4 ms·

Interesting that removing sulphur emissions may have resulted in more solar radiation being absorbed by the oceans. Wonder if cargo ships could purposely emit s

by mbil 3y ago

Interesting that removing sulphur emissions may have resulted in more solar radiation being absorbed by the oceans. Wonder if cargo ships could purposely emit some benign material that would reflect away sunlight. Although I suspect there could be unintended consequences.

roflyear 3y ago
I'd be careful buying into the "whys" here, as I'm not sure they are qualified to come to these conclusions. It seems speculation. However, the data seems to be real...
rjmunro 3y ago
Just spraying seawater upwards to make clouds might do the trick: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-conceptual-Flettner-spray-vessel-with-Thom-fences-The-wind-would-be-blowing-from-the_fig4_23223631 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-conceptual-Flettner-sp...
- londons_explore 3y ago
  Even if scientists agreed that spraying seawater upwards from every ship would mitigate say 10 years of climate change, can you imagine world governments coming to an agreement to do it, and how to fund it?
  - notfish 3y ago
    Also, H2O is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, so this is prolly not really a great idea
    - tonymillion 3y ago
      To counter that, H2O has a really easy path to exit the atmosphere (straight down), and it’s not like we’re producing that much more… Unlike CO2 which has been nicely stored away from the atmosphere for millions of years…
    - jazzyjackson 3y ago
      water effects weather differently based on whether its vapor (traps infrared) or suspended droplets/crystals as a cloud (reflects infrared) sulfur is both a greenhouse gas and a condensate for cloud formation nature is full of examples where you can add more and more of a single factor and suddenly the effect will flip and contribute to the other direction, before reaching a further threshold and flipping the other way it is not possible to make blanket statements like "Adding water to the atmosphere increases average temperature" As I understand it, CO2 is one of the few factors that we can all agree is just straighforward, more CO2 more problems. But chaos is tricky, we can only simulate so much.
  - rjmunro 3y ago
    If it helps e.g. local rainfall and other whether conditions it might be in the interests of coastal governments to invest in things like this, but if it only helps on a global scale, it's an issue. You could maybe equate it to an equivalent amount of carbon capture and pay for it the same way. I'm not sure I'd agree with that, though, unless it was only paid at a lower rate than true carbon capture / reduction schemes.
phtrivier 3y ago
> As of January 1, 2020, the International Maritime Organization put a limit on the sulfur content in shipping fuels, reducing the global upper limit on sulfur content from 3.50% to 0.50%. Here is a link to an article describing this change. This reduced limit was mandatory and led to over a 75% drop in sulfur oxides. While great for the environment in many respects (e.g. less acid rain and ocean acidification), there was also a not-so-unexpected consequence. What is actually beyond my understanding here, is that an international organization implemented a very strict environmental standard, one that probably applies to notoriously uncooperative countries (hint: China), one that applies to a notoriously uncaring industry (cue the oil-spills and dirt ships transporting crap around the world), and, _somehow_ , the standard was respected, and the restriction had the "desired" effect (less SO2 in the air.) ? That's my WTF: since when do environment standard work ? What did the IMO do ? Why didn't the cargo coorporation simply bribe and cheat and lie, as usual ? Didn't using "cleaner" fuels cost _more_ money ? How did they let this kind of communist nonsense of a regulation happen ? Where are the freedom fighters ? Why don't we have an "airpollutionskeptics.org" site that denies the link between cargo ships and SO2 level in the air, on the ground that SO2 levels have always changed in the past, and that the IMO is an evil governement body of elitists who want to take again our gunships ? Or is it only that we're slaves to irony, that no good deed should go unpunished, and that the only way we can solve any environmental problem is by inadvertently making another one even worse ?
- Daishiman 3y ago
  Regulation of CFCs was successful at helping to recover the ozone layer. Likewise the Clean Air Act. Regulation works remarkably well in many spaces. Skepticism is warranted as usual but the cynics that claim it almost never works usually have a hidden agenda.
  - phtrivier 3y ago
    I don't know about the clean air act. My understanding of the Montreal protocol is not that corporations decided to follow regulations from their good hearts, but that they managed to play the clock long enough to have better and cheaper alternatives anyway [1].) That being said, of course I do believe regulation help - but, slowly, reluctantly, and with every interest fighting tooth and nails. Therefore, I'm still shocked that a regulation would be _that_ successful (75% reduction of anything in two years is unbelievable.) However, if insurers are more powerful than activist, that should give some ideas. How can you make premiums for fossil fuels plants get so high that no insurer would touch them ? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol?wprov=sfla1
pfdietz 3y ago
This could work in combination with emission of Iron Salt Aerosols (ISAs). These would have two beneficial effects: increase of phytoplankton growth in iron-poor regions of the oceans, and increased photogeneration of OH and Cl radicals in the troposphere to increase the rate of removal of methane.
rootusrootus 3y ago
Maybe those guys advocating a sulfur dioxide pipe to the stratosphere had the right idea. We clearly aren't conserving our way out of this mess.

