Scientists have discovered that the recent spike in global temperatures may be caused by a reduction in sulfur dioxide pollution from shipping vessels. Ships have long emitted sulfur dioxide, which cools the planet by seeding clouds and reflecting sunlight. However, new regulations that limit sulfur in ship fuels took effect in 2020, leading to a loss of this cooling effect equivalent to a large volcanic eruption each year. Models show this reduction in sulfur dioxide pollution can explain the extra warming seen in the North Atlantic. While pollution is bad, the new regulations provide a natural experiment that gives insight into how intentional geoengineering could potentially combat climate change in the future.

all 47 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 66 points 3 years ago (12 children)

My fear with geoengineering is that is allows us to become complacent about solving the primary problems, and then also creates its own set of unexpected secondary problems.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 3 years ago (8 children)

    At least to your second point, in the video he explains that there are ways to seed clouds for cooling purposes without any major side effects, and the experiment hes talking about is that this shows it can be done on a large scale. Whether it would make us complacent on getting CO2 out of the air, though, it might but at least it would be the start of a solution.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Hank also says that we're at point where we need to cut emissions AND carbon capture AND geoengineer in order to mitigate climate disaster. It can't be a one and done solution anymore, we're beyond that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago

    And considering we are at risk for loosing tons of biodiversity in the oceans from this heating (see mass coral bleaching event in florida) I think we have to start seeding clouds and whatever mitigating factors we can

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Right, but their point was kind of about side-effects we're not aware of at the time. So that's kind of the entire point, that we think there are no negative side effects only to later find out we were wrong.

    So that doesn't really address what they said at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago

    Exactly this. We think we know everything when we start doing stuff. But after a while we found out we where wrong and fucked up.
    We don't fully understand/comprehend nature and how it all interacts. We shouldn't be so ignorant to think we do understand it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Sounds like something China can pioneer and that the West will adopt a decade or so later after China shows it really does have no major side effects.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    A while back there was a round of interest in the possibility of countering global warming by using specialized high-altitude planes to spray calcium carbonate particulates into the upper atmosphere, and it was calculated that global warming could be countered with an ongoing expenditure of $2 billion per year. That's peanuts for a country like China, so if climate change starts causing them significant identifiable losses I wouldn't be at all surprised if they gave it a go.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 3 years ago

    become complacent about solving the primary problems

    We have been complacent about solving the primary problems for decades. At this point we should be doing all we can, and if a way to combat the symptoms gives us more time to finally get our shit together and do something useful before everyone turns into doomers giving up because it's too late anyway then I think that's a good thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] [B] 38 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)
    [–] 25 points 3 years ago* (11 children)

    Hank Green has a video about this and maybe we can safely replicate the sulfur dioxide's effects by shooting sea water into the air.

    https://youtu.be/dk8pwE3IByg

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] 6 points 3 years ago (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    I'm not sure that spreading salt is a good idea when you consider that salt kills life when you spread it on land.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    I think the idea is to do it over oceans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    Step Two: Harvest giant ice cube from a comet and drop it in the ocean every few years

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Fascinating. Termination Shock by Neal Stephenson deals with the same Sulphur as a way to combat global warming.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 3 years ago

    Got my idea to build the torment nexus from the hit sci-fi novel "Don't Build the Torment Nexus".

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    This is the primary component in producing acid rain, right?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    Hear me out guys, why don't we just put a giant ice cube in the ocean to combat rising temps?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 9 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Interesting vox video about geoengineering. I find the coalition of scientists demanding we don't even look at geo eng tech, like zero research into it frustrating. https://youtu.be/EKPFZPyQurA

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Indeed. There are people who wail and lament about how we've passed a "tipping point" and the climate is doomed to catastrophic warming no matter how much our emissions are reduced at this point, and then when you bring up the possibility of studying geoengineering they snap back at you with a "but not like that" reflex.

    Frankly, I think there are environmentalists who like the notion of inescapable doom. It gives them an "I told you so" feeling of victory, perhaps, or absolves them of any further effort. Or they've decided humanity is evil and deserves to be "punished." I don't know, it's just so wearying trying to deal with that reaction.

    At the end of the day, when major governments are faced with the choice of collapsing under a wave of migrants and famine and taking a stab at spraying some aerosols into the upper atmosphere as a hail Mary, they're going to try the thing that isn't guaranteed disaster. Would be nice if we could do some studying of it first.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago

    Fascinating. I heard something similar with particle pollution in big cities.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Geoengineering is a huge gamble and I want humanity to take it..

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment