3 ms·

The only real option is carbon capture. Everything else has the wonkiest side effects in the models, eg concerning atmosphere/ocean circulation, which heavily

by kaybe 7y ago

The only real option is carbon capture. Everything else has the wonkiest side effects in the models, eg concerning atmosphere/ocean circulation, which heavily affects local and regional weather patterns, and the cooling is still not sufficient.

MiroF 7y ago
Carbon capture is not remotely feasible given the cost/intrinsic limitations in how to get the carbon out of the air. Sulfur dioxide has been shown to work in real life experiments (read: volcanic eruptions) and while t has some side effects, it’s a known quantity and the benefits generally outweigh the costs.
- kaybe 7y ago
  Yes, it works, but there is a limit for how much warming it can migitate (if you make the particles larger/more they will just coagulate and precipitate faster), and the limit seems to be ~ -2 W/m^2. (It is important to not only consider the short-wave reflective cooling of the aerosol but also the long-wave heating it creates. More sulphur will just coagulate faster. Changing atmospheric circulation patterns mean the aerosol is not distributed equally and can grow and precipiate faster.) (Currently we're already at an estimated +0.6 W/m^2.) Additionally, the atmospheric circulation is disturbed [0]. Interaction with the ozone layer might also be highly problematic. So this is not a solution, only a last-ditch effort if we need to buy some time. With everything else being constant, the injection needs to be repeated for basically forever, a problem for all solar radiation management techniques. Carbon capture on the other hand allows us to stop at some point, it removes the problem instead of only treating the symptoms. There are ideas for enhanced weathering, or storing organic matter (eg as biochar), which are feasible from an energic perspective but still expensive. Whatever we do, it needs to be done on a huge scale, like a massive war effort, with everyone involved and helping, and it will be more expensive than not emitting the carbon in the first place. Also, one method alone will not cut it, and there will be side effects, which are hopefully less severe than the alternative. Don't rely on technology to fix the problem after the fact, push for change now. [0] https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/2769/2018/acp-18-2769-2018.pdf https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/2769/2018/acp-18-2769-201...
  - MiroF 7y ago
    That's why I said sulfur dioxide to put off the effects, while we develop nuclear-based mitigation technology we can deploy cheaply. Sulfur dioxide is only one part of the solution, but its a necessary one: it's the tech we have now that works, carbon capture is a far off dream that costs thousands of dollar per ton of CO2

by kaybe 7y ago

MiroF 7y ago

Carbon capture is not remotely feasible given the cost/intrinsic limitations in how to get the carbon out of the air. Sulfur dioxide has been shown to work in real life experiments (read: volcanic eruptions) and while t has some side effects, it’s a known quantity and the benefits generally outweigh the costs.

kaybe 7y ago
Yes, it works, but there is a limit for how much warming it can migitate (if you make the particles larger/more they will just coagulate and precipitate faster), and the limit seems to be ~ -2 W/m^2. (It is important to not only consider the short-wave reflective cooling of the aerosol but also the long-wave heating it creates. More sulphur will just coagulate faster. Changing atmospheric circulation patterns mean the aerosol is not distributed equally and can grow and precipiate faster.) (Currently we're already at an estimated +0.6 W/m^2.) Additionally, the atmospheric circulation is disturbed [0]. Interaction with the ozone layer might also be highly problematic. So this is not a solution, only a last-ditch effort if we need to buy some time. With everything else being constant, the injection needs to be repeated for basically forever, a problem for all solar radiation management techniques. Carbon capture on the other hand allows us to stop at some point, it removes the problem instead of only treating the symptoms. There are ideas for enhanced weathering, or storing organic matter (eg as biochar), which are feasible from an energic perspective but still expensive. Whatever we do, it needs to be done on a huge scale, like a massive war effort, with everyone involved and helping, and it will be more expensive than not emitting the carbon in the first place. Also, one method alone will not cut it, and there will be side effects, which are hopefully less severe than the alternative. Don't rely on technology to fix the problem after the fact, push for change now. [0] https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/2769/2018/acp-18-2769-2018.pdf https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/2769/2018/acp-18-2769-201...
- MiroF 7y ago
  That's why I said sulfur dioxide to put off the effects, while we develop nuclear-based mitigation technology we can deploy cheaply. Sulfur dioxide is only one part of the solution, but its a necessary one: it's the tech we have now that works, carbon capture is a far off dream that costs thousands of dollar per ton of CO2