12 ms·
East Asian aerosol cleanup has likely contributed to global warming
- whatsupdog 1y agoWait... We need to bring back pollution to cool down the earth?
- pfdietz 1y agoPollution was masking some global warming, which is worse than had been thought. This pollution cannot mask it forever, since CO2 accumulates while it does not.
- ksynwa 1y agoThis study concerns a specific type of emission (sulfate emissions). Reducing other types of emissions should still reduce global warming.
- FranzFerdiNaN 1y agoNo, we need to stop using oil and gas and such.
- MangoToupe 1y agoShort of the wealthy paying the poor to not use oil and gas, that's obviously not gonna happen. What's plan b?
- nrjames 1y agoIndia seems to be converting to solar without external pressure. https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/indias-solar-boom-keeps-coal-use-check-so-far-2025-maguire-2025-06-10/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/indias-solar-boo...
- dartharva 1y agoThat's because India has to. Domestic demands are huge and India's coal isn't very high in quality. Not to mention coal power is largely state-controlled and doesn't allow for much private frolicking. It's quite the opposite situation than the US, where coal is extremely high-quality and private player participation is unrestricted.
- matthewdgreen 1y agoAlmost all new energy construction is non-coal. Coal has collapsed even here in the US, and the current administration is unlikely to seriously change the trajectory. Gas is increasing, but mostly here in the US, but production is dropping again.
- MangoToupe 1y ago> is setting the stage for a potential drop in annual coal-fired power output I'm not holding my breath. I'm happy they saw a slight reduction in oil and gas use, though.
- justinrubek 1y agoYes, it can happen.
- Scarblac 1y agoAny alternatives are way further into fantasy land than plan A.
- ZeroGravitas 1y agoThat seems like a cynical though broadly accurate description of carbon pricing, which are in place around the world and shown to be one of the more effective interventions. They are technically also paying the rich (and crucially the companies that supply things for both the rich and poor) to not use oil and gas too.
- MangoToupe 1y agoI mean directly. I have little faith in carbon pricing as anything but a grift.
- drdrey 1y agoif you don't price carbon, then emitting carbon is free (you just priced it at $0)
- MangoToupe 1y agoWe simply don't have the market mechanisms to price carbon in any rational sense. Certainly not internationally.
- ZeroGravitas 1y agoIf you mean across borders, than the EU CBAM is already driving the installation of renewables in countries outside the EU in advance of being priced next year.
- adrianN 1y agoI suppose the alternative is making the alternatives cheaper. For example wind and solar for electricity are quite cheap.
- kevin_thibedeau 1y agoInvest in whole house oxygen generators.
- newsclues 1y agoWhat are the trade offs for that? The entire point is that the global climate is a complex system and changing things may have unintended consequences.
- noiv 1y ago> changing things may have unintended consequences. Proved by reality, that's why they propose to reduce or even undo human emissions.
- newsclues 1y agoIt's a transition, not a reduction. Human energy usage is going up. It's just shifting, what types and where, energy is generated. And those shifts, have tradeoffs. Want cleaner air in developed urban areas via EVs? ok cool, but the tradeoff is more mines elsewhere to supply those minerals, more batteries and metals for charging infrastructure. There is no free lunch in the energy world, solar and wind have tradeoffs.
- SlowTao 1y agoYep, currently attempting to move from a carbon economy to a metals based on.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- adornKey 1y agoOr we should start reading books about atmosphere physics. Taking a look at the infrared spectrum and checking out what's really going on there is worth it... https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/VW-and-Happer-Picture1.png https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/VW-and-H...
- mritterhoff 1y ago"In 2021 the CO2 Coalition submitted a public comment opposing climate change disclosure rules by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Coalition asserted "There is no 'climate crisis' and there is no evidence that there will be one," and further "Carbon dioxide, the gas purported to be the cause of catastrophic warming, is not toxic and does no harm." Both assertions are at odds with the scientific consensus on climate change." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_Coalition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_Coalition
- adornKey 1y agoThe spectrum still is like it is. Even Cancel culture won't change it. Please read some papers about the subject... I was pretty shocked to see what kind of quality you find there... (Nothing but a little bit of quibbling, and also a lot of name calling...). There is a reason why politics shuts down some institutions... Mainly those that have some kind of consensus, that doesn't have any foundation in physics. It's just a sect... Strong believes - and no science...
