Quoting from the introductory paragraphs. I got inspired to post this when I came across Hank Green's video about the topic here: https://youtu.be/dk8pwE3IByg?si=T-gK4D20nZQDdiR8 I think this sort...
[...] For years, the north Atlantic was warming more slowly than other parts of the world. But now it has caught up, and then some. Last month, the sea surface there surged to a record 25°C—nearly 1°C warmer than the previous high, set in 2020—and temperatures haven’t even peaked yet. “This year it’s been crazy,” says Tianle Yuan, an atmospheric physicist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.
The obvious and primary driver of this trend is society’s emissions of greenhouse gases, which trap heat that the oceans steadily absorb. Another influence has been recent weather, especially stalled high-pressure systems that suppress cloud formation and allow the oceans to bake in the Sun.
But researchers are now waking up to another factor, one that could be filed under the category of unintended consequences: disappearing clouds known as ship tracks. Regulations imposed in 2020 by the United Nations’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) have cut ships’ sulfur pollution by more than 80% and improved air quality worldwide. The reduction has also lessened the effect of sulfate particles in seeding and brightening the distinctive low-lying, reflective clouds that follow in the wake of ships and help cool the planet.
[...] By dramatically reducing the number of ship tracks, the planet has warmed up faster, several new studies have found. That trend is magnified in the Atlantic, where maritime traffic is particularly dense. In the shipping corridors, the increased light represents a 50% boost to the warming effect of human carbon emissions. It’s as if the world suddenly lost the cooling effect from a fairly large volcanic eruption each year, says Michael Diamond, an atmospheric scientist at Florida State University.
Quoting from the introductory paragraphs. I got inspired to post this when I came across Hank Green's video about the topic here:
I think this sort of thing is super interesting as we as a species figure out how to manipulate the climate intentionally rather than accidentally like we have been doing for generations now. At this point, if you look at CO2 emissions, and the warming trends, we're kind of "past the point of no return" in stopping global warming. It's going to happen regardless now, we've been too sluggish in reducing CO2.
So, what's the alternative? We'll likely going to have to change the planet itself. That definitely must be done with utmost care and thoughtfulness. Venus is a good example of where things could end up if unintentional runaway feedback loops arise.
Edit: I tracked down a nice plot of the North Atlantic sea surface temperature anomaly here:
2nd Edit: To clarify, I am not advocating some geoengineering solution to climate change while still burning fossil fuels unabated. That kind of techbro thinking is the road to disaster. What I am saying, is even if we come together as a planet to halt further warming (which we absolutely should), there will be significant warming incurred regardless which we must face.
Good lord, No. Absolutely not. This kind of talk is beyond dangerous. We're not too far gone to stop anything. There needs to be a systematic and complete change the system that we operate in to...
At this point, if you look at CO2 emissions, and the warming trends, we're kind of "past the point of no return" in stopping global warming. It's going to happen regardless now, we've been too sluggish in reducing CO2.
Good lord, No. Absolutely not.
This kind of talk is beyond dangerous. We're not too far gone to stop anything. There needs to be a systematic and complete change the system that we operate in to at least get those emissions under control for the future.
Will it help in 10, 20, 50 years? Maybe. Will it help in 100-200 for our kids, kids, kids, kids? Absolutely.
This kind of talk that we're going to get a technological solution to the continued cockups of previous generations is baffling and frankly wrong. All we will do is continue a cycle of perpetual, infinite consumption inside a finite resource pool UNLESS we change the system fundamentally.
There are ideas to help, but we must get at the root cause. Capitalism.
This isn't true if by "stop" you mean not affect the people who will be on earth in 2100. The point I was trying to make, perhaps inelegantly, is that even if the entire world shuts down all...
We're not too far gone to stop anything.
This isn't true if by "stop" you mean not affect the people who will be on earth in 2100. The point I was trying to make, perhaps inelegantly, is that even if the entire world shuts down all industry and halts further CO2 production, an awful amount of warming around 1.5-2.0 degrees Celsius by 2100 is inevitable because of the CO2 already present (we're currently at 1.1 C warming). We haven't felt it yet, but that's because the Earth takes a while to reach thermal equilibrium given the new influx of CO2. Check out the figures in the IPCC 2023 Synthesis Report yourself:
So how do we handle the human cost and suffering that 1.5-2.0 Celsius warming will bring? Cause even this much will be bad as we're finding out already. And if we don't stop our addiction to fossil fuels, we risk 3 or even 4+ Celsius warming which will be devastating.
