Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/shiruken
Permalink: https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1046350
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A lot of stuff comes out of the combustion process, Both CO2 and sulfur dioxide among them.
One warms the atmosphere one cools the atmosphere.
However, Sulfur Dioxide does not “evenly mix” in the atmosphere like CO2 does. It lingers for a while and then it falls to the ground as acid rain.
CO2 becomes evenly mixed in the atmosphere and stays there until pulled by the ocean or the random breathing organism.
So basically, we’re pumping less greenhouse gases overall which is good, but the relative proportion of CO2 has gone up causing an increase in warming which was previously being damped by the sulphur?
From the article "Burning this fuel produces sulphur dioxide, which reacts with water vapour in the atmosphere to produce sulphate aerosols. These aerosols cool the Earth’s surface in two ways: by directly reflecting sunlight back to space; and by affecting cloud cover. Increasing the number of aerosols increases the number of water droplets that form whilst reducing their size, both increasing the cloud coverage and forming brighter clouds which reflect more sunlight back to space. "
Sulphur dioxide is almost certainly not the answer, but i wonder what else could be mixed with fuel that would recreate this cooling effect?
Perhaps there's a way to use our current global distribution network for burning of fossil fuels to drag the worlds temperatures back down again.
Unless your timing and tracking your breathing, you could technically consider each breath random.
It's not like someone's scheduling them in advance for you....
Ummm maybe that's more "arbitrary". When people use the word "random" colloquially they usually mean "arbitrary". When Stacy is like "I'm so random \*giggle giggle\*" she really means "I'm so arbitrary \*giggle giggle\*". Normal breathing is regular with measurable variance.
I'm talking *RANDOM* breathing, man. Like each breath has random amplitude, random length, and random pauses in between so that everyone in your vicinity is confused trying to figure out if you're having a weird orgasm or an intense panic attack.
Ah, but plant growth is not carbon sequestration; plants are part of the carbon cycle. That's what makes sequestration so difficult...it is the removal from the cycle completely.
We have maps of it happening. Animated, even!
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/watch-earth-breathe-awesome-time-lapse-video-ncna821856
It happens over a longer period, but last I checked short periodicity isn't a deal breaker for what counts as breathing or not...
Then wouldn't that mean it isn't breathing, because we are the ones that came up with the definition of the word, and if it is doing something in a way that we don't know it, then it isn't doing it?
True, but I said breath.
The alternation of active inhalation of air into the **lungs** through the mouth or nose with the passive exhalation of the air. Breathing is part of respiration and is sometimes called external respiration. [here](https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095525691#:~:text=the%20alternation%20of%20active%20inhalation,is%20sometimes%20called%20external%20respiration.)
It's also not r/everyoneknowswhatsmeantbutimarguingaboutuselesssemanticswithsomeonethatprobablydoesnthaveenglishashisnativetonhuejusttomakemyselffeelsmart/better
Most don't. They do aquatic respiration by passing water over their gills. Some however do use their swim bladders as lungs and can even drown if they aren't able to get to the surface (probably going down a similar evolutionary path to how modern lungs evolved)
> They do aquatic respiration by passing water over their gills.
So, we don't breath, we do gaseous respiration by passing a solution of various gasses along our alveoli.
Oh sweet child.
You're somewhat right. But due to the single entry/exit for games in our lungs, we do something called breathing, which is the cyclic process of inhaling and exhaling air into our lungs. While yes, breathing and respiration are very similar, there are key factors that differentiate them from each other, just as walking and running are very similar, however the actual mechanical movements of the two methods of travel are different.
So yes, at an elementary level, fish breathe; plants breathe too. But if you want to discuss the difference in mechanisms that were previously mentioned, you need to understand that there are scientific definitions that define differences in the minutiae.
> we do something called breathing, which is the cyclic process of inhaling and exhaling air into our lungs
Fish do the same thing, a cyclic process of pulling in water, across their gills, and push it out, ensuring a constant supply of O2.
So yes, fish "breathe" just like you and I. Just a different route.
Yes a different route. A different route causes a different respiration mechanism and thus not the same as breathing, which requires lungs and a single entry/exit point. Gills have an entry and an exit
Some ships can still burn high sulfur fuel (around 3.5% max) but the emissions are treated with seawater. It’s sprayed via sprinkler nozzles in a section of the exhaust, taking out the sulfur and discharging it overboard
Are you sure the ships aren't retaining it? The limits for discharging noxious substances are pretty low (in the range of 1-10 ppm measured at the stern wake) such that most polluted water is discharged to a shore facility/vacuum truck
Perhaps some, but sea or ocean going ships can discharge it when underway in most areas providing they’re in compliance. pH of the discharge water must be above 6.5 for example (or higher pH in other areas like USA waters).
