Fun fact: All this probably happened because we stopped to geoengineer by outlawing ships blowing sulphur into the air which created additional cloud cover. That is, this year isn’t really exceptional climate-change wise, it’s just that we could witness, by fortuitous natural experiment, how much worse it actually already is… as well as that we can limit the impact by geoengineering. It works, and without wrecking havoc on the overall system.
And the good news is that we don’t need to blow sulphur into the air to generate clouds, the same effect can be had by blowing salt water into the air, just strap a couple of water cannons to every cargo ship. No I’m dead serious.
All this probably happened because we stopped to geoengineer by outlawing ships blowing sulphur into the air which created additional cloud cover.
You have your causality running backwards… this was already here, and the sulfur was masking it. This happened because we put so many GHG in the air.
It works, and without wrecking havoc on the overall system.
Europe is the one that initiated the sulfur reductions. With the additional dimming data now available, they reviewed it to determine how much damage had been caused. The conclusion? The benefits of reducing sulfur actually outweigh the damage of unmasked warming. The plan for further reductions was upheld.
If we mask radiative forcing, we don’t want to be doing it with sulfur. That leads to acid rain, ocean acidification, and asthma and other diseases. CaCO3 is a candidate. The long-term consequences of any candidate is unknown. Except that we know that the less sulfur raining down on us and the fish in general, the better.
Fun fact: All this probably happened because we stopped to geoengineer by outlawing ships blowing sulphur into the air which created additional cloud cover.
Instead of something like “we noticed the effects of climate change exceptionally this year because we stopped blowing sulphur (…)”. Yes, this is probably pedantic in a room where everyone understands anthropocentric climate change. Still, I can understand why some people might want to be extremely clear with how we use language regarding this topic, given… Everything that’s going on.
Except that wasn’t the only effect driving even the short term warming spike, masking the problem isn’t fixing it, and the global north has an absolutely stellar track record of not giving a single fuck about the negative consequences of large scale engineering projects on the global south.
I like your climate bio-engineering project idea, but I don’t think it needs to be that large scale. For the 2000 or so conservatives actually in control of the talking points, that’s what, about 200 tonnes of CO2 emissions? Maybe need some extra fuel so call it 1000. Seems like a worthwhile tradeoff.
Fun fact: All this probably happened because we stopped to geoengineer by outlawing ships blowing sulphur into the air which created additional cloud cover. That is, this year isn’t really exceptional climate-change wise, it’s just that we could witness, by fortuitous natural experiment, how much worse it actually already is… as well as that we can limit the impact by geoengineering. It works, and without wrecking havoc on the overall system.
And the good news is that we don’t need to blow sulphur into the air to generate clouds, the same effect can be had by blowing salt water into the air, just strap a couple of water cannons to every cargo ship. No I’m dead serious.
You have your causality running backwards… this was already here, and the sulfur was masking it. This happened because we put so many GHG in the air.
Europe is the one that initiated the sulfur reductions. With the additional dimming data now available, they reviewed it to determine how much damage had been caused. The conclusion? The benefits of reducing sulfur actually outweigh the damage of unmasked warming. The plan for further reductions was upheld.
If we mask radiative forcing, we don’t want to be doing it with sulfur. That leads to acid rain, ocean acidification, and asthma and other diseases. CaCO3 is a candidate. The long-term consequences of any candidate is unknown. Except that we know that the less sulfur raining down on us and the fish in general, the better.
Which is what I said?
It was probably framing it like
Instead of something like “we noticed the effects of climate change exceptionally this year because we stopped blowing sulphur (…)”. Yes, this is probably pedantic in a room where everyone understands anthropocentric climate change. Still, I can understand why some people might want to be extremely clear with how we use language regarding this topic, given… Everything that’s going on.
deleted by creator
Except that wasn’t the only effect driving even the short term warming spike, masking the problem isn’t fixing it, and the global north has an absolutely stellar track record of not giving a single fuck about the negative consequences of large scale engineering projects on the global south.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71jlEyIc1Pk for some commentary with nuance.
Yeah, conservatives literally need to be burning alive to acknowledge there is something going on with the temperatures/climaze
No actually they’ll burn alive, die on ventilators, and enjoy dying just to prove a non-existent point.
Covid taught us that.
I like your climate bio-engineering project idea, but I don’t think it needs to be that large scale. For the 2000 or so conservatives actually in control of the talking points, that’s what, about 200 tonnes of CO2 emissions? Maybe need some extra fuel so call it 1000. Seems like a worthwhile tradeoff.
Tldw: Hank Green video.
Thanks for this info. Really enjoyed learning something hopeful
Thank You Hank Green, that man is a treasure