5 ms·

… 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

… 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 ago
Does 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 ago
  Maybe it will help with heartburn, if nothing else.
- goku12 1y ago
  Looking 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 ago
    The 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 ago
      we 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
      - cubefox 1y ago
        > Left unchallenged, the increasing rate of change could see the CO2 concentration increase to about 1000ppm by 2100. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/grantham/publications/briefing-papers/what-ancient-climates-tell-us-about-high-carbon-dioxide-concentrations-in-earths-atmosphere.php https://www.imperial.ac.uk/grantham/publications/briefing-pa...
      - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
        All right, but indoor concentrations are higher than outdoor. The higher the outdoor concentrations, the easier it is for indoor to exceed 1000 ppm.
    - sarchertech 1y ago
      There have been a handful of studies that last time I looked all involved a single investigator that have shown decreased intelligence due to levels around 1000 ppm. NASA and the US Navy have been conducting studies since the 1960s showing no loss of cognitive function up to 50000ppm or so. Submarines and space vehicles regularly operate at CO2 levels much higher than 1000ppm. If the levels of cognitive decline were anywhere close to what some of these studies show it would be easily observable in astronauts and submariners. Not to mention testing locations with good ventilation would show drastically higher scores over all on standardized tests, and individuals would show drastically higher scores between attempts depending on ventilation. None of these things happen. The only logical conclusion is that there is some flaw in study methodology.
      - cubefox 1y ago
        There is a meta-analysis from 2023: > Recent studies have shown that short-term exposure to high levels of indoor carbon dioxide (CO2) could negatively affect human cognitive performance, but the results are still controversial. In this study, a systematic review and meta-analysis of fifteen eligible studies was performed to quantify the effects of short-term CO2 exposure on cognitive task performance. The control CO2 levels used for comparison were below 1000 ppm, while the exposure concentrations were divided into three groups: 1000–1500 ppm, 1500–3000 ppm, and 3000–5000 ppm. The results indicated that CO2 exposure below 5000 ppm impacted human cognitive performance, with complex cognitive tasks being more significantly affected than simple tasks. The complex task performance declined significantly when exposed to additional CO2 concentrations of 1000–1500 ppm and 1500–3000 ppm, with pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) (95% CI) of −2.044 (−2.620, −1.467) and −0.860 (−1.380, −0.340), respectively. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036013232300358X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036013232... I don't know how large these effects are, but they are statistically significant.
        sarchertech 1y ago
        If you dig in you’ll find that for simple cognitive tasks they found no effect. Then they analyzed only complex cognitive tasks. But fewer studies included complex cognitive tasks, and they used different methods of adjusting CO2 exposure (ventilation vs adding pure CO2) Then you’ll note that of those studies they found that: “The effects of pure CO2 on complex cognitive task performance decreased with increased CO2 concentrations”. Between 1000-1500, and 1500-3000ppm they found a decrease in complex cognitive tasks performance, but at a higher exposure of 3000-5000ppm they found no effect. This makes no sense until you read “the complex cognitive task results under pure additional CO2 concentrations of 1000–1500 ppm and 1500–3000 ppm showed publication bias.” Handful of studies (many with sketchy methodology—reducing ventilation, which brings with it many more variables than just increased CO2), publication bias, and a negative dose dependent response. Also that Satish et al. study (the author is the one I was referring to in my last post—they also have several other studies on the subject) shows an enormous effect IIRC, which would skew the aggregate effects in the meta study. The effect sizes in that study were the ones I was referencing when I said that such effects would be obvious.
- adrianN 1y ago
  If you’re optimistic, it is a means to buy time to implement a solution.
- aesh2Xa1 1y ago
  Yes, it does fix acid problems. The calcium carbonate dust is reflective (the aim of the engineering is to reflect sunlight away from the Earth's atmosphere in the first place). However, it doesn't contribute to acid rain or oceans like the sulfate dioxide does (the aerosol that East Asian scrubbers are removing). The CO2 (a greenhouse gas) amount isn't increased in this engineering effort. It increases because of burning fossil fuels, though. In the East Asian countries, they are producing/using more energy (via burning fossil fuels), but only removing the reflective aerosol; they're still emitting the CO2. If cost was no object, we'd probably need to use the calcium carbonate immediately (to prevent the sunlight from entering the atmosphere immediately), we'd scrub existing carbon from the atmosphere (CO2), and we'd convert power plants to non-emissive technologies (and also install scrubbers onto existing ones for as long as they're needed).