You have to be so damn careful wording in this topic mate, the second someone reads that sentence they just go "ah fuck it, I'm going to go buy a third car" and disregard all notions of progress....
You have to be so damn careful wording in this topic mate, the second someone reads that sentence they just go "ah fuck it, I'm going to go buy a third car" and disregard all notions of progress.
I'm aware of the report, makes for harrowing reading.
So how do we handle the human cost and suffering that 1.5-2.0 Celsius warming will bring? Cause even this much will be bad as we're finding out already. And if we don't stop our addiction to fossil fuels, we risk 3 or even 4+ Celsius warming which will be devastating.
Honestly? I don't think Geo-engineering is the answer. We've fucked with complex systems with an air of Human Superiority enough that I just don't trust any answer that comes from it. Carbon recapture? Sure, if we can get it to be hugely sustainable and actually work.
But realistically? We probably need to look at some seriously complex methods around building construction, farming distribution and some good old fashioned population control... as dystopian as that last term really is. Geo-engineering just is so painfully unproven and seems to be mostly a pipe dream of techbros who aren't wanting to change the system, just make more money from it.
It's going to suck for a lot of countries and billions of people.
Yeah, that's my bad. I was feeling a bit pessimistic while writing and wasn't careful. I added a clarifying edit to the original post. That one's a non-starter. Many industrialized nations are...
You have to be so damn careful wording in this topic mate, the second someone reads that sentence they just go "ah fuck it, I'm going to go buy a third car" and disregard all notions of progress.
Yeah, that's my bad. I was feeling a bit pessimistic while writing and wasn't careful. I added a clarifying edit to the original post.
some good old fashioned population control
That one's a non-starter. Many industrialized nations are already either at stable populations, shrinking, or only growing because of immigration. World population increases are mostly coming from still-industrializing nations such as in Africa. Their CO2 per capita is way less than ours even with the huge influx of people anyway. What we (the ones who most benefited from the 19th century industrial wave) supposed to say to Nigeria as they industrialize? Sorry buds. You missed the fossil fuel train, no easy energy for you. Also, by the way, can you stop your population growth and institute population controls?
Geo-engineering just is so painfully unproven and seems to be mostly a pipe dream of techbros who aren't wanting to change the system, just make more money from it.
The one method to increase the Earth's albedo discussed in the article (and the Hank Green video) is cloud seeding which is not really a new technology. It's an old one and the only difference we'd need is of scale.
I hear you man, sorry if I got a bit snappy myself. The environment and Climate Change is one of those topics that just... exhaust your soul. Right? We've basically locked ourselves in for carbon...
Yeah, that's my bad. I was feeling a bit pessimistic while writing and wasn't careful. I added a clarifying edit to the original post.
I hear you man, sorry if I got a bit snappy myself. The environment and Climate Change is one of those topics that just... exhaust your soul. Right?
That one's a non-starter. Many industrialized nations are already either at stable populations, shrinking, or only growing because of immigration. World population increases are mostly coming from still-industrializing nations such as in Africa. Their CO2 per capita is way less than ours even with the huge influx of people anyway. What we (the ones who most benefited from the 19th century industrial wave) supposed to say to Nigeria as they industrialize? Sorry buds. You missed the fossil fuel train, no easy energy for you. Also, by the way, can you stop your population growth and institute population controls?
We've basically locked ourselves in for carbon emissions for two generations with that IPCC report. The fact that report was in the mainstream news for two days before being relegated for nonsense politics and sensationalist celebrities speaks highly of the nonsense propoganda machine at work against doing anything to actually alter the situation. Only when London, New York, Washington, et al... actually go under will the West finally pull its finger out. But then bits of those countries will probably find it funny.
You missed the fossil fuel train, no easy energy for you.
I think the big part would be just scaling back Western usage and prioritise where that energy goes. Do we really need brand new Teslas, fast fashion and the ilk? Not really. We do need globally recognised electrified transport systems though (Trains, Buses) and localised ones too (A la bikes). But we so rarely need cruise ships beyond luxury and that needs to change. But what's the West got to say about our lifestyles changing to save the world? "Absolutely not, it's India or China's problem!"
