We should not let the Earth overheat

&quot;Relatively minuscule quantities of sulfur dioxide (SO2) in the stratosphere are extremely reflective, scattering some of the sun’s light before it hits the Earth, and in the process contributing to the atmospheric haze that gives sunsets their characteristic red color. &quot;<p>Sounds idyllic of course, but we really don&#x27;t fully understand what effects such an intervention would have, and unlike what is claimed, we can&#x27;t turn it off if it goes wrong.<p>A much safer alternative IMHO is to spray seawater to enhance marine cloud formation.<p>Also a possible alternative to grinding up mountains is marine iron fertilization, but again, we don&#x27;t fully understand the effects.

Will the turtle of carbon sequestration win over the hare of positive feedback loops and the cheetah of big oil emissions News at 11.

There was some stuff recently about reducing sulfur emissions from cargo ships. It sounds like this was done for health reasons.<p>Is there something about the stuff being recommended here that makes this not very nasty to just dump all over the ocean?<p>$350m&#x2F;year sounds very cheap though. Just convince some billionaire to pay for this for the next 40 years?

Terraforming Earth.

It doesn&#x27;t matter how technically feasible this is, if nobody can make a profit from it it isn&#x27;t happening.<p>The people who can afford to pay for this can also afford to avoid the worst effects of climate change, probably much cheaper while throwing the rest of us under a bus.

Don&#x27;t worry. If Earth becomes inhospitable we&#x27;ll simply go to Mars, which is much more hostile to any form of life than the Earth is even under the most pessimistic scenarios of global warming. Wait a minute.

Dr. Handmer seems to be neglecting the historical effect of Mt Pinatubo on the ozone layer.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;d41586-023-00598-w" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;d41586-023-00598-w</a>

Governments cannot even do little local control such as inflation, and people have these fancy ideas about controlling the *temperature* of the entire Earth. Ideas about ulterior motives left as an exercise to the reader.

We know that we are living in an icehouse phase, and earth will return to a greenhouse in time, irrelevant to us.<p>&quot;Earth has been in a greenhouse state for about 85% of its history... Earth is now in an icehouse state, and ice sheets are present in both poles simultaneously.&quot;<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Eart...</a><p>This change would be extremely traumatic for humans, as our whole species existence has been in an icehouse.<p>The good news is that we have only raised co2 levels by one hundred parts per million (to 450) in the whole history of industrial output.<p>Our impact is not as great as we think, as the cretaceous saw co2 at 5,000-15,000ppm.<p>If we want to hold the earth under 500ppm, I think, with our ingenuity and growing knowledge, that this can be done.