- defrost 1y agoLow PPM CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere affects IR in the atmosphere much as thin steel plate affects a bullet fired 5,000 yards through air .. it absorbs and scatters despite being a 'mere' PPM. ( Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation - https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-works/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-works/carbo... ) You want science, testable and repeatable science? Start with, say, Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity (1967) https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-0469_1967_024_0241_teotaw_2_0_co_2.xml https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-04... described as "the most influential studies of all time" ( https://www.carbonbrief.org/prof-john-mitchell-how-a-1967-study-greatly-influenced-climate-change-science/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/prof-john-mitchell-how-a-1967-st... ) There are others: https://www.carbonbrief.org/the-most-influential-climate-change-papers-of-all-time/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/the-most-influential-climate-cha... The real world physics of doubling a low CO2 concentration in representative air samples has been performed many a time .. it works as the cited paper says .. trapping more of heat energy radiated upwards by the land and sea that would otherwise diffuse outwards.
- newsclues 1y agoOr we need to reduce the number of living things that are polluting. For some that is less cows, for others, it seems like the desired solution is less humans.
- aeno 1y agoif you say "less humans", surely you mean "less ultra-rich humans", right? because poorer humans usually account for the minority of all the pollution.
- Scarblac 1y agoTrue, but only if you include middle class people in rich developed countries in the uktra rich.
- rowanG077 1y agoI mean if you include everyone in the first world as ultra-rich than yes.
- newsclues 1y agoThe ultra rich can afford EVs, and well insulated homes with solar panels. Dirt poor people heat and cook with coal or firewood. They burn down forests to plant food. They are sustained by long supply chains by well intentioned NGOs rather than local produce. It's not simple to say rich people are polluters, and poor people are living naturally. Although per capita, the middle class consumer may be the worst of them all.
- kelipso 1y agoEnvironmental impact of creating the EVs and giant homes with solar panels. Plus all that jet travel. You have to account for all of that, and then almost certainly they are polluting way more than middle class or poor person.
- aziaziazi 1y agoIf that isn’t cynicism, here’s some optimisation thoughts: - start with the humans that pollute more - which is way more correlated to their consumption that their solar roof surface. Sorry USA, you go first. Others high standard living countries follows. - Regarding the cows, they have a shorter lifespan and don’t shop much neither do they heat their house or shower water. We could just stop breeding new ones and keep the existant till their death.
- scotty79 1y agoYeah, if you spread a bunch of sulfates in the air it gets cooler. But oceans don't get less acidic and the air doesn't get more breathable.
- csomar 1y agoI mean if you explode all of our nuclear bombs, we’ll probably take the earth to a winter. And it’ll still be livable, just a bit more cancer all around.
- mritterhoff 1y agoNuclear winter is extremely unlikely to be survivable for most humans. With enough sediment in the atmosphere the earth will cool AND most crops will fail, causing world-wide famines.
- MSFT_Edging 1y agoThere was a period during covid where cross atlantic shipping slowed, and the reduced sulfur in the air caused some increased warming. Basically things are a lot worse than we assume but there's certain accidental keystones holding things back, like pollution combating the global warming by blocking the sun.
- tzs 1y agoSome pollutants do have a cooling effect and there are circumstances where purposefully increasing those pollutants could be worth it, but only if we can be sure it is temporary. The nightmare scenario would be something like we start releasing sulfates into the upper atmosphere to induce cooling to counter the warming from greenhouse gases but do not reduce the growth in greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases would continue growing and so the amount of sulfates we have to release to counter that also would keep growing. There are two big problems with that. #1. The greenhouse gas emissions are a side effect of numerous useful and important activities. People make a lot of money from those activities. They happen unless we make a concerted effort to reduce them. The sulfite emissions on the other hand would be specifically to counter the effects of greenhouse gases. Whoever is paying for them would be losing money doing this. All it takes is an economic downturn to make budgets tight and funding might go away. #2. Greenhouse gases can affect climate for a long time. It takes hundreds to thousands of years in the case of CO2 for today's emissions to be no longer affecting the climate. Sulfates in the upper atmosphere clear out in months to maybe a couple years. Let's say then we go down the sulfates path, don't reduce greenhouse gas growth and this goes on for decades. Then something stops or disrupts the sulfate releases for a couple years and the sulfites leave the upper atmosphere. The greenhouse gases are there still there and we rapidly get most of the warming that had been held off for decades by the sulfates. This would likely be disastrous. Getting all that warming spread over several decades at least gives people time to adapt. Getting it all over a few years would be way to fast for people to deal with. I think probably the only way purposefully emitting pollutants like this might be acceptable would be after we've got greenhouse gas emissions under control and are on a path we are sure is going to get is to net zero in some specific timeframe, but it will still take a few years to reach peak greenhouse emissions and we've identified a tipping point that we will hit before that. Then maybe countering that with emitting pollutants just until greenhouse gases peak and then come down to where we are below that tipping point might be reasonable.
- userbinator 1y agoDepends what you define as "pollution". Everything seems to have its place...
- mritterhoff 1y agoLead certainly doesn't. Which is why we (mostly) stopped putting it in gasoline.
- drdrey 1y agorelated, less ship activity during COVID meant fewer pollutants and so more warming: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/30/termination-shock-cut-in-ship-pollution-sparked-global-heating-spurt https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/30/...
- n1b0m 1y ago[flagged]
- jakobnissen 1y agoI don't really think so. Areosol pollution is short-lived and kills a ton of people. So you get enormous downsides in the short run (WHO estimates 2 million people die of air pollution in China alone), and in the medium term, you don't gain anything in terms of warming. The underlying CO2 accumulation happens anyway, and as soon as the short-lived areosols and suphur dioxide rains down to Earth, the accumulated warming kicks in.
- gitanovic 1y agoBut the killing a ton of people is very long term /(dark) s
- lotsofpulp 1y agoI don’t understand why this comment is downvoted. The options to reduce total energy consumption were always humans voluntarily accepting lower quality of life (not just among the top 1 million or 100 million, but top 2 billion at least, so this was obviously not going to happen), or reduce total number of humans.
- trehalose 1y agoIt would make a difference even if we humans could just accept the same quality of life we already have, instead of building more and more, larger and larger data centers, for whatever the future of AI is. Computers have become so much more efficient than they used to be, and despite any joke we can make about Electron apps and such, those are still reductions in energy consumption, and some people are building such extravagant compute facilities that far outweigh the progress people have made on reducing energy costs.
- codyb 1y ago
- dr_dshiv 1y ago… this points to the importance of studying the effects of deliberate atmospheric aerosol injections… I think calcium carbonate is very promising—but we need to start doing tests asap to learn the effects.
- scotty79 1y agoDoes it fix ocean acidification? Does it fix the decline in human mental performance with raising CO2 levels in the air? If not its a distraction, not a solution.
- booleandilemma 1y agoMaybe it will help with heartburn, if nothing else.
- goku12 1y agoLooking at the wiki, the effects of long term exposure to CO2 under 0.5% of partial pressure (5000 ppm) are not known. The current concentration is close to just 430 ppm (though that's more than enough for the greenhouse effect). What sort of mental decline do you suspect? And any references?
- cubefox 1y agoThe short term effects are known though (bad indoor ventilation causes decreased intelligence due to increased CO2 concentration), and a permanent short term effect would arguably be a long term effect.
- blueblisters 1y agowe are nowhere close to the levels of CO2 concentration that would affect cognitive performance. skimming through a couple of studies, measurable impact starts around 1000 ppm. with current policy intervention, we will likely reach 550ppm by 2100
- perihelions 1y ago> "Figure 1a shows changes in aerosol optical depth (AOD) retrieved by MODIS Terra and Aqua" The US wants to immediately defund these satellites and halt their observations. https://www.science.org/content/article/dozens-active-and-planned-nasa-spacecraft-killed-trump-budget-request https://www.science.org/content/article/dozens-active-and-pl...
