It is the Sulfer thing. Sulfer Dioxide was shading the planet and making clouds more reflective, cooling the earth
and we’re fairly uncertain by how much.
Even though the article doesn’t say it outright, the obvious conclusion is that we should have stopped using fossil fuels decades ago. And even if stop now we don’t know how much more warming we’d do without the sulfer dioxide. Which shouldn’t be added to the atmosphere because it would kill an outrageous amount of people.
I was just continuing the conversation, I didn’t mean you said we should burn oil. I see how that is a possible reading tho, my b
Yeah, salt has it’s issues but I see it as the easiest and possibly least disruptive option. We’d “just” have to implement a fleet of autonomous sail boats with solar powered mist makers sucking ocean water and misting it up
It’s all good. I can see that point, but it’s unfortunately a bandaid (semi-short term cooling strategy) on a sucking wound (too much CO2 in the atmosphere), and if I trusted the world powers to continue solving the issue (Atmospheric Carbon Capture) before sepsis set (salting the earth from aeroslizing sea water) in, I’d be less opposed.
I’m not a huge fan of the idea of seeding the atmosphere with salt water, that salt has to come down eventually.
That’s how clouds are naturally seeded anyway, with salt. Rain drops form (condense) around tiny airborne matter, like salt or pollution. Every rain drop is formed this way; drops can’t actually condense without something to nucleate on. What they form around comes down with the drop. We wouldn’t be trying to leave the salt up there. The purpose of the salt is to cause more drops to condense, i.e. more clouds to form.
Paywall
is it the sulfur thing?
also idk how much I trust Jeff Bozos’ propaganda rag
It is the Sulfer thing. Sulfer Dioxide was shading the planet and making clouds more reflective, cooling the earth and we’re fairly uncertain by how much.
Even though the article doesn’t say it outright, the obvious conclusion is that we should have stopped using fossil fuels decades ago. And even if stop now we don’t know how much more warming we’d do without the sulfer dioxide. Which shouldn’t be added to the atmosphere because it would kill an outrageous amount of people.
Taking the sulfur thing as true, the solution ain’t burn oil, it is get salty water up in the atmosphere. Simmilar effects, no sulfur
I never said burn more oil?
Also I’m not a huge fan of the idea of seeding the atmosphere with salt water, that salt has to come down eventually.
I was just continuing the conversation, I didn’t mean you said we should burn oil. I see how that is a possible reading tho, my b
Yeah, salt has it’s issues but I see it as the easiest and possibly least disruptive option. We’d “just” have to implement a fleet of autonomous sail boats with solar powered mist makers sucking ocean water and misting it up
It’s all good. I can see that point, but it’s unfortunately a bandaid (semi-short term cooling strategy) on a sucking wound (too much CO2 in the atmosphere), and if I trusted the world powers to continue solving the issue (Atmospheric Carbon Capture) before sepsis set (salting the earth from aeroslizing sea water) in, I’d be less opposed.
That’s how clouds are naturally seeded anyway, with salt. Rain drops form (condense) around tiny airborne matter, like salt or pollution. Every rain drop is formed this way; drops can’t actually condense without something to nucleate on. What they form around comes down with the drop. We wouldn’t be trying to leave the salt up there. The purpose of the salt is to cause more drops to condense, i.e. more clouds to form.
I’m concerned too much more salt may lead to salting of land, but I may be worried over nothing.
I also don’t fully trust our ability to predict negative outcomes if it’s profitable to ignore them.
You would hope that it would be diluted by each raindrop that brings it back and its distribution over a wide area, but hope isn’t much to go on.