4 ms·

Pollution cuts have diminished “ship track” clouds, adding to global warming

37 points by dr_dshiv 3y ago

8chanAnon 3y ago
[flagged]
ahelwer 3y ago
With each passing year my dread increases that this is all headed toward intensive solar radiation management schemes that will forever rob us of a beautiful blue sky. Anything to avoid real changes.
- adhesive_wombat 3y ago
  Praise Hactar! Maybe LLMs and Boston Dynamics will merge and that's where the robots come from.
- thecrumbles 3y ago
  And given that a reality in which we all ride bicycles and own nothing is unlikely, why is this not a real solution? It seems increasingly clear, especially given this unexpected termination shock caused by the switch to low-sulfur fuel oil, that aerial dispersants should be taken seriously are a viable solution. What if we're past the point where shaming those who over-consume will effect any meaningful change in a timescale that will save us? I don't understand why it would be necessary to rob us of a 'beautiful blue sky', wouldn't a tiny fractional reduction in solar radiation would move the needle appreciably? Its not as if we'd have to create a supervolcano.
  - selimthegrim 3y ago
    What is going to happen to the ozone with aerial dispersants?
  - BaseballPhysics 3y ago
    Because it's not a solution. If we go down that road, we'll have no reason not to keep burning fossil fuels, pushing more and more CO2 into the atmosphere and acidifying the oceans. And that's ignoring the fact that the global climate system is just too damned complicated for us to safely move from accidentally modifying it to trying to deliberately modify it. If I believed it was a short-term stopgap while we get our shit together, I might be able to get onboard with the idea. But that ain't how humans work.
    - distortionfield 3y ago
      Exactly this. Climate change isn’t only a sunlight problem.
  - jjk166 3y ago
    The issue with using aerosols to cool the planet is that it doesn't address the root cause of the issue - the CO2 is still there. If you ever stop pumping out aerosols, the temperature will spike right back up very quickly. This makes the system very fragile. And remember, this stuff you now have to pump into the atmosphere is harmful in its own ways - it's toxic not only to vulnerable species but also to crops and to humans. Whether those consequences are better or worse than the full effects of climate change is debatable, but one way or another you ultimately need to find a way to get your environmental house in order.
pmontra 3y ago
We didn't have ship tracks 300 years ago. Those clouds hid a part of the global warming under the carpet and we're losing the carpet now.
- seafoam 3y ago
  First we start with our policy agenda. Then we co-opt institutions. From there, some of us get rich, others famous, and then there is the narrative. You see the narrative tells us we have to do. When we start to pursue the agenda, the problem becomes worse. Since we have co-opted the institutions, the consensus is that it is because we are not doing enough. Which means we really should be doing more. Not different, oh no, remember the agenda, but do not talk about the agenda. We talk about the narrative.
  - stuaxo 3y ago
    Is this a riddle ?
    - jareklupinski 3y ago
      near a tree, by the river there's a hole in the ground Where an old man of Aran goes around and around...
rapjr9 3y ago
So the article says sulfur from ships at sea plus a lack of Saharan dust is contributing to Atlantic warming. This article says Saharan dust can sap hurricanes of energy by blocking light: https://news.yahoo.com/saharan-dust-break-monstrous-atlantic-194609699.html https://news.yahoo.com/saharan-dust-break-monstrous-atlantic... So there is a path within our means to alter and suppress the formation of hurricanes? Large dust clouds above the hurricanes sap them of energy from the Sun. Perhaps sulfur bombs above a hurricane would do the same? Seems fairly simple and cheap to try, though it would also create some pollution. Still the ability to reduce the strength of hurricanes on paths to landfall might be worth it.
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  Where I'm currently living, we're experiencing very low rainfall and a heatwave. This area is a large food producer. Hurricanes are the only thing that seems to be able to bring the rain, so please don't start advocating the bombing the only thing that's bringing water to crops
  - rapjr9 3y ago
    That sounds rough, that you'd prefer the destruction of hurricanes in order to get more water. Don't the hurricanes destroy the crops? Maybe your government should try cloud seeding.
- kspacewalk2 3y ago
  Bombing hurricanes, eradicating mosquitoes... what could possibly go wrong?
  - rapjr9 3y ago
    What does eradicating mosquitoes have to do with hurricanes? We've already messed with the level of sulfur in the air over the oceans by using high sulfur fuel in ships in the past, so the risks should be pretty well quantified. Possibly by gathering historical ship route data and combining that with historical hurricane data an effect could be proved or disproved without even having to try an experiment.
workfromspace 3y ago
https://archive.is/fpZSB https://archive.is/fpZSB