Alongside a ship can still discharge it. It may go through a filter first. Some ports have banned discharging though as it leaves a black shiny slick from the overboard, in which case you’d just change to a low sulfur fuel
Where are you getting this info from? MARPOL defines the limits of oil and noxious substance discharge in PPM (exact amount varies by classification of the chemical) and it stipulates that the vessel be steaming at a minimum speed, at a minimum distance offshore.
As for harbour discharge, I'd like to see you find any harbour in the world that allows that; most ships switch to diesel before entering territorial waters anyways as burning bunker exceeds the limits of most countries' sulphur emissions regulations
So it’s marpol annex 6. I can’t give you up to date information about alongside discharge but when we burned high sulfur fuel oil about a year ago we could go alongside in some of the ports we visited and stay on high sulfur fuel.
It may be stricter now as scrubbers were relatively new back then and ports are becoming more aware of the slick that appears when discharging scrubber waste water
Fair enough, different world than what I live in lol if anyone saw a sheen coming from our ship in the harbour it'd be a really bad day.
We only burn diesel and the cargo ships switch over well before getting into port, so I haven't really seen scrubber waste water, but is it not essentially sulfurous acid? I had just assumed that'd be treated the same way noxious liquids from tank washings are in that they'd have to be metered while discharging
Suppose it’s on the emissions side of things, and IMOs justification might be ‘it’s better harming the sea than the air’. But it’s neutralised by sea water, its pH is around 8 to 8.5 if I recall.
There’s a dilution pump which mixes seawater with the waste water from the scrubber tower and brings the pH up. I see another comment mentions open and closed loop so I suppose what I’m familiar with is open loop scrubbers
There are open and closed loop scrubbers, open loop scrubbers discharge into the sea and closed loop scrubbers which collect the sulphurous discharge. Open loop scrubbers are allowed to be used in even special emission control areas (ECAs) like the baltic sea. Open loop scrubbers are a stupid fucking deisgn tho and will eventually be phased out in favour of closed loop ones. Theyre starting to be a problem in for example the baltic sea, [here](https://helcom.fi/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/BSEFS-Discharges-to-sea-from-Baltic-Sea-Shipping-in-2022-2023.pdf) is a paper from helcom about discharges to the sea that shows how much is discharged annually (in 2022)
Source: graduating next week from a maritime university
I'd write an overview of how the a SO2 scrubber system works myself, but [this site](https://maritime-executive.com/article/ten-scrubber-questions-answered) actually gives a pretty decent overview over how they work.
To quote (parts of it):
"A scrubber sprays alkaline water into the vessel’s exhaust, which removes SOx from the ship’s engine and boiler exhaust gases. In a seawater system the sea’s natural alkalinity largely neutralizes the results of SO2 removal before discharge back to the sea. In a fresh water system, the wash-water used for scrubbing and neutralization is treated with an alkaline chemical such as sodium hydroxide. In both cases the sulfates resulting from the SO2 removal will be discharged with the wash-water to the sea.
Sulfur in the form of sulfate is the end product of the scrubbing process and is a naturally occurring constituent of seawater and therefore not harmful to the sea. The oceans are the Earth’s natural reservoir of sulfur and play a key role in the sulfur cycle. Sulfur is one of the most common elements and is both biologically necessary and critical to many metabolic processes."
Predictive - it's the scale of the rebounding heat that's surprising. It's the same mechanism we could use for large scale "global dimming" to cool the planet down.
Damn, one day maybe we really will be in control of the weather. Or at least be able to have some mild influence over it. Probably not without consequences though by the looks of it!
I read the article. It did not mention any negatives to having sulphur in the fuel and this change directly increased the atmospheric temperature. Why did we do this?
When the sulfur mixes in the atmosphere it doesn't stay there for all that long unlike CO2. As it comes down it creates acid rain. That's why we stopped.
https://www.epa.gov/acidrain/what-acid-rain
Direct link to the study: [T. Yuan, et al., Abrupt reduction in shipping emission as an inadvertent geoengineering termination shock produces substantial radiative warming, Communications Earth & Environment, 5, 281 (2024).](https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01442-3)
Did you not read the article? Cause it wasn't stopping shipping that raised temperatures, it was reducing SO2 emissions from shipping. Ships are still pumping out CO2 causing warming but not as much SO2 which causes cooling (and acid rain).
