They probably said that about plastics too, back in the day.
this post was submitted on 24 May 2024
47 points (96.1% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5105 readers
691 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
They swore up and down that Roundup and Glysophate pesticides are harmless to bees and things they werent supposed to target.
PFAS and PFOS chemicals were touted as harmless, even though the company behind them knew that was a bald faced lie. For Decades
They also said it about potatoes, fresh water, indoor plants, cotton clothes, thinking about the moon and wooden stools.
One thing efforts like these don't do is decrease the level of CO2 which carries a whole host of issues.
Well yeah, but the intention is to lessen the effects of the warming already happening and what will happen in the future no matter what we do. Nobody is pretending like we need to do this instead of cutting emissions, (except maybe oil execs I guess), we can do both at once.
The one downside of this and other geoengineering options is that once we start we can't stop until CO2 levels drop back down so we don't get a more sudden global temperature spike which would be worse for the environment most likely
Cool. Even if we hit net zero co2 emissions tonight, world is going to keep getting hotter for decades.
Not that we will hit zero tonight.
Temperatures stabilize faster than you might think
The problem is if we don't actually hit zero, but maintain a constant CO2 concentration, in which case temperatures do rise for decades.
Somehow I am not convinced that spraying salt water into clouds is without risks. Somewhere, all the salt will come down as salty rain after all. I guess farmers will be exited about this when they can harvest pre-salted tomatoes...
I believe it's mostly being suggested over the ocean. There's a great Hank Green video about this tech.
During the cold war, the Americans (and probably the Russians, too) seeded clouds and checked where the stuff ended up to see how radioactive fallout would work. The result was: basically everywhere.
I don't think this is looking at seeding the stratosphere but replacing the sulfur based localized cloud creation that container ships have stopped producing with seawater based local cloud creation. I don't think anyone thinks it will have zero negative effects, but we are at a point where we have unexpectedly good data from the sudden dropoff of sulfur shipping fuels and a very urgent need to address this specific issue.
https://youtu.be/71jlEyIc1Pk Here's a link to the scientific discussion on YT about it. The video linked is actually a bit more anti the whole idea than I am I think but what do I know, he has a climate science PHD. It is a complex issue and a lot of people will die no matter what we do, especially if we do not dramatically reduce our climate impact overall.
So this is how sharknado begins...
But no in seriousness spraying seawater into the air over seawater to reflect more heat sounds interesting. The ocean itself has a very low albido compared to clouds of any brightness.
Remember when they used to spray deet in the air and kids would play in it?
Oh shit these the gay contrails Alex Jones warned us about?!
Certainly worth studying, especially if it's actually basically seawater (not clear from the article, informed opinion welcomed). Science bitches, test those hypotheses...