4 ms·

> But if every fraction of a degree matters, shouldn't we also be at least continuing if not scaling up these these albedo-increasing changes? Acid Rain is als

> But if every fraction of a degree matters, shouldn't we also be at least continuing if not scaling up these these albedo-increasing changes? Acid Rain is also a bad thing with bad consequences. While I'm not necessarily that opposed to cautious attempts at some geoengineering, I don't think "scale up the sulfate emissions" is a viable solution.

TSiege 3y ago
The argument the OP was really making was, could we at least not scale down sulfur emissions
- webnrrd2k 3y ago
  I don't think it's that simple. Sulpher, causing acid rain, was a big deal and caused a lot of damage. Whole forrests died, public structures and art was damaged, etc... Also, sulpher contributes to ocean acidification. The point is that the earth is a really complex systems, and it's not always clear what technical fixes to use, Let alone getting the political will to implement them.
  - selimthegrim 3y ago
    It also causes ozone damage.
abeppu 3y ago
Acid rain _was_ bad, and I'm not trying to ignore it. However, my understanding is that we've already brought down sulfur emissions by an enormous amount over the past 30 years, and the 2020 value was a very small fraction of our peak sulfur emissions [1]. The IMO change took place in 2020, and it's my understanding that the IPCC statement about 0.5C of cooling coming from sulfur emissions is relatively recent. I think our current level of sulfur emissions is closer to being acceptable than our current warming trend. I'm not pretending that cooling via sulfur emissions is without costs -- but e.g. if living at 2018 levels of sulfur emissions (which were already 90% down from peak) can give us 0.5C of cooling, that's a deal I'm willing to take, especially in light of how hard it is proving to reduce carbon emissions. It especially seems like we're hitting a number of tipping points with warming, and if sulfur emissions (or any other albedo-increasing intervention) can keep us from crossing those lines, we should, in my view. Would we be better off with 2014-level sulfur emissions? 2008? At _some_ point, trading sulfur emissions for cooling becomes a bad deal, and we shouldn't scale up without limit. But is it a good direction to move from where we are now? I think so. [1] https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/07/09/whatever-happened-acid-rain-15651 https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/07/09/whatever-happened-acid-...
brucethemoose2 3y ago
The calculus changes. One day it might look very attractive to ecologists

TSiege 3y ago

The argument the OP was really making was, could we at least not scale down sulfur emissions

webnrrd2k 3y ago
I don't think it's that simple. Sulpher, causing acid rain, was a big deal and caused a lot of damage. Whole forrests died, public structures and art was damaged, etc... Also, sulpher contributes to ocean acidification. The point is that the earth is a really complex systems, and it's not always clear what technical fixes to use, Let alone getting the political will to implement them.
- selimthegrim 3y ago
  It also causes ozone damage.

abeppu 3y ago

Acid rain _was_ bad, and I'm not trying to ignore it. However, my understanding is that we've already brought down sulfur emissions by an enormous amount over the past 30 years, and the 2020 value was a very small fraction of our peak sulfur emissions [1]. The IMO change took place in 2020, and it's my understanding that the IPCC statement about 0.5C of cooling coming from sulfur emissions is relatively recent. I think our current level of sulfur emissions is closer to being acceptable than our current warming trend. I'm not pretending that cooling via sulfur emissions is without costs -- but e.g. if living at 2018 levels of sulfur emissions (which were already 90% down from peak) can give us 0.5C of cooling, that's a deal I'm willing to take, especially in light of how hard it is proving to reduce carbon emissions. It especially seems like we're hitting a number of tipping points with warming, and if sulfur emissions (or any other albedo-increasing intervention) can keep us from crossing those lines, we should, in my view. Would we be better off with 2014-level sulfur emissions? 2008? At _some_ point, trading sulfur emissions for cooling becomes a bad deal, and we shouldn't scale up without limit. But is it a good direction to move from where we are now? I think so. [1] https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/07/09/whatever-happened-acid-rain-15651 https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/07/09/whatever-happened-acid-...

brucethemoose2 3y ago

The calculus changes. One day it might look very attractive to ecologists