37 points by dr_dshiv 3y ago

[flagged]

With each passing year my dread increases that this is all headed toward intensive solar radiation management schemes that will forever rob us of a beautiful blue sky. Anything to avoid real changes.

adhesive_wombat 3y ago
Praise Hactar! Maybe LLMs and Boston Dynamics will merge and that's where the robots come from.
thecrumbles 3y ago
And given that a reality in which we all ride bicycles and own nothing is unlikely, why is this not a real solution? It seems increasingly clear, especially given this unexpected termination shock caused by the switch to low-sulfur fuel oil, that aerial dispersants should be taken seriously are a viable solution. What if we're past the point where shaming those who over-consume will effect any meaningful change in a timescale that will save us? I don't understand why it would be necessary to rob us of a 'beautiful blue sky', wouldn't a tiny fractional reduction in solar radiation would move the needle appreciably? Its not as if we'd have to create a supervolcano.
- selimthegrim 3y ago
  What is going to happen to the ozone with aerial dispersants?
- BaseballPhysics 3y ago
  Because it's not a solution. If we go down that road, we'll have no reason not to keep burning fossil fuels, pushing more and more CO2 into the atmosphere and acidifying the oceans. And that's ignoring the fact that the global climate system is just too damned complicated for us to safely move from accidentally modifying it to trying to deliberately modify it. If I believed it was a short-term stopgap while we get our shit together, I might be able to get onboard with the idea. But that ain't how humans work.
  - distortionfield 3y ago
    Exactly this. Climate change isn’t only a sunlight problem.
- jjk166 3y ago
  The issue with using aerosols to cool the planet is that it doesn't address the root cause of the issue - the CO2 is still there. If you ever stop pumping out aerosols, the temperature will spike right back up very quickly. This makes the system very fragile. And remember, this stuff you now have to pump into the atmosphere is harmful in its own ways - it's toxic not only to vulnerable species but also to crops and to humans. Whether those consequences are better or worse than the full effects of climate change is debatable, but one way or another you ultimately need to find a way to get your environmental house in order.

pmontra 3y ago

We didn't have ship tracks 300 years ago. Those clouds hid a part of the global warming under the carpet and we're losing the carpet now.

seafoam 3y ago
First we start with our policy agenda. Then we co-opt institutions. From there, some of us get rich, others famous, and then there is the narrative. You see the narrative tells us we have to do. When we start to pursue the agenda, the problem becomes worse. Since we have co-opted the institutions, the consensus is that it is because we are not doing enough. Which means we really should be doing more. Not different, oh no, remember the agenda, but do not talk about the agenda. We talk about the narrative.
- stuaxo 3y ago
  Is this a riddle ?
  - jareklupinski 3y ago
    near a tree, by the river there's a hole in the ground Where an old man of Aran goes around and around...

rapjr9 3y ago

So the article says sulfur from ships at sea plus a lack of Saharan dust is contributing to Atlantic warming. This article says Saharan dust can sap hurricanes of energy by blocking light: https://news.yahoo.com/saharan-dust-break-monstrous-atlantic-194609699.html https://news.yahoo.com/saharan-dust-break-monstrous-atlantic... So there is a path within our means to alter and suppress the formation of hurricanes? Large dust clouds above the hurricanes sap them of energy from the Sun. Perhaps sulfur bombs above a hurricane would do the same? Seems fairly simple and cheap to try, though it would also create some pollution. Still the ability to reduce the strength of hurricanes on paths to landfall might be worth it.

ChatGTP 3y ago
Where I'm currently living, we're experiencing very low rainfall and a heatwave. This area is a large food producer. Hurricanes are the only thing that seems to be able to bring the rain, so please don't start advocating the bombing the only thing that's bringing water to crops
- rapjr9 3y ago
  That sounds rough, that you'd prefer the destruction of hurricanes in order to get more water. Don't the hurricanes destroy the crops? Maybe your government should try cloud seeding.
kspacewalk2 3y ago
Bombing hurricanes, eradicating mosquitoes... what could possibly go wrong?
- rapjr9 3y ago
  What does eradicating mosquitoes have to do with hurricanes? We've already messed with the level of sulfur in the air over the oceans by using high sulfur fuel in ships in the past, so the risks should be pretty well quantified. Possibly by gathering historical ship route data and combining that with historical hurricane data an effect could be proved or disproved without even having to try an experiment.

workfromspace 3y ago

https://archive.is/fpZSB https://archive.is/fpZSB