Current aerosols from fossil fuels are cooling the climate by 0.5-1.5C. Meaning if we decarbonized overnight we'd be 2.0-3.0C above preindustrial. Unless we do something drastic, we're a dead species.
Less than you think. Current aerosols from fossil fuels are cooling the climate by 0.5-1.5C. Meaning if we decarbonized overnight we'd be 2.0-3.0C above preindustrial. We're f*cked under the status quo even under the most optimistic predictions.
No known form of SRM that can cause an ice age like that. Currently what's proposed are primarily SO2, as we have the most data on that from studying volcanic eruptions and our own emissions. The hazards are overblown, but we have alternatives like calcium carbonate and powdered synthetic diamonds.
Current aerosols from fossil fuels are cooling the climate by 0.5-1.5C. Meaning if we decarbonized overnight we'd be 2.0-3.0C above preindustrial. The longer we delay implementing it in an (as orderly as possible) manner, the likelyhood of it being deployed haphazardly or weaponized increases.
Decarbonizing is only half the problem. To bring the planet back into energy balance not only must we stop dumping CO2, we then need to *remove* the excess - and that will take centuries.
We will use aerosols because we have no other way to bring the planet back into balance quickly.
That's the wrong question: of course there will be 'unforeseen consequences' - the right question though is are those consequences greater than unmitigated warming - and the answer to that is absolutely not.
If we want to save anything of nature and our civilizations we will use aerosols.
To bring temperatures down, not only must we stop dumping CO2 and methane, we then need to *remove* the excess CO2 to bring us back to ~270 PPM, where it was before we started using the atmosphere as an open sewer.
That will take centuries. This is the *coldest* year for the next 200 years.
If we want to save anything of nature, we need to bring the planet back into energy balance, and the only way to do that quickly is inject aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect incoming energy.
Aerosols, like Ca-CO3 particles, can be injected into the stratosphere. This would reflect a fraction of the incoming energy from the sun and thus cool the planet - aerosols rain out after a year or two, making it a tunable process.
Wait until you find out about the consequences of NOT using aerosols.
Decarbonizing is only half the problem, once we stop dumping CO2 we then have to *remove* the excess to bring the planet back into energy balance - that will take centuries.
To bring the planet back into energy balance not only must we decarbonize, but then we have to *remove* the excess CO2 to bring us back to ~270 PPM - that will take centuries.
If we want to save anything of nature we must use aerosols.
Current aerosols from fossil fuels are cooling the climate by 0.5-1.5C. Meaning if we decarbonized overnight we'd be 2.0-3.0C above preindustrial. We need to stop using fossil fuels asap, but should not fool ourselves into believeing it will be enough to avert collapse.
Less than could go wrong by not doing it, surprisingly enough. Current aerosols from fossil fuels are cooling the climate by 0.5-1.5C. Meaning if we decarbonized overnight we'd be 2.0-3.0C above preindustrial.
I fully understand the science behind climate change, but how safe do you think an aerosol that spreads over entire populations without permission will be? I expect tobacco company levels of cover ups over its safety. So, less than could go wrong by not doing it? Where's the science to prove that?
I recommend looking up the research done by people like James Hansen and Leon Simons. There are unknowns with SRM, but we've undone unintentional and inefficient SRM by removing sulfur from shipping fuel, leading to more extreme weather and hotter oceans. We didn't know about that until we stopped.
But I thought they didn't believe in climate change. Wouldn't it be smarter to fix the pollutants instead of putting more into the atmosphere under the premise it would cool the earth? Without knowing long term consequences?
Current aerosols from fossil fuels are cooling the climate by 0.5-1.5C. Meaning if we decarbonized overnight we'd be 2.0-3.0C above preindustrial. We're heading for disaster whether we like it or not. Might as well try.
We've only done it inefficiently as a side effect of something else we were doing, and even then it had a considerable effect on keeping our oceans at a stable temperature. You can't say it's been proven false before we've even tried. Or heck, even before we've researched it properly.
