4 ms·

We need more rapid cooling and SO2 right now — https://makesunsets.com https://makesunsets.com is leading the way but we need as many companies in the rapid coo

We need more rapid cooling and SO2 right now — https://makesunsets.com https://makesunsets.com is leading the way but we need as many companies in the rapid cooling space as possible. We need to address the heatstroke in an emergency-room-medicine style before going into the proverbial ICU of carbon sequestration and nuclear power buildout.

uoaei 3y ago
Sure there will be many moving parts to any successful recovery, but we should be careful. The cure for heat stroke isn't a freedive in arctic waters. Be wary of anyone who makes singular arguments.
- sebmellen 3y ago
  The immediate cure for heatstroke is LITERALLY an "arctic dive" in the form of immersion in an ice bath https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/heat-stroke/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20353587 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/heat-stroke/d....
  - uoaei 3y ago
    I didn't say ice bath, I said freedive, precisely for the reason that one is much more easily reversible than the other once you reach a sustainable temperature. If it was as easy to remove SO2 from the atmosphere as it would be to step out of an ice bath, then I would have said ice bath.
    - elil17 3y ago
      I think doing a small amount of aerosol injection right now is an appropriate way to confirm that we understand how they work/what the effects will be. I hope that the work this company is doing is being adequately studied.
    - sebmellen 3y ago
      Yes, SO2 falls out of the atmosphere after about one year. We already have proof of this in the form of volcanic eruptions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection#Natural_and_anthropogenic_sulfates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injectio.... SO2 is a short-term, fast-acting, and reversible cooling option. That is why we need to massively adopt it ASAP.
      - uoaei 3y ago
        Conveniently in such conversations people never bring up where these compounds go when they "fall out". In fact they precipitate or are deposited on surfaces in the form of sulfuric acid. This harms plants and causes all manner of respiratory issues. There's a reason the EPA has fought so hard to reduce SO2 emissions. I get the impulse for unilateral techno-optimist solutions but continually releasing sulfur dioxide into the air is not a sustainable option in any respect. Sustainability and "more, faster" ideologies are not compatible. You will be imposing health risks on plants and animals that many simply will not be able to mitigate for themselves. It is always apparent very quickly in conversations like this that the people proposing such "solutions" spend most of their time indoors in filtered air.
    - andyjsong 3y ago
      As a co-founder of Make Sunsets, I'd like to clarify the role of SO2 in climate control. SO2 is considered "easily removable" because, when combined with water, it forms sulfuric acid and precipitates out. This mechanism partially explains why 2023 was the hottest year on record; the EPA's stringent regulations on SOx emissions have significantly reduced the aerosols in our troposphere, removing critical reflective materials. The impact of SO2, including its effectiveness and atmospheric residence time, varies based on its deployment location (latitude, longitude, altitude), concentration, and particle size. For instance, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) 2020 regulations have reduced SO2 emissions from cargo ships in the troposphere, leading to decreased respiratory illnesses near ports and less acid rain. However, this reduction in SO2 has also warmed ocean shipping lanes, prompting discussions about reintroducing sulfur into the troposphere. [1] Deploying SO2 in the stratosphere, above most of the atmospheric water vapor and where winds reach speeds of 200kph, allows it to spread globally and remain airborne longer (1 to 3 years). This higher placement necessitates less frequent applications for the desired reflective effect. The 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo demonstrated this, injecting 20 million tons of SO2 into the stratosphere [2], cooling the Earth by 0.5°C and, according to some models, temporarily reversing decades of warming. Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) is likened to Earth's sunscreen, [3] a temporary measure to reflect the Sun's energy and mitigate warming while we address the larger challenge of removing over a trillion tons of greenhouse gases emitted since the 1850s and transitioning away from fossil fuels. Climate change demands immediate action, and SAI offers us the critical time needed to live in a world with fewer catastrophic climate events. [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vGEDuEn6uikvGZpR9oZplPPhN8mxB1__/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vGEDuEn6uikvGZpR9oZplPPh... [2] For reference, estimates suggest that global SO2 emissions were around 131 million tons in 1970 and continued to rise, peaking at approximately 150 million tons by the late 1980s in the troposphere. [3] https://twitter.com/MakeSunsets/status/1741336520366444822 https://twitter.com/MakeSunsets/status/1741336520366444822
      - sebmellen 3y ago
        It is absolutely unbelievable that we now just dump SO2 in the ocean...
      - selimthegrim 3y ago
asoneth 3y ago
I suspect we will end up resorting to large-scale geoengineering, certainly once people in wealthy countries start dying in high enough numbers, and I don't oppose it. But once we go down that road I am highly skeptical that humanity will ever wean ourselves off it. As per the website: "Just one gram of our clouds offsets the warming effect of one ton of CO₂ for a year." I would wager that politicians and business leaders who read such a statement would be relieved to hear that they no longer have to worry about a cure because the symptoms are treatable.
- sebmellen 3y ago
  Point taken and that is certainly a risk, but the other risk is a massive anthropogenic extinction. We need fast-acting cooling solutions so that we have time to scale up long-term sustainable ones.
  - asoneth 3y ago
    Agreed that it is a smaller risk. That's why I do not oppose geoengineering despite being reasonably confident that once we start that path we will be wholly incapable of quitting it.
- thehappypm 3y ago
  What will kill people in wealthy countries?
  - M95D 3y ago
    COVID, but that apparently wasn't enough to change their mind to go vaccinate. Why would climate change deaths be any different?
  - asoneth 3y ago
    A combination of stronger storms, more frequent coastal flooding, larger wildfires, and more severe heat waves. Of course these sorts of things have always killed people and right now the statistical increases are small enough that it's not unreasonable to believe that they're just fluctuations within normal historical bounds. It would take significantly larger increases in severity and intensity for many people to accept climate change as a contributing factor. So it's not just that we have to wait for people in wealthy countries to die, it's that we have to have to wait for them to die in high enough numbers that the average citizen acknowledges that there is a problem.
alexose 3y ago
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is, unfortunately, a third rail in the climate community right now. The perception is that it's very dangerous due to the unknown knock-on effects. Plus, the way it's depicted in sci-fi (e.g., Snowpiercer) doesn't help. We actually have a good understanding of what SO2 does in the atmosphere thanks to both volcanic eruptions and (until recently) the large amounts of particulate sulfur emitted from oceangoing ships. I think the more interesting question is how much risk we're willing to tolerate versus doing nothing at all. The risk of letting sea level rise continue unabated seems much worse to me than a (temporary!) intervention while we figure out full decarbonization.
drewg123 3y ago
I agree that we need a "quick fix" before things get too far out of control. I'm really concerned about things like the Gulf Stream weakening and the resulting rapid climate change. It turns out that we've been accidentally doing geoengineering like this for years, and we've suddenly stopped due to regulations: RhodesianHunter posted this link in a different thread: (https://www.thedailybeast.com/weve-been-accidentally-geoengineering-the-earth-for-decades-with-ship-tracks https://www.thedailybeast.com/weve-been-accidentally-geoengi...)
collyw 3y ago
No we don't. It's nice it being a little warmer. Anything else is unjustified fearmongering.Historically good times coincided with warmer temperatures.

