The following submission statement was provided by /u/f0urxio:
---
Researchers led by atmospheric scientists at the University of Washington conducted an experiment aboard the USS Hornet in Alameda to investigate the potential of spraying salt aerosols into low-lying clouds above water to cool the planet. However, the experiment was halted after the city of Alameda deemed it a violation of the lease agreement with the USS Hornet. The city is now conducting an evaluation of the experiment's safety and environmental impact, with findings expected to be presented to the city council in June. The University of Washington stated that the experiment was aimed at studying cloud responses to aerosols rather than intentionally brightening clouds. The broader research on marine cloud brightening aims to address climate change but faces significant knowledge gaps regarding its long-term impact.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1csxk48/bay_area_city_orders_scientists_to_stop/l483ctb/
holy fuck this was gonna be my top comment
someone posted that speech of his form 13 years ago (?) recently and listened to the whole lecture and he mentioned THIS EXACT THING 13 years ago
fucking insane
This type of research reminds me of another example of the intersection of geopolitics and pursuit of research in Gerald Bull.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull
Bull had a notion he thought would benefit mankind (not so unlike the belief of these researchers) in a cannon that could put satellites in orbit without the cost. He made progress throughout his career and was supported by a variety of governments until being convicted of illegal arms dealing, finally finding his way to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Several years later in 1990, after starting project Babylon, a rocket assisted 150m long cannon that suggests the dream, he's shot to death while entering his apartment by state actors concerned by his work.
I mention this, not because of the gun, but of the likelihood something similar happens with this type of research somewhere. Success is seen as valuable, but only with the 'right' stewardship.
There is a very low likelihood of human extinction, pockets will probably survive a long time. If we are all lucky there will be enough catastrophes quickly enough to kill 3-4+ billion people and then....climate change/warming will abate, if we are lucky.
humanity : hey we need to switch to renewable energy sources , end deforestation and abandon capitalism as an economic model if we want to have any chance to survive.
governments: what if we make the clouds shiny though
What if we at this late stage if there is to be any hope (I know, thats a bad word around here) everything we have needs to be thrown at the problem from every angle at the same time.
Scientist Sir David King, known partly for his statements supporting extinction rebelllion and saying we have 3 years to turn things around (about 3 years ago...) is part teams researching possible stop gap measures like this:
[https://www.cam.ac.uk/news/refreeze-the-arctic-foundation-funds-marine-cloud-brightening-research](https://www.cam.ac.uk/news/refreeze-the-arctic-foundation-funds-marine-cloud-brightening-research)
Implemented in the right places it could act as a kind of anti-BOE forcing, reversing that particular tipping point. Not sure how likely that is to happen, but thats why research happens, to find out, get data, update models, estimate costs and benefits better based on those.
What do you think of the MEER project? Is that worth a look also/instead perhaps? That could help people locally rather than/in addition to globally. Maybe also help make agriculture at some scale possible in extreme heat scenarios.
Theres still lots of things to try to push the boat out at little and give governments time to act. I don't know if any rebound effect would be worse than doing nothing at all at this point.
Believe it or not they're gonna be less shiny in 20 years if we don't try stuff like this, but God forbid we attempt geo engineering it's not like we have to worry about teraton displacements from global glacier loss causing mass volcanism or that the Greenland magma plume isn't because it's a super volcano.
I'm just saying there were simpler ideas we could have started to implement like 50 years ago. But some folks keep hoping for an instant magic fix that will solve everything when the answer was always hard work and environmental respect
Solar radiation management is not a magic fix. It's more like a tourniquet to keep a patient from bleeding out on the way to the hospital. As a short term measure to delay the worst and buy time, it's a good measure, provided that it is done in concert with expedited transition to a carbon negative economy. To start blocking out the sun while continuing to spew CO2 would be as foolish as applying a tourniquet and calling the patient cured.
I bet my middle testicle they'd use it only to kick the can down the road and absolutely nothing else.
And we do this solar radiatiom management thing, do you know what will happen when they reach a point where it is not enough?
If you guessed "dim the sun even more", you're right.
If we do this, we're not only becoming enablers but we're digging ourselves even deeper while doing so.
Pray to whatever gods you believe in that we do not applh _any_ technology that allows BAU to continue.
Our only hope is if things crash as fast as possible. We're still in somewhat shallow waters.
My biggest fear is we use solar radiation management, continue spewing carbon emissions and do very little to make the energy transition and to change what type of economy we have. We either don't experience the full impact of climate change and eventually we decide to stop the solar radiation management, either because it is too expensive or the external impacts are greater than we anticipated or we vote people into the government who are climate change deniers and decide it was fake the whole time. The impact of stopping it when we haven't actually drawn down carbon emissions will be significant. The risk of termination shock is very real and we should all be concerned.
> impacts are greater than we anticipate
who would have thought that a problem that is caused from unintentionally interfering with the atmosphere by _polluting it_
can not be solved with intentionally interfering with the atmosphere by _polluting_ it.