Engineering climate is a fools errand. What hubris to think we will have enough knowledge to engineer the climate to conform to our perceived needs. And there is a simple solution, stop engineering it now with greenhouse gases.
And when we quit using fossil fuels and the aerosols rain down, increasing global temperatures to 2.0-3.0+C above preindustrial, then what? You honestly think we can adapt to that when we struggle with even the current level of warming?
Less than you think. Current aerosols from fossil fuels are cooling the climate by 0.5-1.5C. Meaning if we decarbonized overnight we'd be 2.0-3.0C above preindustrial. We're f*cked under the status quo even under the most optimistic predictions.
Eliminating fossil use is only half the problem, once we stop dumping fossil pollution into the atmosphere we then have to *remove* the excess CO2 - and that will take centuries.
We will use aerosols because we have no other option to bring temperatures down quickly.
Too many people here have no idea how f*cked the situation really is.
Aerosols from fossil fuels are currently cooling the planet by 0.5-1.5C, and when we decarbonize, that cooling goes away, and we're struggling even with the current impacts. Also Snowpiercer is fiction.
Current aerosols from fossil fuels are cooling the climate by 0.5-1.5C. Meaning if we decarbonized overnight we'd be 2.0-3.0C above preindustrial. Whether it's good is a pointless question compared to whether or not it's better than the alternative.
We're caught between a rock and a hard place. Current aerosols from fossil fuels are cooling the climate by 0.5-1.5C. Meaning if we decarbonized overnight we'd be 2.0-3.0C above preindustrial.
No known form of SRM that can cause an ice age like that. Currently what's proposed are primarily SO2, as we have the most data on that from studying volcanic eruptions and our own emissions. The hazards are overblown, but we have alternatives like calcium carbonate and powdered synthetic diamonds.
Aerosols rain out after a year or two which makes it a tunable process. And we're essentially duplicating what nature does whenever we have a large volcanic eruption, so we can learn from that.
Aerosols aren't optional, we have no other way to bring the planet back into energy balance quickly.
Current aerosols from fossil fuels are cooling the climate by 0.5-1.5C. Meaning if we decarbonized overnight we'd be 2.0-3.0C above preindustrial.
As for how it can be stopped, aerosols rain out of the atmosphere after a year or two, so just stop doing it should be enough.
I recommend reading up on James Hansen and Leon Simons. Navigating the geoengineering field is difficult considering people's (often understandable) strong opinions about it.
Thank you. I half expected people I replied to in this comment section to scream at me. The opinions and feelings on geoengineering are understandably complicated.
The question is: are the impacts of aerosols greater or less than the impacts of global warming. And the answer is very clear global warming is FAR more damaging.
And we don't have any other way to bring the planet back into energy balance quickly.
What most people don't realize yet is that decarbonizing is only half the battle, once we stop dumping CO2 we then need to *remove* the excess to bring the planet back into energy balance - that will take centuries. And it is evident that even today's ~1.5° C warming is catastrophic.
i agree with your last paragraph. i havent deep dived yet but maybe tomorrow. but im never behind and im a little behind with work stuff. its not like i can doomscroll less, right?
FWIW, we are injecting large amounts of aerosols already - industrial pollution down low - for cooling the planet we'd use much smaller amounts up high.
And as mentioned, large volcanic eruptions do this naturally so we have a reasonable idea of what to expect.
JFC don't do this. Climate protesters get jail while big oil doesn't cause climate change. Also don't mind us as we jack up insurance rates and dump all types of shit into the environment.
Current aerosols from fossil fuels are cooling the climate by 0.5-1.5C. Meaning if we decarbonized overnight we'd be 2.0-3.0C above preindustrial. We can barely cope with sustained current climate impacts, and CDR will take many decades to centuries. We need all the tools.
I have a bone to pick with the structure of news articles today.
