Although I get your point, you are mischaracterizing Sci-Fi. Sci-Fi holds a special place among most works of fiction. Works of fiction can inspire change, and probably all scientists and quite a bit of science have been inspired by Sci-Fi. Many a scientist became scientists because of the influence of some Sci-Fi, the same can be said about a lot of technology.
Sci-Fi lets us explore the possibilities, it addresses the ethical consequences and concerns, utopias lets us hope for what could be accomplished while dystopias shows us what to avoid.
Perhaps if we had actual Sci-Fi covering this specific topic we would be in a better position.
The big NYT article last week almost portrayed releasing aerosols like something a Bond villain might do from his island lair. The NOAA scientists they talked to, I noticed, didn't actually describe their roles as protecting us from bad actors, though that's certainly what the article seemed to imply...
I'm not emphasizing continuity with the past is really going to be helpful here. I easily imagine that conversation going something like this:
Repairman: Marine ships with poor quality fuel spewing sulfur did it for decades. We know it works! It calmed storms in the Atlantic (at the cost of also accidentally causing a famine in Africa).
Sceptic: I thought spewing sulfur into the air is bad. Isn't that pollution and ocean acidification and all that? Also, what was that part about accidentally causing a famine on another continent?
Repairman: Well, yes, there are issues with sulfur, but we'll be using common salt! It's totally safe! (Aside from the fact we haven't yet worked out the models enough to predict and avoid that whole 'accidentally caused a famine somewhere else' issue)
Sceptic: There's that whole 'accidentally caused a famine' thing again...
Repairman: We'll start smaller this time, develop better models through experimentation.
Sceptic: So, you want to experiment with something that can accidentally cause famines randomly somewhere else in the world...
Repairman: Yes? Anything would sound bad if you put it like THAT. Like I said, this is something the world has been doing on accident for decades anyway. We know it can cool the planet. Isn't that more important?
Sceptic: But you also tell me the planet has been getting hotter for the last several decades...
Repairman: Well yes...
Sceptic: So, the planet has been getting hotter the whole time that we've been accidentally doing this thing that you tell me should cool the planet...
Repairman: Yes, that's correct. We just weren't doing enough of it for the cooling to offset the warming.
Sceptic: So, it wasn't enough to actually cool the planet, but it was enough to randomly cause famines, and now you want to double down on something that sounds like it caused disasters without actually helping.
Repairman: It DID help! It really did! Please, let me show you pictures of cargo ships smoking and what looks like a regular guy trying to redneck jury rig his own geoengineering. I promise it's more convincing than my fake looking CGI pictures!
Sceptic: Rednecks are building terraforming engines now that can cause famines using salt!? Tell you what, stay right there, I'll be right back (backs away slowly and calls the government on you)
Another Repairman: It can't logically be deduced from the premise that the Earth is hotter now than it was before ships began emitting sulphate aerosols that such emission had no cooling effect -- i.e., that the Earth would be no hotter now absent any such emission. And what evidence is there that said emission caused famine?
While the argument about MCB seems to make sense, imagining that geoengineering could be deployed on a political basis of continuity is unlikely to work. Sunlight reflection represents a radical transformation of the relationship between humanity and nature, a recognition of the need for global stewardship of the Earth.
The critical engineering path to such a goal involves tactical steps that are acceptable to people without such a planetary vision. For example, the Climate Foundation contends that local support for cloud brightening using dimethyl sulphide released from restored kelp forests in coastal waters to cool the local climate would combine with commercial fishery interests to open minds to a wider appreciation of the many benefits of cooling.
However necessary such work is, it is far from sufficient. The enormity of possible tipping points means there also needs to be urgent public discussion of a new paradigm, with focus on achieving a safe and effective transition to a cooler planet.
The more that such a new paradigm can draw from established practices, emphasising continuity, the better. But there is no getting around the fact that new thinking is needed that to date has not been part of the public conversation.