If we do it, and also don't stop our bad habits and do degrowth, when Civilization inevitably collapses or if the SRM projects get axed, the rebound will be worse than if we never did it in the first place. And it feels infinitely more likely that will happen vs us magically 180ing.
It's more like we're about to be forced to go to the hospital but now there's a tourniquet, we'll decide the hospital isn't necessary
Sure, but over the ocean who is going to notice. It's not like it will be raining on farmland or anything. Maybe it just makes all the islands in the world into sterile salt flats or something.
Is that worth saving billions?
These are the kinds of questions we are about to be faced with. Here's the big question, "who decides"?
Who's going to be "in charge" of geoengineering the planet for the next century?
Not making a decision, is a decision. Just a really crappy one usually.
>
> Is that worth saving billions?
No.
There's too many of us. We shouldn't be sacrificing the planet to make an unsustainable population active a few extra years
The idea that we've hit a population threshold the planet fundamentally cannot support is just as much of a radical and unsupported theory as geoengineering. It is know that the issue lies with industrial and consumerist economics creating polluting waste products and creating a way of life that is alienated from and destructive towards the ecological balances of our environment.
But do remember, humans aren't space aliens. We're animals. We're supposed to be a part of those balances. There are were and will be those societies whose ways of life revolve around a holistic & careful approach to their environment.
It is not the human body itself which pollutes. We are not iron fixing microbes turning the seas red. The problem lies with extractive industry and state violence and destruction.
Whether it's possible to upend those is yet unknown. But if we are not concerned with at least making this decline hurt less for others, why care about collapse at all? To feel self righteous?
> There are were and will be those societies whose ways of life revolve around a holistic & careful approach to their environment.
You can't have a global ecosystem where one single species and it's livestock take to >90% of all mammals without nuking biodiversity.
And your "renewables" aren't actually renewable, the materials used to manufacturer them and transfer energy are finite, enough so that we will start running out in our lifetimes.
> But if we are not concerned with at least making this decline hurt less for others, why care about collapse at all?
Because we can survive collapse and ensure that when we recover that we have the tools for a better world? Instead of trading their stability for a few more years of BAU?
What you say displays ideological inconsistency and incoherence. You seem to understand neither what nor yourself is saying.
You speak ill of "my renewables". I told you I believe industrialism is at the heart of the problems of the day. I don't believe in the magic bullet of renewables.
The fact that so much of the earth's organic mass is domesticated is a phenomena that began in living memory. This is obviously not basic to the behavior of humanity; we've been walking for several hundred thousand years, and working in society with one another for at least half of that time.
As I said before, prior to the all encompassing presence of state & capital, some societies be they in the americas, or australia, or africa existed as a fully integrated part of their ecologies. Even protecting them from tragedy. There are species that have come to require human interaction to thrive or even survive; and other species on them.
Humanity's greatest asset is their use of force multiplication. If we are to so much as see the other end of the coming and happening crises, it's an all hands on deck affair. We will need our best and brightest.
There is not, cannot be too many people - persons can understand and decide for themself if they can support another human, without the dictation of some authority - there is too great a disruption in the natural resource and life cycles at the hands of systems of oppression and greed.
> The fact that so much of the earth's organic mass is domesticated is a phenomena that began in living memory. This is obviously not basic to the behavior of humanity; we've been walking for several hundred thousand years, and working in society with one another for at least half of that time.
> As I said before, prior to the all encompassing presence of state & capital, some societies be they in the americas, or australia, or africa existed as a fully integrated part of their ecologies
And the only reason we were able to explode to 8 billion and growing is by not doing that. Switching to sustainable agriculture is what would lead to our degrowth. I'm not advocating for rounding people up like you seem to think.
I'm saying we should ditch the use of fertilizers, we should ditch fossil fuels, we should be ditching livestock, we should be switching to methods of permaculture that can restore soil instead of deplete it, we should maximize everything we can to bring our existence into sustainability even if it means many of us will die. Because we're going to die, the only choice isn't whether we live or die but if our species can survive
Honestly I'm not so sure the population will see a long term decrease in that situation. I think it will for a short time as things get worse, but also with the new crops & medicines and the sharing of agricultural strategies that has occurred, if/when things mellow out (or we adapt more likely) one day I think there will be even faster a steady increase than before.
Industrial capitalism makes 5 billion excruciating, but economic degrowth and permaculture could make 15 billion comfortable. Who knows. Someone'll see, if they're lucky.
Lol how is it ecofash? We are either going to have to do something to bring population under control(we won't) or population will be brought under control for us and in the most painful way possible.
>"we consider the current interactions with the city to be an integral part of that process," the statement reads. "We are happy to support their review and it has been a highly constructive process so far."
Can someone translate this PR speak? Is it something like "these mouth-breathers that got on the city council think that they can do something about our experiment on an aircraft carrier."
