silence7Computer simulations reveal that spraying sea salt aerosols may keep global temperatures near 2020 levels as air pollution falls—but may also redraw regional weather patterns.
x00zUgh. I hate it. But I’m also thankful it might be possible.
It would allow the capitalist to continue ruining the world for their own gain, while the world has to clean up after their asses or die.
Or we could do something that has better long term effects, get rid of the rich, the owners of oil companies, owners of lumberyards, basically all the companies that destroy and pollute our planet and we’ll see improvement within a year instead of whatever this bandaid bullshit they’ve come up with.
I wouldn’t heap lumber in with that list. They can be local, sustainable building materials. Also, trees just aren’t a great carbon capture. It’s when you pull carbon that has been sequestered in the ground for thousands of years and put it in the air that you create the problem.
Both? Both is good.
Because if you read the article you would know that this only works to suppress another degree of global warming that is looming over our heads, one that will happen if and when we stop polluting the planet.
At worst, we could use this to smear out the effects of climate change to allow ecosystems a little more time to adapt. At best, carbon capture becomes viable at some point in the next thousand years and we can gradually stop spraying sea salt while reducing atmospheric CO2 to prevent most of the damage that extra degree would have caused.
(also, plants are the best construction material we have; lumber yards are cool even if the owners aren’t).
Che BananaSo … chemtrails?
/s
I too, am anxiously awaiting my next protein bar.
That’s not how it works…
HanrahanThis actually only matters if we stop flying. Currently, fossil fuel consumption is doing this thing that reduces global warming in the short term (atmospheric aerosols), so if we stop polluting this thing will stop happening. However, spraying salt into the stratosphere would be a far less polluting way to keep doing the same thing.
We can also not do the thing, which means an extra degree of global warming, or we can keep using fossil fuels, which means an extra degree of global warming every decade or two plus that extra degree when fossil fuels run out.
(I say “global warming” deliberately, because these aerosols do lead to more climate change on a continental scale even if on a global scale those changes average out somewhat. 3 degrees of warming with aerosols is worse than 3 degrees without aerosols, though it’s still better than 4 degrees).
I assume this can be done cheaply. It’s relatively worth it if we can buy 5-6 years of time
It cost ~1/5 of the price of a nuclear power plant and save around the same time to build a nuclear power plant.
Its a perfect strategy to buy time to build a nuclear power plant