Also, by the way, can you stop your population growth and institute population controls?
It's a flippant comment believe me. You'd need 1.9 kids per family or something completely unrealistic without some SERIOUSLY draconian behaviours in play.
The one method to increase the Earth's albedo discussed in the article (and the Hank Green video) is cloud seeding which is not really a new technology. It's an old one and the only difference we'd need is of scale.
My only worry? We just do not know what it'll do to other systems. The UK has had a floodout summer and we've got crop failures because of it (Not significant, but enough to cause some more inflation pain) ... imagine if we did that globally by accident?
Lifestyle change has to happen, well... it's going to happen if we like it or not. One is going "Yeah, I can do without a walk-in wardrobe and the latest phone" ... the other is "Fuck me, where's that last can of beans we had?"
I hear you. It totally does, which is why I like vlogbrothers so much (and also how I found out about this). They try very hard to encourage positive productive thinking and combat nihilism. We've...
I hear you man, sorry if I got a bit snappy myself. The environment and Climate Change is one of those topics that just... exhaust your soul. Right?
I hear you. It totally does, which is why I like vlogbrothers so much (and also how I found out about this). They try very hard to encourage positive productive thinking and combat nihilism.
My only worry? We just do not know what it'll do to other systems. The UK has had a floodout summer and we've got crop failures because of it (Not significant, but enough to cause some more inflation pain) ... imagine if we did that globally by accident?
We've been doing this by accident in the North Atlantic for a while with cargo ships and it noticeably kept the ocean colder than it should be. To that end, careful study of our "accidental" geoengineering is a good step towards intentionally seeding clouds for the albedo benefit.
The fact that report was in the mainstream news for two days before being relegated for nonsense politics and sensationalist celebrities speaks highly of the nonsense propoganda machine at work against doing anything to actually alter the situation.
Not to bring up another scary topic, but I am partly convinced that the world won't "wake up" to climate change until we have regular deadly heat waves where wet-bulb temperatures are inhospitable to humans. Places like India will be among the first to experience these.
Humans’ ability to efficiently shed heat has enabled us to range over every continent, but a wet-bulb temperature (TW) of 35°C marks our upper physiological limit, and much lower values have serious health and productivity impacts. Climate models project the first 35°C TW occurrences by the mid-21st century. However, a comprehensive evaluation of weather station data shows that some coastal subtropical locations have already reported a TW of 35°C and that extreme humid heat overall has more than doubled in frequency since 1979. Recent exceedances of 35°C in global maximum sea surface temperature provide further support for the validity of these dangerously high TW values. We find the most extreme humid heat is highly localized in both space and time and is correspondingly substantially underestimated in reanalysis products. Our findings thus underscore the serious challenge posed by humid heat that is more intense than previously reported and increasingly severe.
This is a top recommendation, Thank you for that. I generally keep my head down these days with the news. It's often just... boring. Politics is Politics, Economies are Economies. I just focus on...
I hear you. It totally does, which is why I like vlogbrothers so much (and also how I found out about this). They try very hard to encourage positive productive thinking and combat nihilism.
This is a top recommendation, Thank you for that.
I generally keep my head down these days with the news. It's often just... boring. Politics is Politics, Economies are Economies. I just focus on doing what I want to do and getting myself into a good place professionally so I can get the hell away from my current type of work and into something more human. Keeps the "Fuck this noise" attitude well away.
We've been doing this by accident in the North Atlantic for a while with cargo ships and it noticeably kept the ocean colder than it should be. To that end, careful study of our "accidental" geoengineering is a good step towards intentionally seeding clouds for the albedo benefit.
I guess my worry is literally about those clouds.
The UK is already cloudy and bleak sometimes. If you're adding more moisture up there, it's going to cause problems for our farming, let alone our dire lack of sunshine. What else could that effect? It's all the unknowns, for all our computing power we just do not understand how all our systems work.
It's a great idea, but it's just that lack of systemic knowledge that terrifies me.
Not to bring up another scary topic, but I am partly convinced that the world won't "wake up" to climate change until we have regular deadly heat waves where wet-bulb temperatures are inhospitable to humans. Places like India will be among the first to experience these.
You're probably not wrong. I'm working through getting where I live brilliantly self-sustaining regardless of what happens. I don't have kids, I don't 'need' to worry about the next generation for myself, but I worry about everyone elses. We're going to see swathes of the world become uninhabitable, or at least dangerous. Europe thinks migration is bad now? Wait till Billions start knocking on our comfortable, air-conditioned doors.
