Climate Interventions: Solar Geoengineering

[@mv80401]

Just finished watching, excellent team. One key argument mentioned is that there will be winners and losers and that strong nations are likely to make decisions that they hope (!!) will benefit them. Not good. The other is about unintended consequences but I'd emphasize that unlike releasing bunnies in Australia those consequences will be felt globally. Finally: Read Neal Stephenson's Termination Shock for a SF author's take on this very subject. You'll run into pretty much all arguments in this matter wrapped into a fast paced story. MV

[@StabilisingGlobalTemperature]

The termination argument is spurious because it ignores the point that temperature rise would be starting from a much lower level with SRM, than if SRM had not been used. Also phytoplankton need sulphur. They produce DMS (Dimethyl Sulphate), which is a powerful cooling molecule. Without sulphur they of course cannot produce DMS. So cutting sulphur from ship fuel is likely to reduce DMS production too.

[@StabilisingGlobalTemperature]

We are at or close to 1.5 C already. The temperature rise rate is increasing according to James Hansen.

[@StabilisingGlobalTemperature]

SRM to stabilise global temperature entirely would cost around $500 million per year. Using ex-military jets to take sulphur to the stratosphere. Jets such as the Eurofighter Typhoon and the F15 can take multiple tonnes per sortie to 60,000 ft. And they can be adapted to do so in a matter of weeks, not years or decades. It would be very quick to stop if needed - say a large volcano erupted and put sulphur into the stratosphere, the plane flights could be stopped straight away. There is very little risk of overdoing it, because solar flux is measured by satellite in near real time.

[@laszlonemet4425]

If radiation hits bald surface.

[@StabilisingGlobalTemperature]

Private companies and concerned individuals (whether ultra wealthy or not) will just go ahead and do it, if governments continue to dither. Look up Make Sunsets. Two concerned individuals, just getting on with it. Of course at a small scale. But imagine thousands or millions of concerned people doing similar projects. Maybe using high altitude balloons as they are, or by other ways such as high altitude aircraft, or drones at sea spraying salt mist etc.

[@StabilisingGlobalTemperature]

CO2 should not be removed too quickly or there would be crop yield collapse, and there would be vast starvation.

[@mv80401]

Said by someone apparently ignorant of the basis of the carbon cycle. Luckily your prolific "input" here will give readers a big clue of whether or not to lend your statements much weight.

[@StabilisingGlobalTemperature]

@@mv80401 There is a proposal to remove CO2 by carbon capture and removal. Fortunately it is unlikely to happen at scale. There are some climatologists who want to return the atmospheric concentration back to pre-industrial times. If they do so, it would be an utter disaster for humanity. Crop yields would collapse, and a large number of people, maybe in the billions, would starve. Is that what you want?

[@docdissent]

@@StabilisingGlobalTemperature Are you attributing current crop yields to CO2 levels?? You sound like the deniers who regurgitate idiot propaganda talking points like "CO2 is plant food!".

[@StabilisingGlobalTemperature]

@@docdissent Temperature has risen as a result of CO2. So no I am not a "denier". But CO2 has positive effect on plant growth. Just do a search for "global greening". The difficult task is to stabilise temperature. But just hoimg to do it with cutting CO2 alone is not working. This is the reality we face. Fortunately we can relatively easily do that using SRM. It is far more easy to do than say capturing CO2 out of the atmosphere. We just need to get on with SRM urgently, before temperature reaches 2 C rise, at which point serious tipping points are reached. We must avoid those tipping points. SRM is the least bad option at this point. In reality CO2 is not going to be reduced quickly. It is just wishful thinking to believe it can. And name calling of people such as me who care deeply about what happens is really not helping your argument.

[@StabilisingGlobalTemperature]

It is inevitable that we will do SRM. Cutting CO2 is unlikely to happen quickly.

[@mv80401]

The move to electrify everything using renewables is picking up momentum. With a mix of sticks and carrots on the government side and the appeal of superior technology fossil fuel use will subside, and hopefully soon enough.

[@StabilisingGlobalTemperature]

The people I have met who worry about "chemtrails" are not very informed or logical types, in my experience. When I point out that jet engines produce water vapour, which condenses into water droplets, they come up with nonsense replies. Yes water is a "chemical", but it is a well known product of combustion of aviation fuel.

[@mv80401]

I have a dear friend with a PhD in physics who is completely deranged by the chemtrails delusion. She says "I've seen the patents!!" and is impervious to any arguments.

[@StabilisingGlobalTemperature]

@@mv80401 Philosophically it is not possible to prove a negative. However just imagine the logistics required to do it. The only realistic way to do it via passenger planes is to put something into the fuel. But the fuel is tightly regulated. It may be that some testing is done by smaller planes. And some countries make no secret of their operations to do cloud seeding. But they wait for suitable conditions before sending up the planes, not just using it in all planes. The planes they use are relatively small.

[@filc8004]

high bypass turbofans are designed to minimize trails. What you are looking at are stratospheric/tropospheric aerosol injections of a variety of substances.

[@Hellish2050]

@@filc8004 There is a small amount of soot, which engine manufacturers minimise because it is caused by incomplete combustion, i.e.reduced efficiency. However this small amount of soot does act as nucleation points for water vapour to condense upon. The water droplet trails are not intentional.

[@filc8004]

@@Hellish2050 not really tho because it would nucleate only at high altitude, specific temperatures and relative humidity. Whereas we can observe trails left way below the altitude at which they should be.

[@StabilisingGlobalTemperature]

Stop the scaremongering, SRM just needs to be done. Nobody is scaremongering termination effect about if CCS were stopped suddenly. It is the same argument. Ozone would be slightly reduced, because sulphur does slightly absorb UV. But it is a marginal effect. CFCs are the main problem for ozone still.