uoaei 3y ago

Sure there will be many moving parts to any successful recovery, but we should be careful. The cure for heat stroke isn't a freedive in arctic waters. Be wary of anyone who makes singular arguments.

sebmellen 3y ago
The immediate cure for heatstroke is LITERALLY an "arctic dive" in the form of immersion in an ice bath https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/heat-stroke/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20353587 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/heat-stroke/d....
- uoaei 3y ago
  I didn't say ice bath, I said freedive, precisely for the reason that one is much more easily reversible than the other once you reach a sustainable temperature. If it was as easy to remove SO2 from the atmosphere as it would be to step out of an ice bath, then I would have said ice bath.
  - elil17 3y ago
    I think doing a small amount of aerosol injection right now is an appropriate way to confirm that we understand how they work/what the effects will be. I hope that the work this company is doing is being adequately studied.
  - sebmellen 3y ago
    Yes, SO2 falls out of the atmosphere after about one year. We already have proof of this in the form of volcanic eruptions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection#Natural_and_anthropogenic_sulfates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injectio.... SO2 is a short-term, fast-acting, and reversible cooling option. That is why we need to massively adopt it ASAP.
    - uoaei 3y ago
      Conveniently in such conversations people never bring up where these compounds go when they "fall out". In fact they precipitate or are deposited on surfaces in the form of sulfuric acid. This harms plants and causes all manner of respiratory issues. There's a reason the EPA has fought so hard to reduce SO2 emissions. I get the impulse for unilateral techno-optimist solutions but continually releasing sulfur dioxide into the air is not a sustainable option in any respect. Sustainability and "more, faster" ideologies are not compatible. You will be imposing health risks on plants and animals that many simply will not be able to mitigate for themselves. It is always apparent very quickly in conversations like this that the people proposing such "solutions" spend most of their time indoors in filtered air.
  - andyjsong 3y ago
    As a co-founder of Make Sunsets, I'd like to clarify the role of SO2 in climate control. SO2 is considered "easily removable" because, when combined with water, it forms sulfuric acid and precipitates out. This mechanism partially explains why 2023 was the hottest year on record; the EPA's stringent regulations on SOx emissions have significantly reduced the aerosols in our troposphere, removing critical reflective materials. The impact of SO2, including its effectiveness and atmospheric residence time, varies based on its deployment location (latitude, longitude, altitude), concentration, and particle size. For instance, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) 2020 regulations have reduced SO2 emissions from cargo ships in the troposphere, leading to decreased respiratory illnesses near ports and less acid rain. However, this reduction in SO2 has also warmed ocean shipping lanes, prompting discussions about reintroducing sulfur into the troposphere. [1] Deploying SO2 in the stratosphere, above most of the atmospheric water vapor and where winds reach speeds of 200kph, allows it to spread globally and remain airborne longer (1 to 3 years). This higher placement necessitates less frequent applications for the desired reflective effect. The 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo demonstrated this, injecting 20 million tons of SO2 into the stratosphere [2], cooling the Earth by 0.5°C and, according to some models, temporarily reversing decades of warming. Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) is likened to Earth's sunscreen, [3] a temporary measure to reflect the Sun's energy and mitigate warming while we address the larger challenge of removing over a trillion tons of greenhouse gases emitted since the 1850s and transitioning away from fossil fuels. Climate change demands immediate action, and SAI offers us the critical time needed to live in a world with fewer catastrophic climate events. [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vGEDuEn6uikvGZpR9oZplPPhN8mxB1__/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vGEDuEn6uikvGZpR9oZplPPh... [2] For reference, estimates suggest that global SO2 emissions were around 131 million tons in 1970 and continued to rise, peaking at approximately 150 million tons by the late 1980s in the troposphere. [3] https://twitter.com/MakeSunsets/status/1741336520366444822 https://twitter.com/MakeSunsets/status/1741336520366444822
    - sebmellen 3y ago
      It is absolutely unbelievable that we now just dump SO2 in the ocean...
    - selimthegrim 3y ago

