The chemtrail nutjobs are going to lose their minds even more.
There is a severe misunderstanding of what this is going on in this thread. 4 years ago when regulations were introduced on shipping pollution it vastly reduced the amount of cloud trail produced off the pollution. Covid also played a role here as there were far less active ships.
That pollution mixing with the clouds is theorized to have actually been helping stave off ocean warming because of the greater cloud coverages around shipping lanes reflects a lot more sunlight.
Source: https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/26/china/shipping-pollution-global-warming-climate-intl/index.html
Now there have been tests in the past 4 years to recreate the cloud coverages with sea salt in order to bring the rate of temperature increases back down to the previous levels.
Does this solve climate change no of course not. But it does fix an accidental fuckup we made that came from an ultimately good decision in standardizing emissions in 2020. And we need to do anything possible to bring the RATE OF CHANGE down.
Was curious what their test rig looks like and found some pics here.
snow cannon then…
Given the raging anti-science commentary that erupts whenever geoengineering experiments are proposed is it any wonder they’re doing it quietly?
yeah, because this isn’t the right solution…
How can you have evidence to support that position until testing is done?
don’t you think this idea wasn’t shared with the IPCC scientists? It already was. The problem is that it could bring more unpredictability to the climate.
The subject of this thread is an experiment that is testing the efficacy of the process. Simply “sharing an idea” doesn’t give you evidence of whether it works.
The problem is that it could bring more unpredictability to the climate.
Emphasis added. How do you know whether it will bring unpredictability without some kind of experiment or other data?
So, cloud seeding works.
yeah… no side effects there… at all… luckily there are “testing” it since 2002…
I still don’t get the reasoning behind these sort of geo engineering projects. Let’s say, best case scenario, it works wonders and cools the planet significantly.
The fact that we found a “solution” to the warming temperatures will justify the actions if the corporations pumping tons of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. If anything, it will encourage them to pollute more, as there is now a way to solve the problem.
De-growth is the only way to actually solve the problem. But since it’s not profitable, it won’t happen under the current economic system.
agreed !
Population decline isn’t going to happen. The planets doomed. Its just damage mitigation at this point.
I definitely don’t disagree with you, but if it helps it helps. At this point I think we need to reverse our damage in order to avoid disaster.
But yes, it will also give encourage more pollution unless companies are actually held responsible for their pollution.
The general reasoning is that while it doesn’t help with ocean acidification or a thousand knock on effects, and most certainly doesn’t ‘solve the problem’ as you put it, such measures would blunt most of the most deadly ones, especially for poorer nations that don’t have the resources to abandon coastlines, flood, and drought prone areas.
Especially since even if all artificial co2, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions snapped out of existence tomorrow we’d still see feedback warming for years to come, and centuries to return to where we are today, killing hundreds of millions of people in the meantime.
If they work effectively, which I am admittedly personally highly skeptical of, any of these geoengineering projects could save tens of millions of people for negligible cost long after we’ve hit net zero.
I am however also skeptical that it would significantly encourage companies to pollute more, as that necessitates you to expect them to pollute less if they think millions of people will die at some point in the distant future because of it, and I think basically any graph of fossil fuel useage after we all agreed that it was killing a shit ton of people and had to be eliminated in the 90s pretty well proves that not to be the case.
I also don’t think that needless death and destruction will modivate significant political action, see Covid, it just makes people suffer.
The article doesn’t really seem to go into much detail but what are the risks of introducing salt water into the areas below the clouds when it condenses into rain?
If this is done on a global scale, there are multiple problems:
- the temperature would get lower artificially, until it isn’t maintained. Should we continue business as usual with fossile fuels?
- can it be done everywhere at the same time?
- what is the impact on the water pattern on a global scale?
the temperature would get lower artificially, until it isn’t maintained. Should we continue business as usual with fossile fuels?
Changing “business as usual” with fossil fuels is a separate issue that will happen or not happen regardless of the global temperature. It’s something that will have to be done as a task in its own right. Lowering the temperature would prevent millions of deaths by starvation in the meantime, whether we change “business as usual” or not.
- can it be done everywhere at the same time?
- what is the impact on the water pattern on a global scale?
Maybe we should do some tests?
This might be able to be applied regionally or locally to protect things like the Great Barriier Reef from coral bleaching events or at least parts of it.
then it would disturb the climate somewhere else…