Dude, we couldn't get people to get a vaccine, wear a mask, or even admit that a virus was real during a global pandemic that was killing millions. COVID taught me once and for all that we are not...
Dude, we couldn't get people to get a vaccine, wear a mask, or even admit that a virus was real during a global pandemic that was killing millions.
COVID taught me once and for all that we are not going to solve climate change by getting people to change their habits. The only thing that can stop it is technological innovation.
Owned by Capitalists and Techbros. The very people causing the vast amount of the problems we're all now experiencing. Do enjoy voting to Christmas as a Turkey on their farm mate.
The only thing that can stop it is technological innovation.
Owned by Capitalists and Techbros. The very people causing the vast amount of the problems we're all now experiencing.
Do enjoy voting to Christmas as a Turkey on their farm mate.
I'll bitch and moan about them all day, but after seeing Covid it's crystal clear that society won't solve this problem unless it makes rich people money and is more convenient. Covod was easy....
I'll bitch and moan about them all day, but after seeing Covid it's crystal clear that society won't solve this problem unless it makes rich people money and is more convenient.
Covod was easy. Wear a mask, keep your distance, and get the free vaccine. And we couldn't do it. We ended up mostly just letting it run it's course and kill who it would kill because we were too stubborn and lazy to do better in the face of clear, direct consequences.
There's zero chance we'll do better with climate change.
I'm in the UK, we had a tough run of it. But we kept to whatever the government told us, plus some common sense. The vast majority of people complied with requests to stay home. It was a vocal...
I'm in the UK, we had a tough run of it.
But we kept to whatever the government told us, plus some common sense. The vast majority of people complied with requests to stay home.
It was a vocal minority who caused problems.
You're seeing the after effects through the global economy though. You're seeing generations of people who are now powering down away from work.
Whats the old saying? The revolution will not be televised.
My thermometer doesn't go past 150F, but that doesn't mean temperatures can't go higher than that. It just means at a certain point you don't need a precise measurement to know it's a bad fever.
My thermometer doesn't go past 150F, but that doesn't mean temperatures can't go higher than that. It just means at a certain point you don't need a precise measurement to know it's a bad fever.
If your idea to fight climate change is to destroy the only framework and set of tools we have to fight it, while destabilizing the whole world we are lost.
If your idea to fight climate change is to destroy the only framework and set of tools we have to fight it, while destabilizing the whole world we are lost.
Good lord. Imagine thinking of the entire world as 'economy' and 'growth' without a shred of irony. Yes, that system needs to be dismantled. If you cannot see that... then you are lost.
whole world we are lost.
Good lord. Imagine thinking of the entire world as 'economy' and 'growth' without a shred of irony.
Yes, that system needs to be dismantled. If you cannot see that... then you are lost.
Venus has an incredibly dense atmosphere (over 90 times Earth's atmospheric pressure) made up almost entirely of CO2. It's in essence a hell we do not want our planet to turn into. I apologize if...
Did Venus end up without an atmosphere due to unintentional feedback loops?
Venus has an incredibly dense atmosphere (over 90 times Earth's atmospheric pressure) made up almost entirely of CO2. It's in essence a hell we do not want our planet to turn into. I apologize if I was a bit flippant in my comment here, the mechanisms led to Venus' situation are not super likely to happen to Earth, but I was moreso commenting on the importance of feedback loops in climate which can lead to dramatic consequences.
For Venus, the feedback loop can be boiled (heh) into the following steps:
Venus begins rather Earthlike in the distant past with an ocean.
The brightening of the Sun (as the Sun transitioned from a young star to a mature star) or excess CO2 from volcanism or impactors causes water vapor to more readily evaporate.
This increase in water vapor decreases the efficiency for thermal radiation to emit into space further heating the surface and evaporating more water. Water is a much better greenhouse gas than CO2 is and it's important for local cooling to precipitate it back out as rain or snow like it does Earth.
CO2 precipitates out of the atmosphere slowly over timescales of about 1,000 to 10,000 years in a process called rock weathering and the carbonate–silicate cycle. This process requires surface water, so the loss of Venus's oceans would preserve CO2 in the atmosphere preventing it from leaving. Additionally, Venus doesn't have the same tectonic processes Earth has further inhibiting this recycling process.
