"Simulations like this one are not supposed to predict the future. The outcomes depend on the design of the game and the relative personalities and experience of the players. Many of those in the room lacked first-hand diplomatic and national security experience. The UN forum, which organizers selected as the game’s setting, may also not be as effective as talks between smaller groups of major countries."
------------
This paragraph deserves emphasis to balance out the doomer linkbait headline.
The players of this game largely ignored scientific opinions and played politics like it was a fun board-game. Presumably, they did have fun. Notably missing from this wargame was the kind of pressure that real leaders and diplomats would face to swallow their pride, eschew fun, and get the solution right. It's just our planet and civilization on the line, right?
It would be deeply foolish to use this wargame to rule out the UN. Under more realistic conditions they could get it right, and they might be our best hope for preventing one or a small number of governments from acting unilaterally and getting it very wrong.
What other options are on the table if we REALLY want to limit warming below the 2 deg C target? It's already 1.5+, and control systems theory says that the inertia of various mechanisms (ocean warming, ice/permafrost melt, ...) will cause a lag between the emissions being produced and the actual warming happening. So even if we immediately switch off all human sources NOW, everything that's already in the air will stay there, and the temperature will keep increasing for some time. Under the assumption that the "residual warming" will overshoot 2 C, aerosols are the only industrially feasible way I know of. Mass production of engineered particles certainly sounds more reasonable than mass producing carbon capture machines in the volumes required.
Of course, we are too busy arguing about how important it is to fully commit to any path.
Personally, I'm working on how contribute to this. I've been digging into marine cloud brightening as a pathway. I'm working on a technoeconomic model to see what it all looks like with existing tech, end to end.
That said, any kind of cooling tech is just temporary. Carbon dioxide hangs in the air for thousands of years. So long term decarbonization and carbon dioxide removal are the best way to keep the temperature down.
The past couple of years the Sun has been low-single-digit-percent amounts brighter because it's the first actual solar maximum that's done anything for 40 years.
It's been heatwaves and droughts and stuff unlike anything we've seen since I was in primary school.
So yeah any attempt by us to dick about with the Sun's output is going to be utterly catastrophic, because it's not going to be even as small as a 3% increase or decrease.
The solar cycle is not the cause of heatwaves and droughts. The graph at the top of this Wikipedia page shows the solar irradiance trending down over decades (which is a natural phenomenon) while temperatures have increased.
It would help if you (and the GP) actually read the article
> These technologies promise to reverse global warming by reflecting away a portion of the sunlight reaching Earth, for example by spraying particles of sulphur dioxide or some other manufactured substance into the atmosphere.
The global maritime shipping industry has already been doing this, by accident, and their stopping (going to better fuel oil with less sulfur in it) has detectably raised global temperatures. [https://cpo.noaa.gov/the-unintended-consequences-of-reducing...]
A dangerous game they are already playing, acting like they only wargamed it. This is already happening, I noticed many private aircraft doing it over eastern California near national parks.
I reported it to FAA, well turns out you can just put any flare on your plane and fire them wherever.
Beats me how and why it makes sense to hire a Florida company through a Utah company to go spray public lands you don't own over eastern California.
The article is talking about sunlight reflection, you're talking about "cloud seeding".
"Cloud seeding" is a practice that's a few decades old, typically having a plane fly around burning a certain type of flare in an attempt to cause the cloud to condense and become rainfall in that area: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding
Presumably this is the Stanislaus or Upper Tuoloumne River projects (or similar), which are cloud seeding for local irrigation districts. They even mention the flares.
Probably not this exact filing (no FL addresses), but it gives you the gist:
Flares and spraying sounds like aerial firefighting. Small aircraft go ahead of big boys to mark positions with aerial flares and tankers come in to drop.
I don't usually engage on conspiracy theories but why not provide more detail? If you've seen the planes, then you can use an app to figure out what the aircraft is and the owner also. You could then share that data here. What company and/or entity is "they" here?
Which National Parks?
What endgame are you proposing here? What's the goal?
"Simulations like this one are not supposed to predict the future. The outcomes depend on the design of the game and the relative personalities and experience of the players. Many of those in the room lacked first-hand diplomatic and national security experience. The UN forum, which organizers selected as the game’s setting, may also not be as effective as talks between smaller groups of major countries."
------------
This paragraph deserves emphasis to balance out the doomer linkbait headline.
The players of this game largely ignored scientific opinions and played politics like it was a fun board-game. Presumably, they did have fun. Notably missing from this wargame was the kind of pressure that real leaders and diplomats would face to swallow their pride, eschew fun, and get the solution right. It's just our planet and civilization on the line, right?
It would be deeply foolish to use this wargame to rule out the UN. Under more realistic conditions they could get it right, and they might be our best hope for preventing one or a small number of governments from acting unilaterally and getting it very wrong.
