6 ms·
I can’t remember who (maybe he’s quoted further in the thread than I quickly scrolled) but there’s a scientist who has been talking about this on Twitter for a
by stephen_g 3y ago
I can’t remember who (maybe he’s quoted further in the thread than I quickly scrolled) but there’s a scientist who has been talking about this on Twitter for a long time (when I used to use it). Pretty scary these things can happen, but he was warning basically we are further along with global heating than we thought and this pollution was just masking some of the effect in the Northern Hemsiphere of CO2 we’d already released. We were always going to have to stop sulfur emissions, might have just been better perhaps to have a bit more gradual phase out to soften the shock…
- ChatGTP 3y agoSorry if it's a naive question but if it was actually helping the situation, why do we need to stop? So it seems the sulfur was removed for the obvious season that it's not good for respiratory health, but it may be a necessary evil for sometime ?
- shinryuu 3y agoAlso contributes to ocean acidification which isn't great.
- developer93 3y agoSpecifically because it kills sea life which reduces the amount of carbon the sea can hold. And for a lot more reasons.
- cubefox 3y agoThere are people saying we should not just not stop, but even increase sulfur injection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injectio... The thing is, this is not a one time solution. We would have to do it continuously, or else the temperature would quickly rise again. And we would have to increase sulphur injection if the CO2 level keeps rising. It could be a temporary solution though, e.g. until all countries switch to nuclear energy eventually and reduce CO2 emissions.
- ChatGTP 3y agoYeah I just read this, not really sure what the alternatives are now? Looks like the situation is spiraling out of control so...?? Cover Greenland in a reflective blanket? Sounds like it is time to panic...and actually do what needs to be done.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- labster 3y agoThe time to panic was 1980. We’re well past that point by now, and have already committed to at least a whole degree of warming, if not more. > Cover Greenland in a reflective blanket? Ha! I want to see a study on this now. Greenland already has high albedo so it wouldn’t be that effective; it would protect the ice sheet but also be covered by new snow, if any.
- whats_a_quasar 3y agoWe ought to stop surface-level sulfur emissions, for human health and also because ship engines that produce sulfur also produce lots of other nasty shit. Stratospheric sulfur is much more efficient, per kg, at reflecting sunlight, so we could replace the cooling effect of surface-level sulfur with stratospheric sulfur, and if we choose to, go even further to cool the planet more.
- MattGaiser 3y agoSulphur emissions cause acid rain.
- scaramanga 3y agoThe history is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming Most of the dimming effect was from massively polluting coal burning. I'm sure you understand why we had to stop that. CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere and stays there for thousands of years.. This sulfur that causes dimming stays for a year or two.
- clhodapp 3y agoHank Green, whose tweets originated this topic, addressed this on YouTube and less explicitly in the tweets. His statement was essentially that: right now, were effectively seeding clouds with sulfuric acid. The sulfuric acid is bad but if the cloud seeding is actually good, we could instead seed them by spraying sea water into the air.
- stephen_g 3y agoIt totally could have been the same person but maybe they changed their profile image so I just didn’t recognise them!
- XorNot 3y agoIt also causes acid rain, which while it will never be literally "acid" falling from the sky, a general decrease in the pH of water entering arable lands, estuaries and other areas is not going to be great for any of them (also the generalized increase in maintenance cost for concrete, and particularly limestone, structures).
- dghughes 3y agoWater is hydroxic acid /jk
- amateurCoder5 3y agoLol. No, water is a base - hydrogen hydroxide!
- fnordpiglet 3y agoMy understanding (IANACS) is sulfur interacts with the atmosphere to form SO2 and H2S, which dissolves in water to form sulphuric acid both in water vapor (clouds) and in the ocean directly to acidity both rain and the ocean. I think it also interacts with other green house gases over a longer period increasing warming despite cooling up front.
- paulmd 3y agobecause sulfur causes acid rain and respiratory problems and infrastructure damage etc. you're putting sulfuric acid into the atmosphere, just like carbonating water produces carbonic acid that eats your teeth. It's not fundamentally different from burning coal, and coal obviously had to be stopped too, I don't know why it's really a question that we need to avoid harmful pollutants even if they have a fringe benefit.
- clolege 3y agoIt's an unstable equilibrium. The more necessary evils we depend on, the more things that can fail and further perturb the system. Stopping now helps nudge us back towards the stable equilibrium we had.
- croes 3y agoAnd sulfur leads to acid rain and ozone depletion.
- metamet 3y ago> I can’t remember who (maybe he’s quoted further in the thread than I quickly scrolled) but there’s a scientist who has been talking about this on Twitter for a long time (when I used to use it). Was it Leon Simons? https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8 https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8
- ivarv 3y agoIt could be Guy McPherson ? - https://guymcpherson.com/ https://guymcpherson.com/
- matsemann 3y agoThe way Green is presenting this doesn't sit quite right with me. From day one of the sea temperature anomalies it's been said it's mainly because of these emissions no longer happening. But I guess it's the way it has to be presented to reach the masses.