The stratosphere of Venus, saturated with water vapor is exposed to UV light from the Sun which breaks the molecule and allows the hydrogen to escape into space. The very high amount of deuterium (heavy hydrogen) remaining on Venus relative to the Earth is evidence for this. Venus then bleeds its oceans into space leaving the planet incredibly anhydrous and lacking in water. CO2 is left behind as permanent greenhouse gas and the planet incredibly hot and inhospitable to life.
The worry my quip was pointing to is that we should be careful not to allow uncontrollable feedback loops to develop on Earth from our actions.
Mars also has an atmosphere, actually, a very significant one. Less than Earth, but enough to have sandstorms and small tornadoes and stuff. Mercury is the only planet that doesn't have a...
Mars also has an atmosphere, actually, a very significant one. Less than Earth, but enough to have sandstorms and small tornadoes and stuff. Mercury is the only planet that doesn't have a significant atmosphere unless you include Pluto--no dwarf planet has a significant atmosphere, although Saturn's moon Titan has an atmosphere with a higher pressure at its surface than even Earth's atmosphere.
I think it’s worth pointing out that the atmospheric pressure on Mars is less than 0.1 psi which is more than a hundred times thinner than Earth. A 60 mph wind on Mars is more like a 10 mph wind...
I think it’s worth pointing out that the atmospheric pressure on Mars is less than 0.1 psi which is more than a hundred times thinner than Earth. A 60 mph wind on Mars is more like a 10 mph wind on Earth. There are dust storms, not sand storms. More here.
It’s pretty amazing they got that helicopter to work. Less gravity helps. The blades also turn at more than 2400 rpm to get enough lift.
Can't help but wonder what my life is going to be like in 50 years, it seems almost incomprehensible what the new normals of the environment and society in the context of that will be.
Can't help but wonder what my life is going to be like in 50 years, it seems almost incomprehensible what the new normals of the environment and society in the context of that will be.
I think the argument is that deliberately introducing particulate into the atmosphere as a method of cooling the planet would fall under the category of geoengineering so this regulatory change is...
I think the argument is that deliberately introducing particulate into the atmosphere as a method of cooling the planet would fall under the category of geoengineering so this regulatory change is in effect removing an unintended equivalent.
That's kinda confusing with the double negative in there. What that effectively means is that we were already geoengineering and stopped in this one specific case, and stopping geoengineering...
That's kinda confusing with the double negative in there. What that effectively means is that we were already geoengineering and stopped in this one specific case, and stopping geoengineering caused a temperature rise. But the double negative makes it sound like we tested geoengineering and it backfired and that was what caused a temperature rise.
Well, I think the problem is that this is an incredibly exact science that we just don't know enough about yet. The issue is that we know that everything we do matters, a lot. But we can't tell...
Well, I think the problem is that this is an incredibly exact science that we just don't know enough about yet.
The issue is that we know that everything we do matters, a lot. But we can't tell exactly what will happen under any given circumstances because we just don't have historical data of measured variables and a control to sample against.
The risk to reward payoff is really all we have to go off of depending on who you ask. Geoengineering could be a tremendously huge risk with unforseen consequences (i.e. acid rain returns, severe weather effects, ozone depletion) if we don't get it right - the alternative of doing nothing about it clearly isn't working though. We need a full and measured response to this, and we need it 20 years ago.
I was thinking to say something along these lines. My own opinion is that geoengineering is just one tool we can use to save our civilization, and that it's so difficult to test in situ that we...
doing nothing about it clearly isn't working though.
I was thinking to say something along these lines. My own opinion is that geoengineering is just one tool we can use to save our civilization, and that it's so difficult to test in situ that we have to either rely on computer models or just chance it.
More broadly, I think CosmicDefect's point and that of Hank Green is that we're already doing geoengineering. The problem is we're doing it unintentionally, and if we're gonna keep doing it we might as well try to do it with intent and care. This study is really just revealing that fact, very plainly.
Quoting from the introductory paragraphs. I got inspired to post this when I came across Hank Green's video about the topic here:
I think this sort of thing is super interesting as we as a species figure out how to manipulate the climate intentionally rather than accidentally like we have been doing for generations now. At this point, if you look at CO2 emissions, and the warming trends, we're kind of "past the point of no return" in stopping global warming. It's going to happen regardless now, we've been too sluggish in reducing CO2.