  - dr_dshiv 1y ago
    The key point here is that we should be researching this stuff as fast as possible.
matthewdgreen 1y ago
The red states have begun banning geoengineering and even small-scale tests. It seems to be spreading across these states, which suggests that we'll soon see similar laws being proposed at the Federal level.
- blueblisters 1y ago
  the uproar over minor, localized cloud-seeding (which had nothing to do with the Texas floods) is probably a death knell for aerosol injection. we are going to see countries going to war over unilateral solar radiation management efforts
  - doctorhandshake 1y ago
    This is the plot of the Stephenson novel Termination Shock. Not endorsing the book but the hypothetical it poses is interesting.
  - matthewdgreen 1y ago
    I don't see this as a truly organic reaction. When I see the same laws popping up in multiple states, my suspicion is that it's driven centrally by right-wing think tanks, probably to benefit the fossil fuel lobbies. You don't need aerosol injection if there's no climate change, so we need to make it illegal (just as we need to defund Earth sciences, fire climate scientists, etc.) Similarly, if we need aerosol injection, then climate change is real. It's all one big package.
    - blueblisters 1y ago
      Possibly. Seems like a mix of conspiracy-theory induced paranoia and right-wing influencers pushing a coordinated narrative. Ironically, aerosol injection will probably benefit fossil fuel companies, with less pressure to meet aggressive emissions targets.
      - matthewdgreen 1y ago
        The irony is that this is probably true, but the greater project of suppressing any acknowledgement of climate change exceeds the possible benefits that aerosol injection might afford even to GHG emitters. It’s actually pretty goddamn frightening because it means these people are ready to take the whole damn ship down around them. ETA: Don’t get me started on how weird it is that there’s a pre-spun conspiracy theory in chemtrails, one that makes zero sense but happens to align perfectly with making geoengineering even more difficult. But now I’m being conspiratorial.
modo_mario 1y ago
And you're going to do this for the rest of the forseeable future? Way more than anything else it sounds like a cop out to avoid dealing with the long term consequences of what we put out there now and to keep pumping oil
- dr_dshiv 1y ago
  Yes, I think it will be taking place for the remainder of our lifetimes. Solar growth is likely to remain exponential for the next decade or so, which will create a number of new opportunities. Other energy sources will also come online. But fossil fuels are unlikely to be regulated away, globally. We are also likely past some serious tipping points— so I prefer to figure out ASAP whether stratospheric aerosol injections are a viable tactic for preventing the melting of permafrost, for instance.
  - red-iron-pine 1y ago
    nice em dash -- how do I generate that in the text box? but you're burying the lede: "We are also likely past some serious tipping points—" == we're doomed, just slowly, and we desperately need to be doing something to slow down or stop this metaphorical bus before it falls off a cliff
    - dinfinity 1y ago
      ALT+0151
    - gs17 1y ago
      On macOS, you can do alt+shift+hyphen to get one: —.
    - kps 1y ago
      On *nix, <Compose> <-> <-> <-> (or install a Mac-like layout and AltGr+Shift+<->).
    - merelysounds 1y ago
      On iOS: long press the “-“ keyboard button to access variants of longer lengths like “–“ and “—“ (and also a “•”).
counters 1y ago
Entirely different forcing mechanism(s). The two most promising vectors are stratospheric injection and marine stratocumulus injection. Both approaches induce very different radiative and attendant circulation responses, and aren't relevant in the context of this work.
andyjsong 1y ago
We're doing deliberate tests with sulfur dioxide instead of CaCO3, more info here: https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/so2-injection https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/so2-injection
aaron695 1y ago
[dead]
catherd 1y ago
The effects of deliberate small scale atmospheric aerosol injections is something I've studied extensively. The short term results are often quite noticeable even by parties not directly participating in the study.
- SlowTao 1y ago
  This is why I think it will not be done. Any possible blow back will be attributed to those who actioned it, even if it might not be their fault. Do some injection in one part of the world and breadbasket crop fails 6 months later, they can point the finger even if it would have happened regardless. To risky in terms of liability.
  - moffkalast 1y ago
    I don't think one will be able to prove that you affected anything directly, so quite the opposite, there's no liability. Otherwise I'm gonna hold the international maritime organisation solely responsible for every drought, fire and megastorm from how much their ban of fuel with sulphur content has exacerbated the warming situation by destabilizing the existing balance.