What other options are on the table if we REALLY want to limit warming below the 2 deg C target? It's already 1.5+, and control systems theory says that the inertia of various mechanisms (ocean warming, ice/permafrost melt, ...) will cause a lag between the emissions being produced and the actual warming happening. So even if we immediately switch off all human sources NOW, everything that's already in the air will stay there, and the temperature will keep increasing for some time. Under the assumption that the "residual warming" will overshoot 2 C, aerosols are the only industrially feasible way I know of. Mass production of engineered particles certainly sounds more reasonable than mass producing carbon capture machines in the volumes required.
Of course, we are too busy arguing about how important it is to fully commit to any path.
Hi, I just went to a conference in Iceland on this topic!
You can read a good summary here: https://arcinit.substack.com/p/after-reykjavik
Personally, I'm working on how contribute to this. I've been digging into marine cloud brightening as a pathway. I'm working on a technoeconomic model to see what it all looks like with existing tech, end to end.
That said, any kind of cooling tech is just temporary. Carbon dioxide hangs in the air for thousands of years. So long term decarbonization and carbon dioxide removal are the best way to keep the temperature down.
I don’t entirely understand the war-gaming aspect here. Is this just Model UN for adults?
Yeah like d&d, I think
Those dam solar panels are sucking up all the sun rays and theres gonna be none left for YOU - Oil and Gas company
There was an old lady who swallowed a fly. I don't know why she swallowed the fly. I guess she'll die.
A good read on this from Neil Stephenson is Termination Shock. It's fiction, but covers some of the possible geopolitical fallout here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_Shock_(novel)
Currently reading that. Great book
The past couple of years the Sun has been low-single-digit-percent amounts brighter because it's the first actual solar maximum that's done anything for 40 years.
It's been heatwaves and droughts and stuff unlike anything we've seen since I was in primary school.
So yeah any attempt by us to dick about with the Sun's output is going to be utterly catastrophic, because it's not going to be even as small as a 3% increase or decrease.
Solar cycle 25 is slightly stronger than cycle 24 but weaker than 23, which peaked in 2001.
https://www.stce.be/content/sc25-tracking
The solar cycle is not the cause of heatwaves and droughts. The graph at the top of this Wikipedia page shows the solar irradiance trending down over decades (which is a natural phenomenon) while temperatures have increased.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity_and_climate
It's probably caused more by anthropogenic climate change than sun luminosity.
> The past couple of years the Sun has been low-single-digit-percent amounts brighter
Say what? Isn't that off by 1 or 2 orders of magnitude? [0] 1% would be enormous.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance
Wouldn't this be attributable to the change in international agreements about bunker fuel composition to have massively less sulfur?
I think you're overly worried.
Almost any attempt to change the sun's output is going to have a 0.000% change. It is very much not easy to affect something that size.
It would help if you (and the GP) actually read the article
> These technologies promise to reverse global warming by reflecting away a portion of the sunlight reaching Earth, for example by spraying particles of sulphur dioxide or some other manufactured substance into the atmosphere.
The global maritime shipping industry has already been doing this, by accident, and their stopping (going to better fuel oil with less sulfur in it) has detectably raised global temperatures. [https://cpo.noaa.gov/the-unintended-consequences-of-reducing...]
You don’t actually have to change the sun, “just” the earth’s atmosphere (or surface or anything in between).
A dangerous game they are already playing, acting like they only wargamed it. This is already happening, I noticed many private aircraft doing it over eastern California near national parks.
I reported it to FAA, well turns out you can just put any flare on your plane and fire them wherever.
Beats me how and why it makes sense to hire a Florida company through a Utah company to go spray public lands you don't own over eastern California.
The article is talking about sunlight reflection, you're talking about "cloud seeding".
"Cloud seeding" is a practice that's a few decades old, typically having a plane fly around burning a certain type of flare in an attempt to cause the cloud to condense and become rainfall in that area: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding
Presumably this is the Stanislaus or Upper Tuoloumne River projects (or similar), which are cloud seeding for local irrigation districts. They even mention the flares.
Probably not this exact filing (no FL addresses), but it gives you the gist:
https://library.oarcloud.noaa.gov/noaa_documents.lib/OAR/OWA...
Flares and spraying sounds like aerial firefighting. Small aircraft go ahead of big boys to mark positions with aerial flares and tankers come in to drop.
I suppose you’re talking about cloud seeding?
I don't usually engage on conspiracy theories but why not provide more detail? If you've seen the planes, then you can use an app to figure out what the aircraft is and the owner also. You could then share that data here. What company and/or entity is "they" here?
Which National Parks?
What endgame are you proposing here? What's the goal?