We do understand the #globalwarming caused by fossil fuels - for four decades it’s been going as predicted.
But we don’t understand the surprise upward leap that is happening now.
And that worries me.
@rahmstorf I read that the prohibtion of sulphur in ship's fuel oil had reduced a layer of pollution that actually made the oceans warm less.
@theklan @rahmstorf For me, it's hard to believe that a prohibition of sulfur in ship fuel would lead to a sudden change in atmospheric sulfur concentrations. In a first step, oil refineries have to adapt their processes. From then on, the sulfur content in the global ship diesel storages slowly declines. I'm not an expert, but I would assume this process to take decades. Do you have a link to an article?
Low-sulphur shipping fuel is unlikely to explain the spike in global sea surface temperature

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) implemented new regulations in 2020 that require ships to use low-sulphur fuel. This has led to a decrease in sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions from shipping, which have a cooling effect on the atmosphere.

World Economic Forum

@Voka Ich lasse ergänzend wissenschaftliche Artikel da.

Detection of large-scale cloud microphysical changes within a major shipping corridor after implementation of the IMO 2020 fuel sulfur regulations. 2023. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-8259-2023

Global reduction in ship-tracks from sulfur regulations for shipping fuel. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abn7988

Rapid saturation of cloud water adjustments to shipping emissions [Preprint]. 2023. https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-813

@astrodicticum @theklan @ulistopper @rahmstorf

Detection of large-scale cloud microphysical changes within a major shipping corridor after implementation of the International Maritime Organization 2020 fuel sulfur regulations

Abstract. New regulations from the International Maritime Organization (IMO) limiting sulfur emissions from the shipping industry are expected to have large benefits in terms of public health but may come with an undesired side effect: acceleration of global warming as the climate-cooling effects of ship pollution on marine clouds are diminished. Previous work has found a substantial decrease in the detection of ship tracks in clouds after the IMO 2020 regulations went into effect, but changes in large-scale cloud properties have been more equivocal. Using a statistical technique that estimates counterfactual fields of what large-scale cloud and radiative properties within an isolated shipping corridor in the southeastern Atlantic would have been in the absence of shipping, we confidently detect a reduction in the magnitude of cloud droplet effective radius decreases within the shipping corridor and find evidence for a reduction in the magnitude of cloud brightening as well. The instantaneous radiative forcing due to aerosol–cloud interactions from the IMO 2020 regulations is estimated as O(1 W m−2) within the shipping corridor, lending credence to global estimates of O(0.1 W m−2). In addition to their geophysical significance, our results also provide independent evidence for general compliance with the IMO 2020 regulations.

@Voka tl;dr Die Erwärmung kommt wohl zu einem Teil davon. Man kann die reduzierten Ship Tracks messen. Die Effekte sind aber nicht nur direkt, sondern auch indirekt und für letztere braucht es further research. @astrodicticum @theklan @ulistopper @rahmstorf