[ominous_prime]

What I was getting as is that you can't start with a false claim to make a convincing argument. I didn't see what the expected reduction is from the MIT research, but if it falls within known effects of the solar cycle, Milankovitch cycles, and recorded volcanic activity it's less risky than stating that it's a change that the earth has never seen.

[ncmncm]

Even attempting it is disastrous, either way.

The only winning move is to shut down every attempt at such distraction. We know what we must do. The only thing remaining is to do that.

[lukeplato]

Not my area of expertise, can you please share reasoning as to why reflecting sunlight is disastrous. also please share evidence that attempting multiple strategies is guaranteed to lead to failure or is even probabilistically worse than only relying on current trends of attempting to decrease co2 emissions

[ncmncm]

Simple: reflecting sunlight does nothing to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, or to reduce the amount going into the atmosphere. The CO2 is the problem, not the temperature. The temperature is a measure of the CO2 problem. Force the temperature, and it ceases to become an accurate measure.

As CO2 continues to build up, ocean pH decreases, reflecting increasing acidification. As pH decreases, the base of the ocean food chain begins to collapse. When the ocean food chain collapses, the main protein source for much of humanity vanishes. Global war follows, and civilization collapse. Slightly lower temperature is unnoticed.

[boxed]

Higher temperatures is the FIRST and WORST problem. Mitigating the damage already done would be very nice.

We still need the energy transition though.

[ncmncm]

Higher temperature is unpleasant. Famine kills.

[boxed]

Higher temperatures lead to famine, and also directly to death, and ecosystem collapse.

[funcDropShadow]

> The CO2 is the problem, not the temperature.

So all the experts who talk about the 2 degree celsius goal did set the goal on the wrong measure? Please be more convincing than just restating your previous hypothesis.

As far as I understand the situation, the increased average temperature is the problem. Not because every day would be exactly n degrees warmer/hotter, but because it leads to way more variance in the atmosphere, i.e. storms, hot and cold extreme wheather etc. The CO2 itself might also induce problems. But they do not dominate the situation.

[ncmncm]

Failing to control CO2 leads inexorably to global collapse of civilization, regardless of temperature.

Civilization would also collapse as a consequence of extreme temperature.

Temperature increase is easier to limit, but redirecting resources to limiting temperature accelerates CO2 increase, thus collapse from that.

Directing resources to reducing CO2 also limits temperature rise.

Each dollar directed to intervention A is a dollar not directed to intervention B.

Extreme fever can kill the patient. Plunging the patient in ice water cuts fever, but fails to save the patient. Antibiotics may take longer to reduce fever, but offers the possibility of saving the patient.

[funcDropShadow]

But betting everything on one horse, company, or intervention is rarely a good strategy. I think Nicolas Nassim Taleb makes compelling arguments in his books, starting from the Black Swan.