this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
256 points (100.0% liked)

World News

22093 readers
104 users here now

Breaking news from around the world.

News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


For US News, see the US News community.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Scientists have discovered that the recent spike in global temperatures may be caused by a reduction in sulfur dioxide pollution from shipping vessels. Ships have long emitted sulfur dioxide, which cools the planet by seeding clouds and reflecting sunlight. However, new regulations that limit sulfur in ship fuels took effect in 2020, leading to a loss of this cooling effect equivalent to a large volcanic eruption each year. Models show this reduction in sulfur dioxide pollution can explain the extra warming seen in the North Atlantic. While pollution is bad, the new regulations provide a natural experiment that gives insight into how intentional geoengineering could potentially combat climate change in the future.

all 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 66 points 1 year ago (3 children)

My fear with geoengineering is that is allows us to become complacent about solving the primary problems, and then also creates its own set of unexpected secondary problems.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago (3 children)

At least to your second point, in the video he explains that there are ways to seed clouds for cooling purposes without any major side effects, and the experiment hes talking about is that this shows it can be done on a large scale. Whether it would make us complacent on getting CO2 out of the air, though, it might but at least it would be the start of a solution.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Right, but their point was kind of about side-effects we're not aware of at the time. So that's kind of the entire point, that we think there are no negative side effects only to later find out we were wrong.

So that doesn't really address what they said at all.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Exactly this. We think we know everything when we start doing stuff. But after a while we found out we where wrong and fucked up.
We don't fully understand/comprehend nature and how it all interacts. We shouldn't be so ignorant to think we do understand it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

If only we were allowed to study this approach without so much immediate reflexive opposition.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hank also says that we're at point where we need to cut emissions AND carbon capture AND geoengineer in order to mitigate climate disaster. It can't be a one and done solution anymore, we're beyond that

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

And considering we are at risk for loosing tons of biodiversity in the oceans from this heating (see mass coral bleaching event in florida) I think we have to start seeding clouds and whatever mitigating factors we can

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sounds like something China can pioneer and that the West will adopt a decade or so later after China shows it really does have no major side effects.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A while back there was a round of interest in the possibility of countering global warming by using specialized high-altitude planes to spray calcium carbonate particulates into the upper atmosphere, and it was calculated that global warming could be countered with an ongoing expenditure of $2 billion per year. That's peanuts for a country like China, so if climate change starts causing them significant identifiable losses I wouldn't be at all surprised if they gave it a go.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

It already is, looking at recent flooding.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago

become complacent about solving the primary problems

We have been complacent about solving the primary problems for decades. At this point we should be doing all we can, and if a way to combat the symptoms gives us more time to finally get our shit together and do something useful before everyone turns into doomers giving up because it's too late anyway then I think that's a good thing.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You think we can solve primary problems? Cause all I see is us driving off a cliff. If we aren't willing to hit the breaks I'll settle for turning the car into a bush

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Have to pave the road as we go. No turning back.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Hank Green has a video about this and maybe we can safely replicate the sulfur dioxide's effects by shooting sea water into the air.

https://youtu.be/dk8pwE3IByg

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

OPs link is Hank’s “blog post” about that video, he links to it in the article.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I wonder if there is a solution that involves a less dangerous gas instead of sea water. Spraying large volumes of water into the stratosphere is not really possible yet, so if it just rose as a gas it would be more doable.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

For a second I thought you were calling sea water a dangerous gas.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

A while back there was a round of news suggesting calcium carbonate particulate stratospheric injection would be a good substitute for sulfur dioxide.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not sure that spreading salt is a good idea when you consider that salt kills life when you spread it on land.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think the idea is to do it over oceans.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But then we'll get salt in the oceans and kill all the fish.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We sprayed it outside the environment.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

We'll noclip out of the map and spray it out of bounds

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How certain could we be of where these clouds would fall once they were created?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

A good question, I’m not an expert on this unfortunately. A quick google search did not reveal any answers.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Step Two: Harvest giant ice cube from a comet and drop it in the ocean every few years

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago

Like the one daddy puts in his drink! …and then he gets mad

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Solving the problem once and for all!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Once and for all I said!

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fascinating. Termination Shock by Neal Stephenson deals with the same Sulphur as a way to combat global warming.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Came here to say this. Highly recommended book.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago

Got my idea to build the torment nexus from the hit sci-fi novel "Don't Build the Torment Nexus".

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is the primary component in producing acid rain, right?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Hear me out guys, why don't we just put a giant ice cube in the ocean to combat rising temps?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thus solving the problem once and for all!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

--ONCE AND FOR ALL!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Randall Munroe would like to have a word with you:

https://what-if.xkcd.com/47/

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Interesting vox video about geoengineering. I find the coalition of scientists demanding we don't even look at geo eng tech, like zero research into it frustrating. https://youtu.be/EKPFZPyQurA

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Indeed. There are people who wail and lament about how we've passed a "tipping point" and the climate is doomed to catastrophic warming no matter how much our emissions are reduced at this point, and then when you bring up the possibility of studying geoengineering they snap back at you with a "but not like that" reflex.

Frankly, I think there are environmentalists who like the notion of inescapable doom. It gives them an "I told you so" feeling of victory, perhaps, or absolves them of any further effort. Or they've decided humanity is evil and deserves to be "punished." I don't know, it's just so wearying trying to deal with that reaction.

At the end of the day, when major governments are faced with the choice of collapsing under a wave of migrants and famine and taking a stab at spraying some aerosols into the upper atmosphere as a hail Mary, they're going to try the thing that isn't guaranteed disaster. Would be nice if we could do some studying of it first.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Change is hard, much better to keep doing something that doesn’t work.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Fascinating. I heard something similar with particle pollution in big cities.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Geoengineering is a huge gamble and I want humanity to take it..

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Me too, and quickly.

If certain scientists believe they can turn such an inhospitable planet as mars into a liveable environment....why can't we fix up earth?