by mbil 3y ago

roflyear 3y ago

I'd be careful buying into the "whys" here, as I'm not sure they are qualified to come to these conclusions. It seems speculation. However, the data seems to be real...

rjmunro 3y ago

Just spraying seawater upwards to make clouds might do the trick: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-conceptual-Flettner-spray-vessel-with-Thom-fences-The-wind-would-be-blowing-from-the_fig4_23223631 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-conceptual-Flettner-sp...

londons_explore 3y ago
Even if scientists agreed that spraying seawater upwards from every ship would mitigate say 10 years of climate change, can you imagine world governments coming to an agreement to do it, and how to fund it?
- notfish 3y ago
  Also, H2O is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, so this is prolly not really a great idea
  - tonymillion 3y ago
    To counter that, H2O has a really easy path to exit the atmosphere (straight down), and it’s not like we’re producing that much more… Unlike CO2 which has been nicely stored away from the atmosphere for millions of years…
  - jazzyjackson 3y ago
    water effects weather differently based on whether its vapor (traps infrared) or suspended droplets/crystals as a cloud (reflects infrared) sulfur is both a greenhouse gas and a condensate for cloud formation nature is full of examples where you can add more and more of a single factor and suddenly the effect will flip and contribute to the other direction, before reaching a further threshold and flipping the other way it is not possible to make blanket statements like "Adding water to the atmosphere increases average temperature" As I understand it, CO2 is one of the few factors that we can all agree is just straighforward, more CO2 more problems. But chaos is tricky, we can only simulate so much.
- rjmunro 3y ago
  If it helps e.g. local rainfall and other whether conditions it might be in the interests of coastal governments to invest in things like this, but if it only helps on a global scale, it's an issue. You could maybe equate it to an equivalent amount of carbon capture and pay for it the same way. I'm not sure I'd agree with that, though, unless it was only paid at a lower rate than true carbon capture / reduction schemes.

phtrivier 3y ago

> As of January 1, 2020, the International Maritime Organization put a limit on the sulfur content in shipping fuels, reducing the global upper limit on sulfur content from 3.50% to 0.50%. Here is a link to an article describing this change. This reduced limit was mandatory and led to over a 75% drop in sulfur oxides. While great for the environment in many respects (e.g. less acid rain and ocean acidification), there was also a not-so-unexpected consequence. What is actually beyond my understanding here, is that an international organization implemented a very strict environmental standard, one that probably applies to notoriously uncooperative countries (hint: China), one that applies to a notoriously uncaring industry (cue the oil-spills and dirt ships transporting crap around the world), and, _somehow_ , the standard was respected, and the restriction had the "desired" effect (less SO2 in the air.) ? That's my WTF: since when do environment standard work ? What did the IMO do ? Why didn't the cargo coorporation simply bribe and cheat and lie, as usual ? Didn't using "cleaner" fuels cost _more_ money ? How did they let this kind of communist nonsense of a regulation happen ? Where are the freedom fighters ? Why don't we have an "airpollutionskeptics.org" site that denies the link between cargo ships and SO2 level in the air, on the ground that SO2 levels have always changed in the past, and that the IMO is an evil governement body of elitists who want to take again our gunships ? Or is it only that we're slaves to irony, that no good deed should go unpunished, and that the only way we can solve any environmental problem is by inadvertently making another one even worse ?

Daishiman 3y ago
Regulation of CFCs was successful at helping to recover the ozone layer. Likewise the Clean Air Act. Regulation works remarkably well in many spaces. Skepticism is warranted as usual but the cynics that claim it almost never works usually have a hidden agenda.
- phtrivier 3y ago
  I don't know about the clean air act. My understanding of the Montreal protocol is not that corporations decided to follow regulations from their good hearts, but that they managed to play the clock long enough to have better and cheaper alternatives anyway [1].) That being said, of course I do believe regulation help - but, slowly, reluctantly, and with every interest fighting tooth and nails. Therefore, I'm still shocked that a regulation would be _that_ successful (75% reduction of anything in two years is unbelievable.) However, if insurers are more powerful than activist, that should give some ideas. How can you make premiums for fossil fuels plants get so high that no insurer would touch them ? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol?wprov=sfla1

pfdietz 3y ago

This could work in combination with emission of Iron Salt Aerosols (ISAs). These would have two beneficial effects: increase of phytoplankton growth in iron-poor regions of the oceans, and increased photogeneration of OH and Cl radicals in the troposphere to increase the rate of removal of methane.

rootusrootus 3y ago

Maybe those guys advocating a sulfur dioxide pipe to the stratosphere had the right idea. We clearly aren't conserving our way out of this mess.