------------
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, understand the science, 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 discount or disparage 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 tragically wrong.
Of course, we are too busy arguing about how important it is to fully commit to any path.
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.
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.
Say what? Isn't that off by 1 or 2 orders of magnitude? [0] 1% would be enormous.
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.
It's probably not this exact filing (no FL addresses), but it gives you the gist:
https://library.oarcloud.noaa.gov/noaa_documents.lib/OAR/OWA...
Which National Parks?
What endgame are you proposing here? What's the goal?
It is done under the umbrella of cloud seeding as the sibling comment said. And it is completely unregulated. You can actually go hire this company to cloudseed wherever you wish. You don't have to own the land, the people below don't get to give informed consent.
It was Yosemite.
I can think of two endgames. These cloud seeding agents have a dessicant effect on the forests. Leading to more forest fires under the guise of trying to prevent them.
Another longer term endgame I could imagine is to combine a solar minimum with ongoing established patterns of cloudseeding to create issues.
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.
> 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...]
What is the agent that causes this?
But, second, yes, I know what they're talking about. I also know about the shipping thing. So (honest question), while that was happening, did it reduce the sun's radiation to the ground by 1%? 0.1? 0.01?
But it was enough to make a measurable difference in temperature. To make a meaningful difference in temperature is going to take, say, 10 times as much sulphur as the ships were putting out, or else putting it at more strategic layers of the atmosphere. So "most attempts" (most people who say "let's do this") aren't going to get anything like the scale that is needed.