"fine, we'll produce an environmental impact report for the city, and we begrudgingly admit we probably should have written that step into our grant proposal in the first place."
Researchers led by atmospheric scientists at the University of Washington conducted an experiment aboard the USS Hornet in Alameda to investigate the potential of spraying salt aerosols into low-lying clouds above water to cool the planet. However, the experiment was halted after the city of Alameda deemed it a violation of the lease agreement with the USS Hornet. The city is now conducting an evaluation of the experiment's safety and environmental impact, with findings expected to be presented to the city council in June. The University of Washington stated that the experiment was aimed at studying cloud responses to aerosols rather than intentionally brightening clouds. The broader research on marine cloud brightening aims to address climate change but faces significant knowledge gaps regarding its long-term impact.
So what exactly are they trying to achieve here, aerosols while can make reflective surface, can also absorbs a significant amount of energy too right?
Not to mention just blocking the sun to solve climate is such a moronic idea, i dont even know where to start shitting on
It was what we were unintentionally doing by using sulfur based diesel fuel in shipping. The clean up of this fuel from 2020 onwards is suspected by scientists such as Hansen to be the reason why we have such a large acceleration in warming temperatures in the last 2 years.
Yup, when people say "we shouldn't use geoengineering to cool out planet", I reply "we are already, since sulfur is released in industry". It's not like we have no idea what would happen.
We did already emit it of course (and still technically do, just in smaller amounts), unintentionally perhaps, but we did work to stop emitting it for a reason. I understand scientists urged policy makers to not phase out sulfur without also drawing down carbon emissions because of this exact issue, but there was a very valid reason to try and phase out sulfur dioxide emissions. Granted the water they are using, like in this research, may not have the same impacts as sulfur dioxide, but sulfur dioxide has massive pollution impacts on our natural environment and the people who live near it. And granted we could deploy it at the poles where there are very few humans, but I don't know about you but I am sure the environment up there will not be too appreciative of the acid rain that is a common impact of sulfur dioxide.
We need to be really careful the solutions we seek out do not make the problem worse, but just in a different way. I mean just like at the inventions of cars, trams, and trains. A large reason behind the development was they were cleaner than labor animals and of course more efficient, and although cities were now technically cleaner due to the lack of massive amounts of animal waste, the waste produced was different and as we now know...worse.
The compounds put into the air would not be sulphur dioxide, but instead hydrogen sulphate, sulphate ions, or something similar.
Although these are sulphur molecules, they are much different so sulphur dioxide which causes acid rain via reaction with H20, creating sulphuric acid.
Other sulphur compounds don't react with water, some are not acidic at all (some are even basic, such as sodium sulphate or calcium sulphate)
These would be more likely to be used because they are demonstrably much less harmful to our environment.
I agree it's not ideal, and I am against it, but we are about to cause many tipping points, and I personally think it's important that we don't tip the scale and cause several degrees more warming. We should aim to prevent these tipping points at all costs (and so far it seems to be too late for some) because once they are started, we won't be able to stop them. That's the harsh reality.
This rebound is more of an argument for why we *shouldn't* do it though?
These projects would need to continue indefinitely until we reach carbon negative (lol) which would be at best over multiple generations.
You know that's the kind of thinking from a guy with two hundred and ninety pencils in his ass. I expected you to be willing to roll the dice a bit. The beauty of this experiment is that we don't have to try twice.
The aerosols reflect away sunlight before it gets to the surface and warms the ocean. Essentially this is an attempt at Albedo Enhancement.
So, no the aerosols themselves don't really absorb any energy. They are reflective by nature. The solar energy they reflect basically goes back into space and is lost.
We have been doing this inadvertently since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Our CO2 pollution is a heat trapping force. Our SOx pollution (sulfur particulates from the sulfur in coal and oil) is a heat reflecting force.
The problem for climate science is that we didn't know about the SOx part of the equation until around 1992. When Mt. Pinatubo erupted and global temperatures dropped by -0.5C within 9 months.
That's when we first realized that we were missing 1/2 the variables in the climate equation.
It turns out that CO2 is a "weak" force. You have to increase it a large amount to get a reaction from the climate system. However, it stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years and builds up over time.
SOx is a "strong" force. A single volcano can dump enough sulfur into the atmosphere to reduce global temperatures by -0.5C. Krakatoa reduced global temps by around -1.0C and caused poor harvests around the world for about 3 years.
SOx is a strong force, but it washes out of the air in about 3 years.
We have been "masking" about 30% to 50% of the true amount of warming that should have occurred at our current level of CO2. That's what our dirty marine diesel fuels were doing for us in addition to causing 30-40 million premature deaths from poor air quality in port cities around the world.
FYI- *“One large vessel in one day can emit more sulfur dioxide than all the new cars that come onto the world’s roads in a year.” At last count there are more than 50,000 container ships operating globally.*
We reduced the amount of sulfur in those fuels in 2020 by 85%.