scotty79 1y ago

Does 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 ago
Maybe it will help with heartburn, if nothing else.
goku12 1y ago
Looking 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    we 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
    - cubefox 1y ago
      > Left unchallenged, the increasing rate of change could see the CO2 concentration increase to about 1000ppm by 2100. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/grantham/publications/briefing-papers/what-ancient-climates-tell-us-about-high-carbon-dioxide-concentrations-in-earths-atmosphere.php https://www.imperial.ac.uk/grantham/publications/briefing-pa...
    - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
      All right, but indoor concentrations are higher than outdoor. The higher the outdoor concentrations, the easier it is for indoor to exceed 1000 ppm.
  - sarchertech 1y ago
    There have been a handful of studies that last time I looked all involved a single investigator that have shown decreased intelligence due to levels around 1000 ppm. NASA and the US Navy have been conducting studies since the 1960s showing no loss of cognitive function up to 50000ppm or so. Submarines and space vehicles regularly operate at CO2 levels much higher than 1000ppm. If the levels of cognitive decline were anywhere close to what some of these studies show it would be easily observable in astronauts and submariners. Not to mention testing locations with good ventilation would show drastically higher scores over all on standardized tests, and individuals would show drastically higher scores between attempts depending on ventilation. None of these things happen. The only logical conclusion is that there is some flaw in study methodology.
    - cubefox 1y ago
      There is a meta-analysis from 2023: > Recent studies have shown that short-term exposure to high levels of indoor carbon dioxide (CO2) could negatively affect human cognitive performance, but the results are still controversial. In this study, a systematic review and meta-analysis of fifteen eligible studies was performed to quantify the effects of short-term CO2 exposure on cognitive task performance. The control CO2 levels used for comparison were below 1000 ppm, while the exposure concentrations were divided into three groups: 1000–1500 ppm, 1500–3000 ppm, and 3000–5000 ppm. The results indicated that CO2 exposure below 5000 ppm impacted human cognitive performance, with complex cognitive tasks being more significantly affected than simple tasks. The complex task performance declined significantly when exposed to additional CO2 concentrations of 1000–1500 ppm and 1500–3000 ppm, with pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs) (95% CI) of −2.044 (−2.620, −1.467) and −0.860 (−1.380, −0.340), respectively. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036013232300358X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036013232... I don't know how large these effects are, but they are statistically significant.
      - sarchertech 1y ago
        If you dig in you’ll find that for simple cognitive tasks they found no effect. Then they analyzed only complex cognitive tasks. But fewer studies included complex cognitive tasks, and they used different methods of adjusting CO2 exposure (ventilation vs adding pure CO2) Then you’ll note that of those studies they found that: “The effects of pure CO2 on complex cognitive task performance decreased with increased CO2 concentrations”. Between 1000-1500, and 1500-3000ppm they found a decrease in complex cognitive tasks performance, but at a higher exposure of 3000-5000ppm they found no effect. This makes no sense until you read “the complex cognitive task results under pure additional CO2 concentrations of 1000–1500 ppm and 1500–3000 ppm showed publication bias.” Handful of studies (many with sketchy methodology—reducing ventilation, which brings with it many more variables than just increased CO2), publication bias, and a negative dose dependent response. Also that Satish et al. study (the author is the one I was referring to in my last post—they also have several other studies on the subject) shows an enormous effect IIRC, which would skew the aggregate effects in the meta study. The effect sizes in that study were the ones I was referencing when I said that such effects would be obvious.
adrianN 1y ago
If you’re optimistic, it is a means to buy time to implement a solution.
aesh2Xa1 1y ago
Yes, it does fix acid problems. The calcium carbonate dust is reflective (the aim of the engineering is to reflect sunlight away from the Earth's atmosphere in the first place). However, it doesn't contribute to acid rain or oceans like the sulfate dioxide does (the aerosol that East Asian scrubbers are removing). The CO2 (a greenhouse gas) amount isn't increased in this engineering effort. It increases because of burning fossil fuels, though. In the East Asian countries, they are producing/using more energy (via burning fossil fuels), but only removing the reflective aerosol; they're still emitting the CO2. If cost was no object, we'd probably need to use the calcium carbonate immediately (to prevent the sunlight from entering the atmosphere immediately), we'd scrub existing carbon from the atmosphere (CO2), and we'd convert power plants to non-emissive technologies (and also install scrubbers onto existing ones for as long as they're needed).
- dr_dshiv 1y ago
  The key point here is that we should be researching this stuff as fast as possible.

