Computer 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.
https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2026/02/less-air-pollution-means-more-warming-could-marine-cloud-brightening-offset-the-paradox/
63 points · 19 comments · view on lemmy.world
19 Comments
x00z@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 212d
Ugh. I hate it. But I'm also thankful it might be possible.
It would allow the capitalists to continue ruining the world for their own gain, while the world has to clean up after their asses or die.
Kowowow@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 212d
I know, it never should have gotten this bad but if we can get more time for idiots and those without the resources to adopt renewables it should be worth
jafra@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 212d
Ah right. You mean this way it might take a little bit more time be4 the fallout or hunger games start.
hanrahan@slrpnk.net · 15 pts · 212d
Anything to avoid riding a bicycle and not flying.
Tiresia@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 212d
This 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).
jafra@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 212d
Love it
Eternal192@anarchist.nexus · 14 pts · 212d
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.
prex@aussie.zone · 7 pts · 212d
Nope, its salty rainwater for you.
FlexibleToast@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 212d
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.
Tiresia@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 212d
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).
jafra@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 212d
Maybe we could try some sequestration, too. But only after we stopped flying and consuming like vultures and took the money from the rich. ++ Its equally important to stop polluting the seas with our garbage, reducing CO2 won't help anything if it's the only thing we do.
DaddleDew@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 212d
Genius. Cause all the cars in the world to rapidly rust out. Then they can't emit CO2
I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 212d
That's not how it works...
foxwolf@pawb.social · 2 pts · 211d
I'm sure nothing needs those weather patterns. Let us fuck around!
tlekiteki@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 212d
Snowpiercer
GeeDubHayduke@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 212d
I too, am anxiously awaiting my next protein bar.
Armillarian@pawb.social · 2 pts · 212d
I assume this can be done cheaply. It's relatively worth it if we can buy 5-6 years of time
silence7@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 212d
Its a billions of dollars per year kind of cost
Armillarian@pawb.social · 2 pts · 212d
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