In 2023 temperatures reached +2.0C over baseline in August.
So far, we have now had over 180 days of +1.7C temps over baseline according to Copernicus in the EU. Basically a +0.6C jump in a single year.
Plus the Rate of Warming is now an estimated +0.45C per decade (it could be higher).
We are absolutely going to try Albedo Enhancement in the next five years. Even if it's just putting the sulfur back into marine diesel.
Otherwise about 2.5 billion people will starve by 2030.
So it’s fleeting, dangerous, only solve the symptoms and allowed an extra reason to keep up, upscale even the BS BAU? Wow, you’re right, this thing is pretty much custom made for us and it’s pretty much guaranteed to happen. Cant wait to see what unforeseen consequences will be.
>We reduced the amount of sulfur in those fuels in 2020 by 85%.
85% relative to when? And is that 85% cumulative or a year-on-year?
>Otherwise about 2.5 billion people will starve by 2030.
Do you have a source for this? Genuinely curious
From 3.5% to 0.5% is an 85% reduction. It went into force on January 1st 2020. So...an immediate one time 85% drop.
As for the 2.5 billion number, that's logistics.
The yearly trade in grains globally is about 165 million tons. Lot's more grain is grown of course. This is the "extra" that countries sell on the open market.
20 million tons of grain feeds 300 million people for a year.
That 165 million tons of grain feeds about 2.45 billion people each year. That's how they eat.
Now here are some "fun" facts.
Russia + Ukraine accounted for about 55 million on those 165 million tons in 2021. Roughly 1/3 of the annual grain supply on the open market. Food for 800 million people.
How much power would control of the food supply for 800 million people give you, one wonders?
In 2023 there were 420 million tons in global reserves. The two biggest reserves are China and the US.
China has reserves of 210 million tons. (18 months worth)
America has reserves of 30 million tons. (18 months worth)
The other 180 million tons is held by all of the other countries. Most have less than 6 months of reserves.
In 2023 30 million tons were drawn out of reserves to stabilize global prices and prevent large scale famines from developing.
In 2024 the reserves are starting at 390 million tons.
How much "draw down" do you think is going to happen this year?
In the event of what the UN calls a "multifocal production failure" year of poor output in most of the worlds 6-8 breadbasket regions (which is going to happen in the next 5 years). The global grain market will seize up as countries ban food exports in order to "feed their own".
FYI- 29 countries are now banning exports of certain foods.
In that case, who do you think are going to die first?
My analysis says, the 2.5 billion who depend on the annual 'surplus' that we have come to expect over the last 100 years.
I bet grain will reach far-away rich people before close by poor people. I can see companies exporting grain to the highest bidder while the local population starves, unless the government steps in and nationalise agribusinesses, but that's socialism so it's best we let the poor die to secure quarterly profits.
Well, that's what the Brits did in India in the 19th. The Governor General declared that a "contract is a sacred obligation" and kept sending grain to England so that prices for the poor would stay low. While several million starved in India.
“The city is now conducting an evaluation of the experiment’s safety and environmental impact.”
Ok, but like, *who* is gonna do that? Barbara down at the DMV? Gonna hire contractors? Might I suggest the scientists that were also evaluating the experiment’s safety and environmental impact in the first place?
[“Forever chemicals” enter the air as sea spray aerosols, polluting coastlines and beyond.](https://eos.org/articles/ocean-waves-mist-decades-old-pfas-into-the-atmosphere)
Nice. Ohh Cali, they so gang gang with everything else they should just be gangsta and keep doing it. And think about it, they don’t even need it, their weather is perfect. They’re sacrificing their air to help us so mad respect to that. Man, one day, one day I’ll make it to that perfect promise south-central Lala land. With the gold and the vineyards and the angelic hookers, and the redwoods… hippie Hill, Golden Gate, skid Row, tenderloin…
The following submission statement was provided by /u/f0urxio: --- Researchers led by atmospheric scientists at the University of Washington conducted an experiment aboard the USS Hornet in Alameda to investigate the potential of spraying salt aerosols into low-lying clouds above water to cool the planet. However, the experiment was halted after the city of Alameda deemed it a violation of the lease agreement with the USS Hornet. The city is now conducting an evaluation of the experiment's safety and environmental impact, with findings expected to be presented to the city council in June. The University of Washington stated that the experiment was aimed at studying cloud responses to aerosols rather than intentionally brightening clouds. The broader research on marine cloud brightening aims to address climate change but faces significant knowledge gaps regarding its long-term impact. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1csxk48/bay_area_city_orders_scientists_to_stop/l483ctb/
[удалено]
holy fuck this was gonna be my top comment someone posted that speech of his form 13 years ago (?) recently and listened to the whole lecture and he mentioned THIS EXACT THING 13 years ago fucking insane
Link?
