5 ms·

The article failed to mention a really important idea - Sulfur Dioxide is not the only aerosol that can be injected, and there are other options that seem much

The article failed to mention a really important idea - Sulfur Dioxide is not the only aerosol that can be injected, and there are other options that seem much more promising. For example, using Calcium Carbonate may actually help restore the Ozone layer while also reducing the temperature. > Source: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/09/harvard-groups-research-planet-cooling-aerosols/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/09/harvard-group... > "The chemists think the solution could be calcium carbonate — the stuff of chalk, limestone, marble, and seashells. It may be less harmful to the ozone, and it’s not a big health concern. The team is studying how the substance affects chlorine and nitrogen oxides, which also exist in the stratosphere — largely due to man-made emissions — and speed ozone destruction. The researchers think the calcium carbonate might help to lower levels of these gases."

woliveirajr 4y ago
And we might end up reducing atmosphere humidity and having torrential rain.
- gault8121 4y ago
  Yes, and so that's why we need to study these things now. These aerosols dissipate - you need to continually add them to the atmosphere every few months. The point here is that this a temporary measure to bring down the temperature to prevent additional deaths caused from global warming. If it ended up causing more harm than the co2 alone, this could be stopped. However, when faced with the impossible situation all of humanity is in now, applying a tourniquet to stop the bleeding buys time for decarbonization to happen.
  - upsidesinclude 4y ago
    >prevent additional deaths caused from global warming How would one even begin to make such an assessment? Natural disaster is less likely than ever to cause death with a higher than ever population. Damage dollar cost increases from weather have increased as a result of development, not increasingly severe events. >the impossible situation all of humanity is in now Compared to the current resurgence in desire for nuclear war, war and diminishing diplomacy? We are not in an impossible situation because of weather. This is alarmist and completely predicated on climate models being accurate, despite that they have always proven to be inaccurate. "Whelp, no issue there, those were the old models. We've got new, accurate models now!!"
    - mort96 4y ago
      Climate models are generally inaccurate in the opposite direction of what we want though. Things are progressing faster than predicted. But I assume nothing will change your politically motivated opinion that climate change is no big deal.
      - yodon 4y ago
        >But I assume nothing will change your politically motivated opinion that climate change is no big deal. The fact that you disagree with someone does not make the other person's analysis a "politically motivated opinion" any more than your disagreeing with them makes your analysis a "politically motivated opinion." Either party in a disagreement can always choose to stoop to insults and ad hominem attacks. That doesn't mean stooping to insults and ad hominem attacks is the path to the best or desired outcomes.
        mort96 4y ago
        Come on. They're conflating climate and weather, downplaying the effects, and calling people who are concerned about the ongoing mass extinction alarmists. This is good old climate change denialism, there is nothing here that's worth taking seriously.
        upsidesinclude 4y ago
        Feel free to engage any of the points I brought up. Or don't. You are hyperbolic and provided nothing of value to the conversation thus far. I don't deny climate change. I question the appropriate response and the motivations of those that intend to place themselves in positions of authority unsubstantiated. You fall into the latter category if not the former.
        mort96 4y ago
        I'm 100% for challenging how the powers that be react to climate change! But you're saying we should be taking it less seriously than we already do. That's completely bonkers and the complete wrong conclusion. You're not challenging authority, you're supporting their destructive profit seeking behaviour by downplaying the negative effects.

woliveirajr 4y ago

And we might end up reducing atmosphere humidity and having torrential rain.

gault8121 4y ago
Yes, and so that's why we need to study these things now. These aerosols dissipate - you need to continually add them to the atmosphere every few months. The point here is that this a temporary measure to bring down the temperature to prevent additional deaths caused from global warming. If it ended up causing more harm than the co2 alone, this could be stopped. However, when faced with the impossible situation all of humanity is in now, applying a tourniquet to stop the bleeding buys time for decarbonization to happen.
- upsidesinclude 4y ago
  >prevent additional deaths caused from global warming How would one even begin to make such an assessment? Natural disaster is less likely than ever to cause death with a higher than ever population. Damage dollar cost increases from weather have increased as a result of development, not increasingly severe events. >the impossible situation all of humanity is in now Compared to the current resurgence in desire for nuclear war, war and diminishing diplomacy? We are not in an impossible situation because of weather. This is alarmist and completely predicated on climate models being accurate, despite that they have always proven to be inaccurate. "Whelp, no issue there, those were the old models. We've got new, accurate models now!!"
  - mort96 4y ago
    Climate models are generally inaccurate in the opposite direction of what we want though. Things are progressing faster than predicted. But I assume nothing will change your politically motivated opinion that climate change is no big deal.
    - yodon 4y ago
      >But I assume nothing will change your politically motivated opinion that climate change is no big deal. The fact that you disagree with someone does not make the other person's analysis a "politically motivated opinion" any more than your disagreeing with them makes your analysis a "politically motivated opinion." Either party in a disagreement can always choose to stoop to insults and ad hominem attacks. That doesn't mean stooping to insults and ad hominem attacks is the path to the best or desired outcomes.
      - mort96 4y ago
        Come on. They're conflating climate and weather, downplaying the effects, and calling people who are concerned about the ongoing mass extinction alarmists. This is good old climate change denialism, there is nothing here that's worth taking seriously.
        upsidesinclude 4y ago
        Feel free to engage any of the points I brought up. Or don't. You are hyperbolic and provided nothing of value to the conversation thus far. I don't deny climate change. I question the appropriate response and the motivations of those that intend to place themselves in positions of authority unsubstantiated. You fall into the latter category if not the former.
        mort96 4y ago
        I'm 100% for challenging how the powers that be react to climate change! But you're saying we should be taking it less seriously than we already do. That's completely bonkers and the complete wrong conclusion. You're not challenging authority, you're supporting their destructive profit seeking behaviour by downplaying the negative effects.