matthewdgreen 1y ago

The red states have begun banning geoengineering and even small-scale tests. It seems to be spreading across these states, which suggests that we'll soon see similar laws being proposed at the Federal level.

blueblisters 1y ago
the uproar over minor, localized cloud-seeding (which had nothing to do with the Texas floods) is probably a death knell for aerosol injection. we are going to see countries going to war over unilateral solar radiation management efforts
- doctorhandshake 1y ago
  This is the plot of the Stephenson novel Termination Shock. Not endorsing the book but the hypothetical it poses is interesting.
- matthewdgreen 1y ago
  I don't see this as a truly organic reaction. When I see the same laws popping up in multiple states, my suspicion is that it's driven centrally by right-wing think tanks, probably to benefit the fossil fuel lobbies. You don't need aerosol injection if there's no climate change, so we need to make it illegal (just as we need to defund Earth sciences, fire climate scientists, etc.) Similarly, if we need aerosol injection, then climate change is real. It's all one big package.
  - blueblisters 1y ago
    Possibly. Seems like a mix of conspiracy-theory induced paranoia and right-wing influencers pushing a coordinated narrative. Ironically, aerosol injection will probably benefit fossil fuel companies, with less pressure to meet aggressive emissions targets.
    - matthewdgreen 1y ago
      The irony is that this is probably true, but the greater project of suppressing any acknowledgement of climate change exceeds the possible benefits that aerosol injection might afford even to GHG emitters. It’s actually pretty goddamn frightening because it means these people are ready to take the whole damn ship down around them. ETA: Don’t get me started on how weird it is that there’s a pre-spun conspiracy theory in chemtrails, one that makes zero sense but happens to align perfectly with making geoengineering even more difficult. But now I’m being conspiratorial.

modo_mario 1y ago

And you're going to do this for the rest of the forseeable future? Way more than anything else it sounds like a cop out to avoid dealing with the long term consequences of what we put out there now and to keep pumping oil

dr_dshiv 1y ago
Yes, I think it will be taking place for the remainder of our lifetimes. Solar growth is likely to remain exponential for the next decade or so, which will create a number of new opportunities. Other energy sources will also come online. But fossil fuels are unlikely to be regulated away, globally. We are also likely past some serious tipping points— so I prefer to figure out ASAP whether stratospheric aerosol injections are a viable tactic for preventing the melting of permafrost, for instance.
- red-iron-pine 1y ago
  nice em dash -- how do I generate that in the text box? but you're burying the lede: "We are also likely past some serious tipping points—" == we're doomed, just slowly, and we desperately need to be doing something to slow down or stop this metaphorical bus before it falls off a cliff
  - dinfinity 1y ago
    ALT+0151
  - gs17 1y ago
    On macOS, you can do alt+shift+hyphen to get one: —.
  - kps 1y ago
    On *nix, <Compose> <-> <-> <-> (or install a Mac-like layout and AltGr+Shift+<->).
  - merelysounds 1y ago
    On iOS: long press the “-“ keyboard button to access variants of longer lengths like “–“ and “—“ (and also a “•”).

counters 1y ago

Entirely different forcing mechanism(s). The two most promising vectors are stratospheric injection and marine stratocumulus injection. Both approaches induce very different radiative and attendant circulation responses, and aren't relevant in the context of this work.

andyjsong 1y ago

We're doing deliberate tests with sulfur dioxide instead of CaCO3, more info here: https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/so2-injection https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/so2-injection

aaron695 1y ago

[dead]

catherd 1y ago

The effects of deliberate small scale atmospheric aerosol injections is something I've studied extensively. The short term results are often quite noticeable even by parties not directly participating in the study.

SlowTao 1y ago
This is why I think it will not be done. Any possible blow back will be attributed to those who actioned it, even if it might not be their fault. Do some injection in one part of the world and breadbasket crop fails 6 months later, they can point the finger even if it would have happened regardless. To risky in terms of liability.
- moffkalast 1y ago
  I don't think one will be able to prove that you affected anything directly, so quite the opposite, there's no liability. Otherwise I'm gonna hold the international maritime organisation solely responsible for every drought, fire and megastorm from how much their ban of fuel with sulphur content has exacerbated the warming situation by destabilizing the existing balance.