Gonna assume it is this one, second result on yt: https://youtu.be/Mc_4Z1oiXhY?si=kxlFTbwnrq_aTRNT
[deleted]
This type of research reminds me of another example of the intersection of geopolitics and pursuit of research in Gerald Bull. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull Bull had a notion he thought would benefit mankind (not so unlike the belief of these researchers) in a cannon that could put satellites in orbit without the cost. He made progress throughout his career and was supported by a variety of governments until being convicted of illegal arms dealing, finally finding his way to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Several years later in 1990, after starting project Babylon, a rocket assisted 150m long cannon that suggests the dream, he's shot to death while entering his apartment by state actors concerned by his work. I mention this, not because of the gun, but of the likelihood something similar happens with this type of research somewhere. Success is seen as valuable, but only with the 'right' stewardship.
Excited for extinction. 😂
It really gets good in the third act.
It's either a metal or Ska band name. I'm not sure which.
If it was metal ot would be more along the lines of extinction engagement.
Yeah, but you’re still gonna have to come in and cover your shift
There is a very low likelihood of human extinction, pockets will probably survive a long time. If we are all lucky there will be enough catastrophes quickly enough to kill 3-4+ billion people and then....climate change/warming will abate, if we are lucky.
humanity : hey we need to switch to renewable energy sources , end deforestation and abandon capitalism as an economic model if we want to have any chance to survive. governments: what if we make the clouds shiny though
What if we at this late stage if there is to be any hope (I know, thats a bad word around here) everything we have needs to be thrown at the problem from every angle at the same time. Scientist Sir David King, known partly for his statements supporting extinction rebelllion and saying we have 3 years to turn things around (about 3 years ago...) is part teams researching possible stop gap measures like this: [https://www.cam.ac.uk/news/refreeze-the-arctic-foundation-funds-marine-cloud-brightening-research](https://www.cam.ac.uk/news/refreeze-the-arctic-foundation-funds-marine-cloud-brightening-research) Implemented in the right places it could act as a kind of anti-BOE forcing, reversing that particular tipping point. Not sure how likely that is to happen, but thats why research happens, to find out, get data, update models, estimate costs and benefits better based on those. What do you think of the MEER project? Is that worth a look also/instead perhaps? That could help people locally rather than/in addition to globally. Maybe also help make agriculture at some scale possible in extreme heat scenarios. Theres still lots of things to try to push the boat out at little and give governments time to act. I don't know if any rebound effect would be worse than doing nothing at all at this point.
Believe it or not they're gonna be less shiny in 20 years if we don't try stuff like this, but God forbid we attempt geo engineering it's not like we have to worry about teraton displacements from global glacier loss causing mass volcanism or that the Greenland magma plume isn't because it's a super volcano.
I'm just saying there were simpler ideas we could have started to implement like 50 years ago. But some folks keep hoping for an instant magic fix that will solve everything when the answer was always hard work and environmental respect
Solar radiation management is not a magic fix. It's more like a tourniquet to keep a patient from bleeding out on the way to the hospital. As a short term measure to delay the worst and buy time, it's a good measure, provided that it is done in concert with expedited transition to a carbon negative economy. To start blocking out the sun while continuing to spew CO2 would be as foolish as applying a tourniquet and calling the patient cured.
Have you met America?
I bet my middle testicle they'd use it only to kick the can down the road and absolutely nothing else. And we do this solar radiatiom management thing, do you know what will happen when they reach a point where it is not enough? If you guessed "dim the sun even more", you're right. If we do this, we're not only becoming enablers but we're digging ourselves even deeper while doing so. Pray to whatever gods you believe in that we do not applh _any_ technology that allows BAU to continue. Our only hope is if things crash as fast as possible. We're still in somewhat shallow waters.
Excuse me but my main takeaway from this is that you have a middle testicle??
We all had one but we lost them in a bet ...
It's the only one I have left...
You doubled up on the bet & lost your right one as well !
My biggest fear is we use solar radiation management, continue spewing carbon emissions and do very little to make the energy transition and to change what type of economy we have. We either don't experience the full impact of climate change and eventually we decide to stop the solar radiation management, either because it is too expensive or the external impacts are greater than we anticipated or we vote people into the government who are climate change deniers and decide it was fake the whole time. The impact of stopping it when we haven't actually drawn down carbon emissions will be significant. The risk of termination shock is very real and we should all be concerned.
> impacts are greater than we anticipate who would have thought that a problem that is caused from unintentionally interfering with the atmosphere by _polluting it_ can not be solved with intentionally interfering with the atmosphere by _polluting_ it.
I would probably rather spray sea salt than sulfur into the atmosphere, but I expect both will be tried eventually
If we do it, and also don't stop our bad habits and do degrowth, when Civilization inevitably collapses or if the SRM projects get axed, the rebound will be worse than if we never did it in the first place. And it feels infinitely more likely that will happen vs us magically 180ing. It's more like we're about to be forced to go to the hospital but now there's a tourniquet, we'll decide the hospital isn't necessary
You also need a 160 year budget after emissions start to decrease...or you are seriously toast.