Historically, newspapers would put the most important information at the start so people could be quickly informed. This article has 12 paragraphs outlining the corporate structure of this company before we learn anything at all.
No known form of SRM that can cause an ice age like that. Currently what's proposed are primarily SO2, as we have the most data on that from studying volcanic eruptions and our own emissions. The hazards are overblown, but we have alternatives like calcium carbonate and powdered synthetic diamonds.
Current aerosols from fossil fuels are cooling the climate by 0.5-1.5C. Meaning if we decarbonized overnight we'd be 2.0-3.0C above preindustrial. 'Dumping more junk into the air' may not solve the underlying problem, but it could prove instrumental in averting collapse long enough for us to fix it.
Oh yeah let’s block the suns rays temporarily — oops it’s permanent and we all die.
This sounds like either a hoax or crazy people that enjoy junk science. Geez I hope someone stops them.
It's called geo-engineering. Yeah...
Is it the literal feces they spray in the middle of the night on the homes of Palestinians living in the West Bank?
Comments
Decarbonizing is only half the problem, once we stop dumping CO2 we then need to remove the excess.
https://youtu.be/DjU6ZjrQulc?si=q-DJCqD2JfOE3XPu
We will use aerosols because we have no other way to bring the planet back into balance quickly.
If we want to save anything of nature and our civilizations we will use aerosols.
That will take centuries. This is the *coldest* year for the next 200 years.
And we will do it because we must.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_Shock_(novel)
Decarbonizing is only half the problem, once we stop dumping CO2 we then have to *remove* the excess to bring the planet back into energy balance - that will take centuries.
The sooner we use aerosols, the less we lose.
To bring the planet back into energy balance not only must we decarbonize, but then we have to *remove* the excess CO2 to bring us back to ~270 PPM - that will take centuries.
If we want to save anything of nature we must use aerosols.
Simply eliminating fossil use doesn't remove the excess carbon we've already dumped, that will take centuries.
Aerosols are the only way to bring the planet back into energy balance quickly, and quick is important.
These pathetic get rich scam companies. doing nothing to deal with climate change.
again
We will use aerosols because we have no other option to bring temperatures down quickly.
Aerosols from fossil fuels are currently cooling the planet by 0.5-1.5C, and when we decarbonize, that cooling goes away, and we're struggling even with the current impacts. Also Snowpiercer is fiction.
Would permanently cool the earth with the reduction in CO2 output.
howre you supposed to undo mistakes like these?
Aerosols aren't optional, we have no other way to bring the planet back into energy balance quickly.
As for how it can be stopped, aerosols rain out of the atmosphere after a year or two, so just stop doing it should be enough.
you can not manipulate any part of the world's evosystems without fucking up the delicate balance.
mother nature knows what the fuck she is doing. humans don't.
And we don't have any other way to bring the planet back into energy balance quickly.
But humans do not have a good track record when we try and control nature, particularly when greed is in the mix.
I just do not see this ending well. A bit pessimistic.
And as mentioned, large volcanic eruptions do this naturally so we have a reasonable idea of what to expect.
(Tho still pessimistic because science is under attack and the spoiled toddlers are in charge.)
aerosols take out solar and eff all kinds of current. and prolong fossil fuel usage.
and genetic engineering of rapid life …if biology were an atomic bomb.
we should be working as a planet for climate, not facing down facsists. effing technotopia. such insane lack of every imagination.
Hope I am wrong.
Historically, newspapers would put the most important information at the start so people could be quickly informed. This article has 12 paragraphs outlining the corporate structure of this company before we learn anything at all.
Not only must we stop dumping CO2, but then we have to *remove* the excess to bring the planet back to energy balance.
The sooner we use aerosols, the less we lose.
This sounds like either a hoax or crazy people that enjoy junk science. Geez I hope someone stops them.
Is it the literal feces they spray in the middle of the night on the homes of Palestinians living in the West Bank?