244
submitted 11 months ago by trashhalo@beehaw.org to c/news@beehaw.org

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 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] realitista@lemm.ee 61 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] Taako_Tuesday@lemmy.ca 29 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] archomrade@midwest.social 14 points 11 months ago

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

[-] suburBeebiTcH@beehaw.org 3 points 11 months 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

[-] prole@beehaw.org 14 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] Guadin@k.fe.derate.me 5 points 11 months 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.

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago

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

[-] zephyreks@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] zephyreks@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago

It already is, looking at recent flooding.

[-] BrioxorMorbide@lemm.ee 17 points 11 months 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.

[-] trashhalo@beehaw.org 15 points 11 months ago

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

[-] upstream@beehaw.org 2 points 11 months ago

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

[-] MicTEST@ttrpg.network 25 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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

[-] PCurd@feddit.uk 13 points 11 months ago

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

[-] parpol@programming.dev 6 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] relevants@feddit.de 2 points 11 months ago

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

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

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

[-] inso 3 points 11 months ago

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

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 17 points 11 months ago

I think the idea is to do it over oceans.

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago

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

[-] Mutoid@beehaw.org 3 points 11 months ago

We sprayed it outside the environment.

[-] strepto@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago

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

[-] that_one_guy@beehaw.org 1 points 11 months ago

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

[-] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 points 11 months ago

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

[-] undercrust@lemmy.ca 23 points 11 months ago

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

[-] 567PrimeMover@kbin.social 15 points 11 months ago

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

[-] ringwraithfish@kbin.social 9 points 11 months ago

Solving the problem once and for all!

[-] undercrust@lemmy.ca 6 points 11 months ago

Once and for all I said!

[-] nieceandtows@programming.dev 19 points 11 months ago

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

[-] brasilian_zizi@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 11 months ago

Came here to say this. Highly recommended book.

[-] nerodessertking@beehaw.org 17 points 11 months ago

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

[-] Overzeetop@kbin.social 12 points 11 months ago

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

[-] pgetsos@kbin.social 6 points 11 months ago
[-] trashhalo@beehaw.org 9 points 11 months ago

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

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] upstream@beehaw.org 1 points 11 months ago

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

[-] japps13@lemmy.physfluids.fr 9 points 11 months ago

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

[-] STUPIDVIPGUY@sopuli.xyz 9 points 11 months ago

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

[-] crapwittyname@lemm.ee 9 points 11 months ago

Thus solving the problem once and for all!

[-] Mutoid@beehaw.org 5 points 11 months ago
[-] crapwittyname@lemm.ee 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

--ONCE AND FOR ALL!

[-] Sina@beehaw.org 5 points 11 months ago

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

[-] bandario@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months 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?

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

World News

21876 readers
248 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