3 ms·

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

by 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.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rich_sasha 3y ago
It is a major unexplored / controversial avenue for tackling climate change: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injectio... It appears that it is within our economic means to inject aerosols (likely sulphur-based) into the atmosphere to cool it, mimicking the cooling occurring after major volcanic eruptions - and to do it at sufficient scale that we can "undo global warming". We could cool the Earth quite nicely. The downsides are non-trivial however: - Sulphides lead to acid rain which is destructive to the environment in its own ways - This relies on continued aerosol injections; the sulphides subside rather quickly. So if we stop doing it, the Earth will return on its warming trajectory - We will end up injecting a lot of foreign material into the atmosphere. It will eventually land somewhere and do something - and it's unclear what exactly. - This doesn't eliminate other issues with climate change, such as ocean acidification - It is hard to predict what other consequences this will lead to. One fear is that it might strangle food production, by lowering solar irradiation. Plus, the Earth will be cooler, but what climate precisely will this lead to is unknown. Personally I suspect we will end up doing it anyway, simply because we can, and because we're not so good at CO2 reductions. We umm and arr about it, but then a very hot and dry summer will come and we'll just do it - for better or worse.
- rapjr9 3y ago
  I'm not suggesting injecting sulfur across the whole Earth, just near hurricanes. We also now have a natural experiment, where the sulfur from ships at sea was decreased and we have observed a significant effect and can correlate that to the amount of sulfur. So I'm suggesting a tailored intervention for specific hurricanes that are predicted to make landfall and cause damage. Let the others proceed as they will. The idea could be tested with a hurricane out at sea, away from everything else. The military could do it as a training exercise.

by rapjr9 3y ago

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.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

rich_sasha 3y ago

It is a major unexplored / controversial avenue for tackling climate change: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injectio... It appears that it is within our economic means to inject aerosols (likely sulphur-based) into the atmosphere to cool it, mimicking the cooling occurring after major volcanic eruptions - and to do it at sufficient scale that we can "undo global warming". We could cool the Earth quite nicely. The downsides are non-trivial however: - Sulphides lead to acid rain which is destructive to the environment in its own ways - This relies on continued aerosol injections; the sulphides subside rather quickly. So if we stop doing it, the Earth will return on its warming trajectory - We will end up injecting a lot of foreign material into the atmosphere. It will eventually land somewhere and do something - and it's unclear what exactly. - This doesn't eliminate other issues with climate change, such as ocean acidification - It is hard to predict what other consequences this will lead to. One fear is that it might strangle food production, by lowering solar irradiation. Plus, the Earth will be cooler, but what climate precisely will this lead to is unknown. Personally I suspect we will end up doing it anyway, simply because we can, and because we're not so good at CO2 reductions. We umm and arr about it, but then a very hot and dry summer will come and we'll just do it - for better or worse.

rapjr9 3y ago
I'm not suggesting injecting sulfur across the whole Earth, just near hurricanes. We also now have a natural experiment, where the sulfur from ships at sea was decreased and we have observed a significant effect and can correlate that to the amount of sulfur. So I'm suggesting a tailored intervention for specific hurricanes that are predicted to make landfall and cause damage. Let the others proceed as they will. The idea could be tested with a hurricane out at sea, away from everything else. The military could do it as a training exercise.