“Cooling credits” are not a viable climate solution | Climatic Change
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-023-03561-w

As the world struggles to limit warming to 1.5 or 2 °C below pre-industrial temperatures, research into solar climate interventions that could temporarily offset some amount of greenhouse gas-driven global warming by reflecting more sunlight back out to space has gained prominence. These solar climate intervention techniques would aim to cool the Earth by injecting aerosols (tiny liquid or solid particles suspended in the atmosphere) into the upper atmosphere or into low-altitude marine clouds. In a new development, “cooling credits” are now being marketed that claim to offset a certain amount of greenhouse gas warming with aerosol-based cooling. The science of solar climate intervention is currently too uncertain and the quantification of effects insufficient for any such claims to be credible in the near term. More fundamentally, however, the environmental impacts of greenhouse gases and aerosols are too different for such credits to be an appropriate instrument for reducing climate risk even if scientific uncertainties were narrowed and robust monitoring systems put in place. While some form of commercial mechanism for solar climate intervention implementation, in the event it is used, is likely, “cooling credits” are unlikely to be a viable climate solution, either now or in the future.

Two new Mexico teams to explore impacts of SRM on heatwaves and biodiversity loss - The DEGREES Initiative
https://www.degrees.ngo/two-new-mexico-teams-explore-srm-heatwaves-and-biodiversity-loss/

By modelling the potential impacts of SRM and climate change, these scientists will contribute to an evidence base that policy makers in Mexico and Central America can use to make informed decisions about reducing climate risks. This is research conducted by Latin Amercian scientists working at a Mexican University, who will communicate their findings openly to key stakeholders through peer-reviewed academic publications.

Last year, Mexico announced an intention to ban outdoor solar geoengineering activities after an American start-up company attempted a small-scale SRM balloon test on Mexican territory.

Unlike that controversial small-scale for-profit ‘deployment’, the two new Degrees-funded scientific teams will conduct responsible computer-based modelling research on the potential effects of SRM on climate change, heatwaves, and biodiversity. This supports Degrees’ central mission – while we take no position on whether SRM should ever be used, we want developing countries to have the capacity to do their own research and to have an informed role in any future governance discussions and decisions on its use or non-use.

TADEAS: collapse of AMOC a collapse of ice cover in the Arctic/methane release jde trochu proti sobe, ne?
vychzim z toho, ze AMOC distribuuje teplo z tropu do vyssich zem. sirek

SHEFIK: to asi myslíš "v fortress Europe předpokládám kapsu kde se dal bude prosazovat právo. On asi mluví o rozpadu lidskeho chování v tom neobyvatelném pásu, což mi nevadí. Už teď stovky milionů lidí mají hlad a zvládame se tím netrapit"

Jo?

R Hallam
https://twitter.com/RogerHallamCS21/status/1764576909503988133?s=19

@Guardian is a massive schizophrenia machine - over in the “climate department” we are told on a daily basis that the human race is heading for extinction - or effective extinction if you want to be nerdy about it. While over in the politics department it’s liberal business as usual. This is not smart.

As @MarinaHyde says.
“I can see Ms Lunnon thinks that the only context for anything anyone says or does, ever, is that we are about to become extinct, and that trumps absolutely everything.”

Let's be polite and suggest this sentence is not very well thought through. Obviously if we were about to become extinct then that would trump absolutely everything. In world war two  3% of humanity died and the war definitively did trump everything - so presumably if 100% of humanity is about to die then .. well

...

How does this denial happen? I offer the following reasons.

1. Marina and co think climate is an issue - it is not - by definition it is everything, in the sense that air and water are everything - no water you die - no climate you have no food, you die.
2. Marina and co think climate is an event - “when we get to 2c” - implies we stop there - no 2C locks in 3C and so on. It does not stop.
3. Marina and co think the climate is about the physical world - which they are dumb enough to think does not interact with the social world. If you for instance suggest that climate will create mass rape all hell breaks loose. But to deny this is like saying a meteorite landing in New York will not kill people.

They think then that there is only one domino. There is in fact a series of them and when you knock down one - then you will knock down the rest of the row. This is basic physics. The tipping points in the geophysical system trigger each other which then re-amplify each other - it's ONE SYSTEM.

This is how you lock in human extinction. And everyone with minimal analytical skills knows that human extinction is now the main scenario.