Wouldn’t geoengineering through stratospheric aerosol engineering (likely with sulfates) be both cheaper and less technically challenging than changing the built environment? If we’re accepting massive climate changes anyways, it seems like taking the risk with solar radiation modifications would be the next step

▲

dpark 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Ah, yes. Let us spray more sulfates into the air. Let’s fight global warming by poisoning all the waterways and oceans with more acid rain.

▲

derektank 4 days ago | parent [-]

The sulfate concentrations required to meaningfully reduce solar radiation is orders of magnitude below the level that causes acid rain. The Tambora eruption didn’t result in global acid rain (though it did in Indonesia, naturally) while cooling the globe by at least half a degree Celsius if not more. And on top of that, there are other possible aerosols we could use, like calcium carbonate

	▲	dpark 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I’m not sure your example supports your claim. We got an half degree cooling and all it took was the biggest eruption in recorded human history. Plus everyone’s crops died and the sulfur compounds caused lung disease.

▲

tcoff91 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That would require global consensus and could ignite wars if there isn't global consensus. Seems very likely that this could have unanticipated consequences that could be worse, but admittedly this is an area I don't really know much about.

	▲	ACCount37 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		No one gives a shit about "global consensus". As demonstrated in 2020s by multiple countries taking major unilateral actions unopposed. If a nuclear power starts SAI, what is everyone else going to do? Shake their fists at the sky, realistically.