So, what's the alternative? We'll likely going to have to change the planet itself. That definitely must be done with utmost care and thoughtfulness. Venus is a good example of where things could end up if unintentional runaway feedback loops arise.
Edit: I tracked down a nice plot of the North Atlantic sea surface temperature anomaly here:
https://climate.copernicus.eu/sites/default/files/custom-uploads/Page%20Uploads/June%2023%20CB/fig3a_plot_era5_daily_series_anomaly_stacked_bluered_sst_neatlantic.png
https://climate.copernicus.eu/record-breaking-north-atlantic-ocean-temperatures-contribute-extreme-marine-heatwaves
2nd Edit: To clarify, I am not advocating some geoengineering solution to climate change while still burning fossil fuels unabated. That kind of techbro thinking is the road to disaster. What I am saying, is even if we come together as a planet to halt further warming (which we absolutely should), there will be significant warming incurred regardless which we must face.
Good lord, No. Absolutely not.
This kind of talk is beyond dangerous. We're not too far gone to stop anything. There needs to be a systematic and complete change the system that we operate in to at least get those emissions under control for the future.
Will it help in 10, 20, 50 years? Maybe. Will it help in 100-200 for our kids, kids, kids, kids? Absolutely.
This kind of talk that we're going to get a technological solution to the continued cockups of previous generations is baffling and frankly wrong. All we will do is continue a cycle of perpetual, infinite consumption inside a finite resource pool UNLESS we change the system fundamentally.
There are ideas to help, but we must get at the root cause. Capitalism.
This isn't true if by "stop" you mean not affect the people who will be on earth in 2100. The point I was trying to make, perhaps inelegantly, is that even if the entire world shuts down all industry and halts further CO2 production, an awful amount of warming around 1.5-2.0 degrees Celsius by 2100 is inevitable because of the CO2 already present (we're currently at 1.1 C warming). We haven't felt it yet, but that's because the Earth takes a while to reach thermal equilibrium given the new influx of CO2. Check out the figures in the IPCC 2023 Synthesis Report yourself:
So how do we handle the human cost and suffering that 1.5-2.0 Celsius warming will bring? Cause even this much will be bad as we're finding out already. And if we don't stop our addiction to fossil fuels, we risk 3 or even 4+ Celsius warming which will be devastating.
You have to be so damn careful wording in this topic mate, the second someone reads that sentence they just go "ah fuck it, I'm going to go buy a third car" and disregard all notions of progress.
I'm aware of the report, makes for harrowing reading.
Honestly? I don't think Geo-engineering is the answer. We've fucked with complex systems with an air of Human Superiority enough that I just don't trust any answer that comes from it. Carbon recapture? Sure, if we can get it to be hugely sustainable and actually work.
But realistically? We probably need to look at some seriously complex methods around building construction, farming distribution and some good old fashioned population control... as dystopian as that last term really is. Geo-engineering just is so painfully unproven and seems to be mostly a pipe dream of techbros who aren't wanting to change the system, just make more money from it.
It's going to suck for a lot of countries and billions of people.
Yeah, that's my bad. I was feeling a bit pessimistic while writing and wasn't careful. I added a clarifying edit to the original post.
That one's a non-starter. Many industrialized nations are already either at stable populations, shrinking, or only growing because of immigration. World population increases are mostly coming from still-industrializing nations such as in Africa. Their CO2 per capita is way less than ours even with the huge influx of people anyway. What we (the ones who most benefited from the 19th century industrial wave) supposed to say to Nigeria as they industrialize? Sorry buds. You missed the fossil fuel train, no easy energy for you. Also, by the way, can you stop your population growth and institute population controls?
The one method to increase the Earth's albedo discussed in the article (and the Hank Green video) is cloud seeding which is not really a new technology. It's an old one and the only difference we'd need is of scale.
I hear you man, sorry if I got a bit snappy myself. The environment and Climate Change is one of those topics that just... exhaust your soul. Right?
We've basically locked ourselves in for carbon emissions for two generations with that IPCC report. The fact that report was in the mainstream news for two days before being relegated for nonsense politics and sensationalist celebrities speaks highly of the nonsense propoganda machine at work against doing anything to actually alter the situation. Only when London, New York, Washington, et al... actually go under will the West finally pull its finger out. But then bits of those countries will probably find it funny.