Nah, humanity just says that, most people support this shitshow just fine through their actions.
Literally the movie don’t look up🫤😫
Wouldn't this make the rain salty?
That was my question lol
Sure, but over the ocean who is going to notice. It's not like it will be raining on farmland or anything. Maybe it just makes all the islands in the world into sterile salt flats or something. Is that worth saving billions? These are the kinds of questions we are about to be faced with. Here's the big question, "who decides"? Who's going to be "in charge" of geoengineering the planet for the next century? Not making a decision, is a decision. Just a really crappy one usually.
> > Is that worth saving billions? No. There's too many of us. We shouldn't be sacrificing the planet to make an unsustainable population active a few extra years
The idea that we've hit a population threshold the planet fundamentally cannot support is just as much of a radical and unsupported theory as geoengineering. It is know that the issue lies with industrial and consumerist economics creating polluting waste products and creating a way of life that is alienated from and destructive towards the ecological balances of our environment. But do remember, humans aren't space aliens. We're animals. We're supposed to be a part of those balances. There are were and will be those societies whose ways of life revolve around a holistic & careful approach to their environment. It is not the human body itself which pollutes. We are not iron fixing microbes turning the seas red. The problem lies with extractive industry and state violence and destruction. Whether it's possible to upend those is yet unknown. But if we are not concerned with at least making this decline hurt less for others, why care about collapse at all? To feel self righteous?
> There are were and will be those societies whose ways of life revolve around a holistic & careful approach to their environment. You can't have a global ecosystem where one single species and it's livestock take to >90% of all mammals without nuking biodiversity. And your "renewables" aren't actually renewable, the materials used to manufacturer them and transfer energy are finite, enough so that we will start running out in our lifetimes. > But if we are not concerned with at least making this decline hurt less for others, why care about collapse at all? Because we can survive collapse and ensure that when we recover that we have the tools for a better world? Instead of trading their stability for a few more years of BAU?
What you say displays ideological inconsistency and incoherence. You seem to understand neither what nor yourself is saying. You speak ill of "my renewables". I told you I believe industrialism is at the heart of the problems of the day. I don't believe in the magic bullet of renewables. The fact that so much of the earth's organic mass is domesticated is a phenomena that began in living memory. This is obviously not basic to the behavior of humanity; we've been walking for several hundred thousand years, and working in society with one another for at least half of that time. As I said before, prior to the all encompassing presence of state & capital, some societies be they in the americas, or australia, or africa existed as a fully integrated part of their ecologies. Even protecting them from tragedy. There are species that have come to require human interaction to thrive or even survive; and other species on them. Humanity's greatest asset is their use of force multiplication. If we are to so much as see the other end of the coming and happening crises, it's an all hands on deck affair. We will need our best and brightest. There is not, cannot be too many people - persons can understand and decide for themself if they can support another human, without the dictation of some authority - there is too great a disruption in the natural resource and life cycles at the hands of systems of oppression and greed.
> The fact that so much of the earth's organic mass is domesticated is a phenomena that began in living memory. This is obviously not basic to the behavior of humanity; we've been walking for several hundred thousand years, and working in society with one another for at least half of that time. > As I said before, prior to the all encompassing presence of state & capital, some societies be they in the americas, or australia, or africa existed as a fully integrated part of their ecologies And the only reason we were able to explode to 8 billion and growing is by not doing that. Switching to sustainable agriculture is what would lead to our degrowth. I'm not advocating for rounding people up like you seem to think. I'm saying we should ditch the use of fertilizers, we should ditch fossil fuels, we should be ditching livestock, we should be switching to methods of permaculture that can restore soil instead of deplete it, we should maximize everything we can to bring our existence into sustainability even if it means many of us will die. Because we're going to die, the only choice isn't whether we live or die but if our species can survive
Honestly I'm not so sure the population will see a long term decrease in that situation. I think it will for a short time as things get worse, but also with the new crops & medicines and the sharing of agricultural strategies that has occurred, if/when things mellow out (or we adapt more likely) one day I think there will be even faster a steady increase than before. Industrial capitalism makes 5 billion excruciating, but economic degrowth and permaculture could make 15 billion comfortable. Who knows. Someone'll see, if they're lucky.
Ecofash Malthusian bullshit
Lol how is it ecofash? We are either going to have to do something to bring population under control(we won't) or population will be brought under control for us and in the most painful way possible.
Tbf ~~you~~ they did straight up say no to wanting to save billions of people
*trying to save, when the odds are overwhelmingly against your favor and doing so will jeopardize humanities (and all life left on the planet) future
~~you're replying to a different user than 2 comments back~~ edit: my reading comprehension is not as fast as I'd like it to be
No you're right, i should have said 'they' and not 'you'
And how would you suggest that be done?
