All this probably happened because we stopped to geoengineer by outlawing ships blowing sulphur into the air which created additional cloud cover.
You have your causality running backwards… this was already here, and the sulfur was masking it. This happened because we put so many GHG in the air.
It works, and without wrecking havoc on the overall system.
Europe is the one that initiated the sulfur reductions. With the additional dimming data now available, they reviewed it to determine how much damage had been caused. The conclusion? The benefits of reducing sulfur actually outweigh the damage of unmasked warming. The plan for further reductions was upheld.
If we mask radiative forcing, we don’t want to be doing it with sulfur. That leads to acid rain, ocean acidification, and asthma and other diseases. CaCO3 is a candidate. The long-term consequences of any candidate is unknown. Except that we know that the less sulfur raining down on us and the fish in general, the better.
Fun fact: All this probably happened because we stopped to geoengineer by outlawing ships blowing sulphur into the air which created additional cloud cover.
Instead of something like “we noticed the effects of climate change exceptionally this year because we stopped blowing sulphur (…)”. Yes, this is probably pedantic in a room where everyone understands anthropocentric climate change. Still, I can understand why some people might want to be extremely clear with how we use language regarding this topic, given… Everything that’s going on.
You have your causality running backwards… this was already here, and the sulfur was masking it. This happened because we put so many GHG in the air.
Europe is the one that initiated the sulfur reductions. With the additional dimming data now available, they reviewed it to determine how much damage had been caused. The conclusion? The benefits of reducing sulfur actually outweigh the damage of unmasked warming. The plan for further reductions was upheld.
If we mask radiative forcing, we don’t want to be doing it with sulfur. That leads to acid rain, ocean acidification, and asthma and other diseases. CaCO3 is a candidate. The long-term consequences of any candidate is unknown. Except that we know that the less sulfur raining down on us and the fish in general, the better.
Which is what I said?
It was probably framing it like
Instead of something like “we noticed the effects of climate change exceptionally this year because we stopped blowing sulphur (…)”. Yes, this is probably pedantic in a room where everyone understands anthropocentric climate change. Still, I can understand why some people might want to be extremely clear with how we use language regarding this topic, given… Everything that’s going on.
Lemmy is acting weird so I can’t go back and quote, but no, you phrased your attribution in reverse at least once.