I think the big part would be just scaling back Western usage and prioritise where that energy goes. Do we really need brand new Teslas, fast fashion and the ilk? Not really. We do need globally recognised electrified transport systems though (Trains, Buses) and localised ones too (A la bikes). But we so rarely need cruise ships beyond luxury and that needs to change. But what's the West got to say about our lifestyles changing to save the world? "Absolutely not, it's India or China's problem!"
It's a flippant comment believe me. You'd need 1.9 kids per family or something completely unrealistic without some SERIOUSLY draconian behaviours in play.
My only worry? We just do not know what it'll do to other systems. The UK has had a floodout summer and we've got crop failures because of it (Not significant, but enough to cause some more inflation pain) ... imagine if we did that globally by accident?
Lifestyle change has to happen, well... it's going to happen if we like it or not. One is going "Yeah, I can do without a walk-in wardrobe and the latest phone" ... the other is "Fuck me, where's that last can of beans we had?"
I hear you. It totally does, which is why I like vlogbrothers so much (and also how I found out about this). They try very hard to encourage positive productive thinking and combat nihilism.
We've been doing this by accident in the North Atlantic for a while with cargo ships and it noticeably kept the ocean colder than it should be. To that end, careful study of our "accidental" geoengineering is a good step towards intentionally seeding clouds for the albedo benefit.
Not to bring up another scary topic, but I am partly convinced that the world won't "wake up" to climate change until we have regular deadly heat waves where wet-bulb temperatures are inhospitable to humans. Places like India will be among the first to experience these.
This is a top recommendation, Thank you for that.
I generally keep my head down these days with the news. It's often just... boring. Politics is Politics, Economies are Economies. I just focus on doing what I want to do and getting myself into a good place professionally so I can get the hell away from my current type of work and into something more human. Keeps the "Fuck this noise" attitude well away.
I guess my worry is literally about those clouds.
The UK is already cloudy and bleak sometimes. If you're adding more moisture up there, it's going to cause problems for our farming, let alone our dire lack of sunshine. What else could that effect? It's all the unknowns, for all our computing power we just do not understand how all our systems work.
It's a great idea, but it's just that lack of systemic knowledge that terrifies me.
You're probably not wrong. I'm working through getting where I live brilliantly self-sustaining regardless of what happens. I don't have kids, I don't 'need' to worry about the next generation for myself, but I worry about everyone elses. We're going to see swathes of the world become uninhabitable, or at least dangerous. Europe thinks migration is bad now? Wait till Billions start knocking on our comfortable, air-conditioned doors.
Dude, we couldn't get people to get a vaccine, wear a mask, or even admit that a virus was real during a global pandemic that was killing millions.
COVID taught me once and for all that we are not going to solve climate change by getting people to change their habits. The only thing that can stop it is technological innovation.
Owned by Capitalists and Techbros. The very people causing the vast amount of the problems we're all now experiencing.
Do enjoy voting to Christmas as a Turkey on their farm mate.
I'll bitch and moan about them all day, but after seeing Covid it's crystal clear that society won't solve this problem unless it makes rich people money and is more convenient.
Covod was easy. Wear a mask, keep your distance, and get the free vaccine. And we couldn't do it. We ended up mostly just letting it run it's course and kill who it would kill because we were too stubborn and lazy to do better in the face of clear, direct consequences.
There's zero chance we'll do better with climate change.
I'm in the UK, we had a tough run of it.
But we kept to whatever the government told us, plus some common sense. The vast majority of people complied with requests to stay home.
It was a vocal minority who caused problems.
You're seeing the after effects through the global economy though. You're seeing generations of people who are now powering down away from work.
Whats the old saying? The revolution will not be televised.
My thermometer doesn't go past 150F, but that doesn't mean temperatures can't go higher than that. It just means at a certain point you don't need a precise measurement to know it's a bad fever.
I think if your fever even approaches 150F you may need something other than a precise measurement!
If your idea to fight climate change is to destroy the only framework and set of tools we have to fight it, while destabilizing the whole world we are lost.
Good lord. Imagine thinking of the entire world as 'economy' and 'growth' without a shred of irony.
Yes, that system needs to be dismantled. If you cannot see that... then you are lost.