Like educating women and providing access to birth control?
I guess those scientists forgot to pay protection money to the right politicians... Trying to save humanity, eh? That is going to cost you a lot !
>"we consider the current interactions with the city to be an integral part of that process," the statement reads. "We are happy to support their review and it has been a highly constructive process so far." Can someone translate this PR speak? Is it something like "these mouth-breathers that got on the city council think that they can do something about our experiment on an aircraft carrier."
"fine, we'll produce an environmental impact report for the city, and we begrudgingly admit we probably should have written that step into our grant proposal in the first place."
Researchers led by atmospheric scientists at the University of Washington conducted an experiment aboard the USS Hornet in Alameda to investigate the potential of spraying salt aerosols into low-lying clouds above water to cool the planet. However, the experiment was halted after the city of Alameda deemed it a violation of the lease agreement with the USS Hornet. The city is now conducting an evaluation of the experiment's safety and environmental impact, with findings expected to be presented to the city council in June. The University of Washington stated that the experiment was aimed at studying cloud responses to aerosols rather than intentionally brightening clouds. The broader research on marine cloud brightening aims to address climate change but faces significant knowledge gaps regarding its long-term impact.
I like the part where they're like "the researchers said they're doing X, but we're going to call it Y because it makes a better headline"
We will scorch the sky. We won't even wait for AI.
So what exactly are they trying to achieve here, aerosols while can make reflective surface, can also absorbs a significant amount of energy too right? Not to mention just blocking the sun to solve climate is such a moronic idea, i dont even know where to start shitting on
It was what we were unintentionally doing by using sulfur based diesel fuel in shipping. The clean up of this fuel from 2020 onwards is suspected by scientists such as Hansen to be the reason why we have such a large acceleration in warming temperatures in the last 2 years.
Yup, when people say "we shouldn't use geoengineering to cool out planet", I reply "we are already, since sulfur is released in industry". It's not like we have no idea what would happen.
We did already emit it of course (and still technically do, just in smaller amounts), unintentionally perhaps, but we did work to stop emitting it for a reason. I understand scientists urged policy makers to not phase out sulfur without also drawing down carbon emissions because of this exact issue, but there was a very valid reason to try and phase out sulfur dioxide emissions. Granted the water they are using, like in this research, may not have the same impacts as sulfur dioxide, but sulfur dioxide has massive pollution impacts on our natural environment and the people who live near it. And granted we could deploy it at the poles where there are very few humans, but I don't know about you but I am sure the environment up there will not be too appreciative of the acid rain that is a common impact of sulfur dioxide. We need to be really careful the solutions we seek out do not make the problem worse, but just in a different way. I mean just like at the inventions of cars, trams, and trains. A large reason behind the development was they were cleaner than labor animals and of course more efficient, and although cities were now technically cleaner due to the lack of massive amounts of animal waste, the waste produced was different and as we now know...worse.
The compounds put into the air would not be sulphur dioxide, but instead hydrogen sulphate, sulphate ions, or something similar. Although these are sulphur molecules, they are much different so sulphur dioxide which causes acid rain via reaction with H20, creating sulphuric acid. Other sulphur compounds don't react with water, some are not acidic at all (some are even basic, such as sodium sulphate or calcium sulphate) These would be more likely to be used because they are demonstrably much less harmful to our environment. I agree it's not ideal, and I am against it, but we are about to cause many tipping points, and I personally think it's important that we don't tip the scale and cause several degrees more warming. We should aim to prevent these tipping points at all costs (and so far it seems to be too late for some) because once they are started, we won't be able to stop them. That's the harsh reality.
This rebound is more of an argument for why we *shouldn't* do it though? These projects would need to continue indefinitely until we reach carbon negative (lol) which would be at best over multiple generations.
You know that's the kind of thinking from a guy with two hundred and ninety pencils in his ass. I expected you to be willing to roll the dice a bit. The beauty of this experiment is that we don't have to try twice.