asoneth 3y ago

I suspect we will end up resorting to large-scale geoengineering, certainly once people in wealthy countries start dying in high enough numbers, and I don't oppose it. But once we go down that road I am highly skeptical that humanity will ever wean ourselves off it. As per the website: "Just one gram of our clouds offsets the warming effect of one ton of CO₂ for a year." I would wager that politicians and business leaders who read such a statement would be relieved to hear that they no longer have to worry about a cure because the symptoms are treatable.

sebmellen 3y ago
Point taken and that is certainly a risk, but the other risk is a massive anthropogenic extinction. We need fast-acting cooling solutions so that we have time to scale up long-term sustainable ones.
- asoneth 3y ago
  Agreed that it is a smaller risk. That's why I do not oppose geoengineering despite being reasonably confident that once we start that path we will be wholly incapable of quitting it.
thehappypm 3y ago
What will kill people in wealthy countries?
- M95D 3y ago
  COVID, but that apparently wasn't enough to change their mind to go vaccinate. Why would climate change deaths be any different?
- asoneth 3y ago
  A combination of stronger storms, more frequent coastal flooding, larger wildfires, and more severe heat waves. Of course these sorts of things have always killed people and right now the statistical increases are small enough that it's not unreasonable to believe that they're just fluctuations within normal historical bounds. It would take significantly larger increases in severity and intensity for many people to accept climate change as a contributing factor. So it's not just that we have to wait for people in wealthy countries to die, it's that we have to have to wait for them to die in high enough numbers that the average citizen acknowledges that there is a problem.

alexose 3y ago

Stratospheric Aerosol Injection is, unfortunately, a third rail in the climate community right now. The perception is that it's very dangerous due to the unknown knock-on effects. Plus, the way it's depicted in sci-fi (e.g., Snowpiercer) doesn't help. We actually have a good understanding of what SO2 does in the atmosphere thanks to both volcanic eruptions and (until recently) the large amounts of particulate sulfur emitted from oceangoing ships. I think the more interesting question is how much risk we're willing to tolerate versus doing nothing at all. The risk of letting sea level rise continue unabated seems much worse to me than a (temporary!) intervention while we figure out full decarbonization.

drewg123 3y ago

I agree that we need a "quick fix" before things get too far out of control. I'm really concerned about things like the Gulf Stream weakening and the resulting rapid climate change. It turns out that we've been accidentally doing geoengineering like this for years, and we've suddenly stopped due to regulations: RhodesianHunter posted this link in a different thread: (https://www.thedailybeast.com/weve-been-accidentally-geoengineering-the-earth-for-decades-with-ship-tracks https://www.thedailybeast.com/weve-been-accidentally-geoengi...)

collyw 3y ago

No we don't. It's nice it being a little warmer. Anything else is unjustified fearmongering.Historically good times coincided with warmer temperatures.