Venus has an incredibly dense atmosphere (over 90 times Earth's atmospheric pressure) made up almost entirely of CO2. It's in essence a hell we do not want our planet to turn into. I apologize if I was a bit flippant in my comment here, the mechanisms led to Venus' situation are not super likely to happen to Earth, but I was moreso commenting on the importance of feedback loops in climate which can lead to dramatic consequences.
For Venus, the feedback loop can be boiled (heh) into the following steps:
Venus begins rather Earthlike in the distant past with an ocean.
The brightening of the Sun (as the Sun transitioned from a young star to a mature star) or excess CO2 from volcanism or impactors causes water vapor to more readily evaporate.
This increase in water vapor decreases the efficiency for thermal radiation to emit into space further heating the surface and evaporating more water. Water is a much better greenhouse gas than CO2 is and it's important for local cooling to precipitate it back out as rain or snow like it does Earth.
CO2 precipitates out of the atmosphere slowly over timescales of about 1,000 to 10,000 years in a process called rock weathering and the carbonate–silicate cycle. This process requires surface water, so the loss of Venus's oceans would preserve CO2 in the atmosphere preventing it from leaving. Additionally, Venus doesn't have the same tectonic processes Earth has further inhibiting this recycling process.
The stratosphere of Venus, saturated with water vapor is exposed to UV light from the Sun which breaks the molecule and allows the hydrogen to escape into space. The very high amount of deuterium (heavy hydrogen) remaining on Venus relative to the Earth is evidence for this. Venus then bleeds its oceans into space leaving the planet incredibly anhydrous and lacking in water. CO2 is left behind as permanent greenhouse gas and the planet incredibly hot and inhospitable to life.
The worry my quip was pointing to is that we should be careful not to allow uncontrollable feedback loops to develop on Earth from our actions.
Mars also has an atmosphere, actually, a very significant one. Less than Earth, but enough to have sandstorms and small tornadoes and stuff. Mercury is the only planet that doesn't have a significant atmosphere unless you include Pluto--no dwarf planet has a significant atmosphere, although Saturn's moon Titan has an atmosphere with a higher pressure at its surface than even Earth's atmosphere.
NASA even got a helicopter drone to fly on Mars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingenuity_(helicopter)
I think it’s worth pointing out that the atmospheric pressure on Mars is less than 0.1 psi which is more than a hundred times thinner than Earth. A 60 mph wind on Mars is more like a 10 mph wind on Earth. There are dust storms, not sand storms. More here.
It’s pretty amazing they got that helicopter to work. Less gravity helps. The blades also turn at more than 2400 rpm to get enough lift.
Interesting article. I wish voting for it didn't give me such a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach
Can't help but wonder what my life is going to be like in 50 years, it seems almost incomprehensible what the new normals of the environment and society in the context of that will be.
A tarnished silver lining for me is that I'm 79 and unlikely to see the full consequences. I'm sad for my offspring.
Yeah, it is definitely kind of scary.
It seems strange to me to label emissions regulation as "geoengineering"
I think the argument is that deliberately introducing particulate into the atmosphere as a method of cooling the planet would fall under the category of geoengineering so this regulatory change is in effect removing an unintended equivalent.
That's kinda confusing with the double negative in there. What that effectively means is that we were already geoengineering and stopped in this one specific case, and stopping geoengineering caused a temperature rise. But the double negative makes it sound like we tested geoengineering and it backfired and that was what caused a temperature rise.
Well, I think the problem is that this is an incredibly exact science that we just don't know enough about yet.
The issue is that we know that everything we do matters, a lot. But we can't tell exactly what will happen under any given circumstances because we just don't have historical data of measured variables and a control to sample against.
The risk to reward payoff is really all we have to go off of depending on who you ask. Geoengineering could be a tremendously huge risk with unforseen consequences (i.e. acid rain returns, severe weather effects, ozone depletion) if we don't get it right - the alternative of doing nothing about it clearly isn't working though. We need a full and measured response to this, and we need it 20 years ago.
I was thinking to say something along these lines. My own opinion is that geoengineering is just one tool we can use to save our civilization, and that it's so difficult to test in situ that we have to either rely on computer models or just chance it.
More broadly, I think CosmicDefect's point and that of Hank Green is that we're already doing geoengineering. The problem is we're doing it unintentionally, and if we're gonna keep doing it we might as well try to do it with intent and care. This study is really just revealing that fact, very plainly.