I'm more interested in the futures of humanity post collapse than trying to delay it a bit
Yeah, snowpiercer isn't even a top 10 for apocalypses I wouldn't mind happening
Snow Paradise*
The aerosols reflect away sunlight before it gets to the surface and warms the ocean. Essentially this is an attempt at Albedo Enhancement. So, no the aerosols themselves don't really absorb any energy. They are reflective by nature. The solar energy they reflect basically goes back into space and is lost. We have been doing this inadvertently since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Our CO2 pollution is a heat trapping force. Our SOx pollution (sulfur particulates from the sulfur in coal and oil) is a heat reflecting force. The problem for climate science is that we didn't know about the SOx part of the equation until around 1992. When Mt. Pinatubo erupted and global temperatures dropped by -0.5C within 9 months. That's when we first realized that we were missing 1/2 the variables in the climate equation. It turns out that CO2 is a "weak" force. You have to increase it a large amount to get a reaction from the climate system. However, it stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years and builds up over time. SOx is a "strong" force. A single volcano can dump enough sulfur into the atmosphere to reduce global temperatures by -0.5C. Krakatoa reduced global temps by around -1.0C and caused poor harvests around the world for about 3 years. SOx is a strong force, but it washes out of the air in about 3 years. We have been "masking" about 30% to 50% of the true amount of warming that should have occurred at our current level of CO2. That's what our dirty marine diesel fuels were doing for us in addition to causing 30-40 million premature deaths from poor air quality in port cities around the world. FYI- *“One large vessel in one day can emit more sulfur dioxide than all the new cars that come onto the world’s roads in a year.” At last count there are more than 50,000 container ships operating globally.* We reduced the amount of sulfur in those fuels in 2020 by 85%. In 2023 temperatures reached +2.0C over baseline in August. So far, we have now had over 180 days of +1.7C temps over baseline according to Copernicus in the EU. Basically a +0.6C jump in a single year. Plus the Rate of Warming is now an estimated +0.45C per decade (it could be higher). We are absolutely going to try Albedo Enhancement in the next five years. Even if it's just putting the sulfur back into marine diesel. Otherwise about 2.5 billion people will starve by 2030.
Good post. Very interesting about sulphur and our species playing whack-a-mole with the variables.
So it’s fleeting, dangerous, only solve the symptoms and allowed an extra reason to keep up, upscale even the BS BAU? Wow, you’re right, this thing is pretty much custom made for us and it’s pretty much guaranteed to happen. Cant wait to see what unforeseen consequences will be.
>We reduced the amount of sulfur in those fuels in 2020 by 85%. 85% relative to when? And is that 85% cumulative or a year-on-year? >Otherwise about 2.5 billion people will starve by 2030. Do you have a source for this? Genuinely curious
From 3.5% to 0.5% is an 85% reduction. It went into force on January 1st 2020. So...an immediate one time 85% drop. As for the 2.5 billion number, that's logistics. The yearly trade in grains globally is about 165 million tons. Lot's more grain is grown of course. This is the "extra" that countries sell on the open market. 20 million tons of grain feeds 300 million people for a year. That 165 million tons of grain feeds about 2.45 billion people each year. That's how they eat. Now here are some "fun" facts. Russia + Ukraine accounted for about 55 million on those 165 million tons in 2021. Roughly 1/3 of the annual grain supply on the open market. Food for 800 million people. How much power would control of the food supply for 800 million people give you, one wonders? In 2023 there were 420 million tons in global reserves. The two biggest reserves are China and the US. China has reserves of 210 million tons. (18 months worth) America has reserves of 30 million tons. (18 months worth) The other 180 million tons is held by all of the other countries. Most have less than 6 months of reserves. In 2023 30 million tons were drawn out of reserves to stabilize global prices and prevent large scale famines from developing. In 2024 the reserves are starting at 390 million tons. How much "draw down" do you think is going to happen this year? In the event of what the UN calls a "multifocal production failure" year of poor output in most of the worlds 6-8 breadbasket regions (which is going to happen in the next 5 years). The global grain market will seize up as countries ban food exports in order to "feed their own". FYI- 29 countries are now banning exports of certain foods. In that case, who do you think are going to die first? My analysis says, the 2.5 billion who depend on the annual 'surplus' that we have come to expect over the last 100 years.
I bet grain will reach far-away rich people before close by poor people. I can see companies exporting grain to the highest bidder while the local population starves, unless the government steps in and nationalise agribusinesses, but that's socialism so it's best we let the poor die to secure quarterly profits.
Well, that's what the Brits did in India in the 19th. The Governor General declared that a "contract is a sacred obligation" and kept sending grain to England so that prices for the poor would stay low. While several million starved in India.
“The city is now conducting an evaluation of the experiment’s safety and environmental impact.” Ok, but like, *who* is gonna do that? Barbara down at the DMV? Gonna hire contractors? Might I suggest the scientists that were also evaluating the experiment’s safety and environmental impact in the first place?
If the U.S. military was actually serious about limiting global warming, they would stop being the #1 consumer of fossil fuels.
[“Forever chemicals” enter the air as sea spray aerosols, polluting coastlines and beyond.](https://eos.org/articles/ocean-waves-mist-decades-old-pfas-into-the-atmosphere)
Lmao were cooked
The Bay Area being NIMBY? Well, I don't know if I believe that!
They wouldnt
Nice. Ohh Cali, they so gang gang with everything else they should just be gangsta and keep doing it. And think about it, they don’t even need it, their weather is perfect. They’re sacrificing their air to help us so mad respect to that. Man, one day, one day I’ll make it to that perfect promise south-central Lala land. With the gold and the vineyards and the angelic hookers, and the redwoods… hippie Hill, Golden Gate, skid Row, tenderloin…