much effective!

Blocking out the sun after creating AI seems like it’s just tempting fate at this point.

Any length to avoid reducing emissions. Would be so much cheaper and easier to just try to produce less carbon

I’m glad I won’t live long enough to see humans completely ruin the natural world.