Although I get your point, you are mischaracterizing Sci-Fi. Sci-Fi holds a special place among most works of fiction. Works of fiction can inspire change, and probably all scientists and quite a bit of science have been inspired by Sci-Fi. Many a scientist became scientists because of the influence of some Sci-Fi, the same can be said about a lot of technology.
Sci-Fi lets us explore the possibilities, it addresses the ethical consequences and concerns, utopias lets us hope for what could be accomplished while dystopias shows us what to avoid.
Perhaps if we had actual Sci-Fi covering this specific topic we would be in a better position.
The big NYT article last week almost portrayed releasing aerosols like something a Bond villain might do from his island lair. The NOAA scientists they talked to, I noticed, didn't actually describe their roles as protecting us from bad actors, though that's certainly what the article seemed to imply...
I'm not emphasizing continuity with the past is really going to be helpful here. I easily imagine that conversation going something like this:
Repairman: Marine ships with poor quality fuel spewing sulfur did it for decades. We know it works! It calmed storms in the Atlantic (at the cost of also accidentally causing a famine in Africa).
Sceptic: I thought spewing sulfur into the air is bad. Isn't that pollution and ocean acidification and all that? Also, what was that part about accidentally causing a famine on another continent?
Repairman: Well, yes, there are issues with sulfur, but we'll be using common salt! It's totally safe! (Aside from the fact we haven't yet worked out the models enough to predict and avoid that whole 'accidentally caused a famine somewhere else' issue)
Sceptic: There's that whole 'accidentally caused a famine' thing again...
Repairman: We'll start smaller this time, develop better models through experimentation.
Sceptic: So, you want to experiment with something that can accidentally cause famines randomly somewhere else in the world...
Repairman: Yes? Anything would sound bad if you put it like THAT. Like I said, this is something the world has been doing on accident for decades anyway. We know it can cool the planet. Isn't that more important?
Sceptic: But you also tell me the planet has been getting hotter for the last several decades...
Repairman: Well yes...
Sceptic: So, the planet has been getting hotter the whole time that we've been accidentally doing this thing that you tell me should cool the planet...
Repairman: Yes, that's correct. We just weren't doing enough of it for the cooling to offset the warming.
Sceptic: So, it wasn't enough to actually cool the planet, but it was enough to randomly cause famines, and now you want to double down on something that sounds like it caused disasters without actually helping.
Repairman: It DID help! It really did! Please, let me show you pictures of cargo ships smoking and what looks like a regular guy trying to redneck jury rig his own geoengineering. I promise it's more convincing than my fake looking CGI pictures!
Sceptic: Rednecks are building terraforming engines now that can cause famines using salt!? Tell you what, stay right there, I'll be right back (backs away slowly and calls the government on you)
Another Repairman: It can't logically be deduced from the premise that the Earth is hotter now than it was before ships began emitting sulphate aerosols that such emission had no cooling effect -- i.e., that the Earth would be no hotter now absent any such emission. And what evidence is there that said emission caused famine?
Question: would this work in tanks instead of the open ocean?
While the argument about MCB seems to make sense, imagining that geoengineering could be deployed on a political basis of continuity is unlikely to work. Sunlight reflection represents a radical transformation of the relationship between humanity and nature, a recognition of the need for global stewardship of the Earth.
The critical engineering path to such a goal involves tactical steps that are acceptable to people without such a planetary vision. For example, the Climate Foundation contends that local support for cloud brightening using dimethyl sulphide released from restored kelp forests in coastal waters to cool the local climate would combine with commercial fishery interests to open minds to a wider appreciation of the many benefits of cooling.
However necessary such work is, it is far from sufficient. The enormity of possible tipping points means there also needs to be urgent public discussion of a new paradigm, with focus on achieving a safe and effective transition to a cooler planet.
The more that such a new paradigm can draw from established practices, emphasising continuity, the better. But there is no getting around the fact that new thinking is needed that to date has not been part of the public conversation.