2 ms·

One thing mentioned in this article is that some of the warming may be due to regulations in 2020 that mandated cleaner (less sulfur) shipping fuel. The particu

One thing mentioned in this article is that some of the warming may be due to regulations in 2020 that mandated cleaner (less sulfur) shipping fuel. The particulates from this fuel apparently reflected a significant amount of light both directly and through cloud formation, the loss of which may have caused a kind of termination shock and jump in ocean temperatures. If this is true, we should figure this out and do something about it ASAP. ETA: To be clear, if true this is just the cherry on the thermonuclear bomb we've set off under our feet. But it's still significant and something we might be able to address.

mturmon 4y ago
> One thing mentioned in this article... I think you mean not mentioned? (The linked article, and the scientific publication that it references, don't mention sulfur.) The increases they show span decades (see Fig. 2 in the publication), and indeed end at 2020, so this would not seem relevant to their result. It would be surprising if this kind of point change could have a significant impact on overall ocean heat content, but I'd be interested in your source. The effect of various gases and aerosols to climate forcing can be hard to determine, not just in magnitude, but also in sign (e.g., https://earth.jpl.nasa.gov/emit/science/objectives/ https://earth.jpl.nasa.gov/emit/science/objectives/).
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  It's mentioned in the original BBC article: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65339934 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65339934 A couple of other articles: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9307247/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9307247/ http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/Documents/Simons.2021.RiskOfATerminationShockAerosolConference.pdf http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/Documents/Simons.2021.RiskOfAT... https://www.nasa.gov/feature/esnt/2022/nasa-study-finds-evidence-that-fuel-regulation-reduced-air-pollution-from-shipping https://www.nasa.gov/feature/esnt/2022/nasa-study-finds-evid...
ccleve 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_cloud_brightening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_cloud_brightening

mturmon 4y ago

> One thing mentioned in this article... I think you mean not mentioned? (The linked article, and the scientific publication that it references, don't mention sulfur.) The increases they show span decades (see Fig. 2 in the publication), and indeed end at 2020, so this would not seem relevant to their result. It would be surprising if this kind of point change could have a significant impact on overall ocean heat content, but I'd be interested in your source. The effect of various gases and aerosols to climate forcing can be hard to determine, not just in magnitude, but also in sign (e.g., https://earth.jpl.nasa.gov/emit/science/objectives/ https://earth.jpl.nasa.gov/emit/science/objectives/).

matthewdgreen 4y ago
It's mentioned in the original BBC article: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65339934 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65339934 A couple of other articles: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9307247/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9307247/ http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/Documents/Simons.2021.RiskOfATerminationShockAerosolConference.pdf http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/Documents/Simons.2021.RiskOfAT... https://www.nasa.gov/feature/esnt/2022/nasa-study-finds-evidence-that-fuel-regulation-reduced-air-pollution-from-shipping https://www.nasa.gov/feature/esnt/2022/nasa-study-finds-evid...

ccleve 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_cloud_brightening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_cloud_brightening