- jimkleiber 1y agoI don't know why some people celebrate strength with fear of knowledge. Maybe they're just equally as afraid of knowledge and don't want to look weak and puff out their chests to pretend to be strong. As an American, it really frustrates me to see such bravado celebrated as bravery.
- derbOac 1y ago> afraid of knowledge and don't want to look weak I've come to the conclusion this is basically it, aside from corruption. Intellectual weakness and cowardice, avoiding what you can't actually do or don't understand. In the case of anything space related though, I'd look to corruption, trying to cut public resources to reduce competition with private equivalents, shifting money from something publicly owned to something privately profited from.
- roenxi 1y ago[flagged]
- jimkleiber 1y agoI'd be fine with that as a counterargument if that were the counterargument such people made. I think that's a healthy debate and dialogue, where we could learn from each other. I often think the case is they say climate change is fake and that experts are lying and everyone who has a PhD is lying to you, and those ad hominem attacks often say to me someone who feels insecure about their knowledge or has some vested interest in, say, the oil industry, for example. That was more of my outburst. With regards to whether a private company could maintain satellites (probably with government regulation and maybe subsidy), I'm open to that. I just worry sometimes that many of these decisions are made in the "Uh oh, this public knowledge might destroy my private profits, so let us get rid of the public knowledge."
- HPsquared 1y agoLocal and global pollution reduction are often in conflict. Classic example is the rush to diesel passenger cars.
- Muromec 1y agoSomewhere, someone named Deep is getting ready to carry his backback, but doesn't know it yet.
- SlowTao 1y agoOuch that is grim but true.
- afh1 1y agoChina. Seems like a deliberate effort not to mention it in the title and abstract, despite the text clearly defining "East Asia" as "mainly China". Also major contributor to plastic pollution in the ocean (from rivers) and #1 in CO2 emissions. All the while western economies hurt themselves and consumers in vain efforts instead of being serious about the issue and confronting its major contributor.
- budududuroiu 1y agoWho is China producing FOR tho? Doesn’t seem like a fair assessment
- __rito__ 1y agoPer capita consumption is a much better metric for deciding who is more responsible for the pollution, which will point the finger right back to... the West [0]. India: 1.2 tonnes CO2/person/year. China: 7.2 tonnes CO2/person/year. Russia: 10.1 tonnes CO2/person/year. Canada, Australia: 12.9 tonnes CO2/person/year. USA: 16.5 tonnes CO2/person/year. [0]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capit...
- aesh2Xa1 1y agoI disagree entirely. The total emissions are absolutely important, and our planet doesn't care about whether one ton of emissions served 1 or 1,000 people. A complete picture of blame absolutely should include per-capita, ultimate use (who buys the end product of China's emissions), and historical contributions. However, to ignore China's absolute , ongoing contribution as the world's largest emitter (by far: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-...) is clearly an error. 2023 totals: China: 11.90 billion tons, trending up USA: 4.91 billion tons, trending down
- tzs 1y agoThe planet doesn't care about arbitrary lines humans draw on their maps. It just cares about the worldwide total emissions. Unless you can make a good argument that some humans have a natural or divine right to a bigger share of whatever total worldwide emissions budget we decide we can accept any kind of per country instead of per capita base allocation [1] make no sense. This can be seen by considering what happens if countries split. A large country that is over their allocation in a per country system can simply split into two or more smaller countries, with the split designed so that each of the new countries has about an equal fraction of the former country's emissions. This results in no change in the total worldwide emissions, but now that set of people that were before over their total allocation and high on the list of people that need to make big changes now are all in countries under their allocation and in the "should do something about it eventually but no need for big changes now" group of countries. If they are clever about how they split the original large country into smaller countries they can immediately make free trade treaties and travel treaties between them that effectively make a common market with free travel like much of Europe now has so the split into multiple countries doesn't even change life much for the citizens of the new countries. Whatever countries have now moved to the top of the "need big changes now" list because of this now have incentive to split, and so on. [1] By base allocation I mean whatever share they would be allocated in a world with no trade. Actual allocations need to take into account people emitting more because they are making/growing things for other people which reduces the emissions directly attributable to those other people.
