4 ms·
Not just lightning apparently. SO2 masked for decades the global warming, and here we are.
by sMarsIntruder 1y ago
Not just lightning apparently. SO2 masked for decades the global warming, and here we are.
- ccgreg 1y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming Sadly misunderstood by a bunch of people.
- ACCount37 1y ago[flagged]
- sMarsIntruder 1y agoThese guys are doing well https://makesunsets.com/ https://makesunsets.com/
- titzer 1y agoRight. Like one thing that cancer needs is oxygen. So if we stop breathing (instead of laboriously stopping smoking--that's hard), then we can slow down cancer.
- toxik 1y agoI sense you were trying to make a different point than what you made. Cancer _is_ treated in that way, that is basically how chemo works.
- titzer 1y agoWhoosh. No, chemotherapy is not the same as holding your breath, and no, most cancer drugs don't have anything to do with oxygen, except the (unwanted) side effect that they can lower red blood cell count, causing anemia and low oxygen levels.
- Fricken 1y agoThe whole developed world is self-sabotaging. Environmentalists are just the messengers.
- siffin 1y agoI don't think it's the environmentalists stopping atmospheric tampering, it's other things like the economics of it, or some countries being very against it. Geoengineers have talked seriously about this for a long time, but it's a mostly a political issue, then who actually wants to pay to do the science and pay for the outcomes, when you've got no real idea who will get destroyed in the long run. Is Europe going to help fund it, with a consequence being they have less rainfall? Nobody really knows, so no one really wants to pay to do it at scale, forever.
- scld 1y agoAerosol injection is only a reasonable solution if you believe that temperature increase is the only drawback of additional CO2 in the atmosphere. The oceans will continue to soak it all up as we inject temp-balancing aerosols.
- ACCount37 1y agoIt is the primary drawback. The main issue was always the thermal effects, and it's not even close.
- whatwhaaaaat 1y agoAre you a climate scientist? Do you have any understanding of how co2 lowers alkalinity in a solution or what impacts that might have on the planet? It seems sort sighted to say “it’s not even close”
- ACCount37 1y agoOcean acidification is small fries compared to how much impact thermal effects have. Just about every area of concern when it comes to climate change - heat waves and extreme weather events, agricultural impacts, sea level rise - comes from thermal imbalance alone. Yes, it's "not even close".
- lostlogin 1y agoWouldn’t it be wise to reduce our output, rather than pump something else into the atmosphere?
- rogerrogerr 1y agoWhy not both?
- ACCount37 1y agoCan you "reduce output" globally, to negative values, within the next 5 years? Because that's what's required to match the predicted effects of doing stratospheric aerosol injection at scale. Currently, the temperature is still "chasing down" the sheer amount of CO2 that was emitted over time. Even the completely unrealistic scenario of reducing emissions to zero instantly would cause climate change to continue for a while. Geoengineering offers a range of sharp, cost-effective interventions that can knock the temperature down more quickly and more directly.
- tomrod 1y agoInjection also isn't guaranteed to help. Adding clouds temporarily doesn't decrease co2 in the atmosphere.
- sMarsIntruder 1y agoDear downvoter, please tell me what you didn’t like about my comment because I cannot make any sense of it.
- potato3732842 1y agoGotta love when the mods reset an article and a comment that's mildly popular with the weekday crowd goes to shit.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]