- ImaCake 1y agoIt's a well known "dirty" secret that aerosols drive (short lived) cooling effects and that this effect is very significant [0]. In fact, the climate models used in the OP nature paper would not be useful if they didn't account for these aerosols in a meaningful way. Scientists measure aerosols using a mix of different tricks (optical density sensors - AERONET, satellites with hyperspectal sensors, local air pollution sensors, etc). In my work in industrial air quality we occasionally joke that we are doing a good job if we exacerbate global warming. 0. https://skepticalscience.com/images/Radiative_Forcing_Summary.gif https://skepticalscience.com/images/Radiative_Forcing_Summar...
- swed420 1y agoFurther reading for the curious https://medium.com/@samyoureyes/the-busy-workers-handbook-to-the-apocalypse-7790666afde7 https://medium.com/@samyoureyes/the-busy-workers-handbook-to...
- hammyhavoc 1y agoAnything from somewhere more credible than Medium?
- andyjsong 1y agohttps://www.economist.com/interactive/asia/2025/05/28/if-india-chokes-less-it-will-fry-more?utm_medium=social-media.content.np&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=editorial-social&utm_content=discovery.content&fbclid=IwY2xjawLAijFleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFVRWFwNTF0QUxRTGZnSXVHAR6A70oL6J7Llv150x430tVjVhmih5-A2NovxmIYYyhnDxrbI7SBrSc2Khbfhg_aem_pzWy1n5s7cheIbyaiZkGiA https://www.economist.com/interactive/asia/2025/05/28/if-ind... TL;DR India should be hotter, but due to sulfur dioxide emissions at ground level the rate of warming is a third less. For reference, the current rate of warming is ~0.25C per decade.
- SlowTao 1y agoAnd yet again, in a weird way, India lives up to the adage of being disappointing to both pessimists and optimists.
- infecto 1y agoWhat concerns me the most is India. China has done a good job advancing its population through better jobs and education. India on the other hand has barely scratched the surface, no company wants to migrate manufacturing there and the coming generation has a high chance of lead poisoning their faculties since the government has done nothing to combat the tainted goods in the country.
- School-Cotton 1y ago> India … has barely scratched the surface Completely untrue. Indian GDP per capita has more than 5xed since 2000.
- infecto 1y agoAnd? They have a long way to go and have barely scratched the service. They have little manufacturing capabilities and at best is a service export which may work longer term with software engineers but I think is still questionable. Low literacy rates, low secondary enrollment rates, high pollution and most importantly in lots of the country lead poisoning in most kids as they taint their spices with lead.
- okdood64 1y ago> no company wants to migrate manufacturing there https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/cons-products/electronics/iphone-17-parts-land-in-foxconn-india-factory/articleshow/122394404.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/cons-products/...
- infecto 1y agoI don’t think that disproves much? They have been trying to move since 2017 and it’s been filled with nothing but troubles for them. I am sure it will happen as the cost of labor is cheap and they will be making US phones here without risk of Chinese tariffs. India is a difficult challenge for most manufacturing operations, the government has done little to educate the population and pollution both in the air and food I fear will have a lasting impact. Some of the last reporting I saw had some insanely high number like 90% of tested children have lead poisoning. China has had their problems but they excelled at the growth stage.
- maxglute 1y agoQueue China cleans the air, but at what cost articles.
- bluefirebrand 1y agoNit: You probably mean Cue, as in "That's your time to go on stage" not Queue as in "that's your place in line"
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y agoYou can remember this with the mnemonic that a cue file tells when each track on a CD starts, and a cue ball tells the billiard balls what order to go in the pockets, but a queue is a line of silent letters
- therein 1y agoI feel like the data structure would be a better mnemonic device on its own. There is no std::cue, there is std::queue.
- TimorousBestie 1y agoShh, don’t let the C++ committee hear you! ;)
- neltnerb 1y ago> queue is a line of silent letters glorious, thank you.
- mrexroad 1y agoAnd a Q is an omnipotent being/continuum because in the 80’s it actually was cool to have a letter for a name.
- mhog_hn 1y agoMan, something something Data now being reality something something LLMs
- PicassoCTs 1y agoReducing geo-engineering reveals already far gone global warming, which is percieved as a speed up.
- screye 1y agoLets fund fracking activity around minor active volcanoes. I bet that an increase in volcanic explosions can come with short-term cooling effects.
- johncole 1y agoBrilliant idea, I will fund it.
- andyjsong 1y agoGreat, we conduct artificial stratovolcanic eruptions in NorCal every month: https://makesunsets.com/products/join-the-next-balloon-launch-and-cool-the-planet https://makesunsets.com/products/join-the-next-balloon-launc...
- screye 1y agoI posted this as a joke. Turns out it is a serious? scientific field of inquiry. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injectio... [2] https://archive.is/r3lzO https://archive.is/r3lzO [3] http://www.spice.ac.uk/ http://www.spice.ac.uk/
- forgotoldacc 1y ago> It appears that stratospheric aerosol injection, at a moderate intensity, could counter most changes to temperature and precipitation, take effect rapidly, have low direct implementation costs, and be reversible in its direct climatic effects.[2] That last little bit scares me. Whenever I see "yeah nah we can totally reverse it", all I can imagine is that it's something we'll do carelessly and excessively, with no ability to reverse it within our lifetimes.
- FrustratedMonky 1y agoIf the effect of aerosols are short lived, then how many years until a big spike in temperature?
- drdrey 1y agothe point of the article is that the effect was short lived, and we're living through the spike in temperature
- ethan_smith 1y agoAerosol effects dissipate within days to weeks after emission stops, unlike CO2 which persists for centuries. The temperature spike from East Asian cleanup has already largely manifested in the data from 2010-2022 mentioned in the paper.
- _dain_ 1y agohasn't this been going on over the atlantic as well? container ships aren't putting as much sulphur in the atmosphere as they used to. put the sulphur back in the ship juice!
- kreyenborgi 1y agoSamset was quoted as saying that this is kind of good news, since before everyone was all "oh no our models said we'd get .18 hotter per time-unit and now we're getting .28 - panic!" but what this article shows is that the .28 is a blip due to removal of pollution (which is now gone, it could only happen once) so we'll be back to the projeced .18 per time-unit now
- stephen_g 1y agoYes, although it's still kind of not so great news in that it also means humans have actually caused more global warming than we thought because it was being hidden by aerosol pollution. I prefer that framing too - cleaning up air pollution isn't really causing global warming, it was just that the aerosols were temporarily masking warming from greenhouse gasses that had already been emitted.
- somat 1y agoIt reminds me of the sulfur dioxide situation. I was trying to figure out why volcanoes sometimes have a global cooling effect, I mean the things are pumping out obscene amounts of carbon dioxide right, so whats with the cooling. Well it turns out sulfur dioxide has a negative greenhouse coefficient(it will pass infrared light better than visible light). And if the volcano dumps tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, you get the cooling effect. At which point I got too clever for my own good and went "Hey wait a minute, we(as a species) worked very hard to get the sulfur compounds out of our fuels, what it that was a mistake" conveniently ignoring why you don't want sulfur in your fuels. "Acid rain was not that bad, right?" But sometimes it is fun do a little mustache twirl and in my best supervillain voice, proclaim "You know what would reduce global warming, we need to add a bunch of sulfur to jet fuel, to increase the amount of sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere"
- lambdasquirrel 1y agoDo we know what reducing solar irradiation will do for plant growth though? We might actually make the root cause worse if it decreases carbon fixation.
- SlowTao 1y agoYep, this. Same for any kind of solar shielding. Some are so fixed on controlling a single metric (Carbon/Temperature)that they may end up inadvertently influencing hundreds of other things. When simple solutions interact with complex systems, complex problems arise. As it is said, for every problem there is a solution that is simple, easy and wrong.
- mNovak 1y agoAnd then you write a book about this nefarious plot, and call it Termination Shock. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_Shock_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_Shock_(novel)
- lazyasciiart 1y agoA lot of people are working on a replacement for the effect of sulfur in marine fuel. https://research.noaa.gov/scientists-detail-research-to-assess-viability-and-risks-of-marine-cloud-brightening/ https://research.noaa.gov/scientists-detail-research-to-asse...
- sebmellen 1y agohttps://www.makesunsets.com https://www.makesunsets.com