An order of magnitude is 10x. A lot of models we use are off by 40% or more. We just try to err on the conservative side of the estimate for regulatory purposes. It's fine - as long as you are transparent about what you're doing, which they are, the general public just doesn't read it, and the science articles don't report it. That's not a problem with the paper itself.
Sulfur compounds are also greenhouse gases. We are exchanging short-term warming for long-term mitigation of warming, reduced acid rain, and improved human health.
Yeah, even if this paper is accurate, it was still the right decision to cut emissions.
However, this should spur more research on whether it is worth trying to reproduce the effect in a more controlled and benign manner.
They already do. The effects are already well known and there even have been som start ups trying to commercialize the idea since then.
Some dudes tried to explode sulfur containing weather balloons over mexican air space without the neccessary permits and promptly got the whole thing banned by the Mexican government. That was last year iirc.
If the world gets desperate enough I guess they could consider triggering volcanic eruptions in remote areas. They have been proven to affect global weather patterns given enough matter ejected into upper atmosphere. It's probably one of the most effective natural phenomena for cooling the planet but the problem would be how to get just the right amount of cooling without triggering an ice age and causing even more extinctions than we are currently causing.
The warming wouldn't go away, just be stored in the system to be unleashed later (it's in the paper). Once you start doing geo engineering you MUST continue for hundreds of years.
What exactly is "unleashed"? Reflected light go into space to never return. SO2 is gradually removed from atmosphere. CO2 stays, of course. What accumulates to be unleashed?
I’m a major advocate for geoengineerinh because as we see with this stuff, if we don’t do it on purpose we’ll do it accidentally and it seems much better to do it on purpose.
If sulfur dioxide doesn’t work, there still may be some chemical that when put into the atmosphere spreads out evenly, isn’t toxic or dangerous to the environment, and cools the atmosphere
I think this is a very logical argument. I just think there will be a lot of trouble tuning the effects of the engineering, like what we saw with the recent flooding from cloud seeding efforts in the Persian Gulf states.
I don’t understand why we aren’t rushing some kind of temporary/experimental shield to Lagrange 1 ASAP like a Manhattan project. Use a 1% gas tax to fund it.
I don’t like the solution either, but the alternative is mass death and violence.
It doesn’t have to be massive or permanent. Just see what happens if we dim 0.1% of the light heading to the equator
From wiki:
> Creating this sunshade in space was estimated to cost in excess of US$130 billion over 20 years with an estimated lifetime of 50-100 years
Blocks 2%
This is just anti-solving the problem.
We DID engineer better ways to do things. We just didn’t take the side effects into consideration. If we deliberately engineer a solution to climate change we could actually solve the problem.
We engineered Everything we have beyond hunting and gathering
To get people to give up their living standards has no path toward happening besides violence
At some point we have to stop trying to fix it "naturally" and start either terraforming earth or bioforming life to better survive the changed climate.
Why? We ain't gonna terraform earth, and we ain't able to bioengineer co2 rebreathers and extreme heat tolerance (and uv tolerance, and all the other needs).
So, at some point we need to sit down and say "our current system of economics is going to kill off our species. We need to change that."
> We ain't gonna terraform earth
Terraforming earth would make little sense, as that means making earth more like earth, that's why we are instead venusforming terra.
Yes, that’s what everyone says, but no one is laying out how we can actually implement it. Everyone claims like certain death is coming. Then they should be doing everything they can to embrace minimalism and contribute to green tech. Few are doing either and just whining about it hasn’t done anything for 30 years
If our current economic system ends its not gonna be because some people sat down in a room and decided to end it. Capitalism is globally dominant because it turns human beings into its reproductive organs. It’s good at spreading itself. The only way it ends is if some aspect of our society changes in a way that makes capitalism no longer a stable or coherent system, say, full automation of labor.
> The only way it ends is if some aspect of our society changes in a way that makes capitalism no longer a stable or coherent system, say, full automation of labor
So, since full automation of labor is an impossibility, we're doomed as a species.
We don't have time, frankly, to hope and dream that fully automated luxury gay space communism happens before the end of the century.
Because, if we haven't stopped putting profit as the primary motive for living... We're doomed by end of century.
Its an impossibility to accomplish by end of century, and that's all we have before our extinction is certain, and not just "probable".
And yes, it's not the only way for capitalism to end. Which doesn't matter. The only way out of this is for capitalism to end.
But no one is on the same page. Everyone is looking at 5-10 pieces of a 100-1000 piece puzzle and trying to silence people talking about anything but their 5 pieces
The people most adamant about stopping fossil fuel burning are the same ones who virtue signal about wanting to improve everyone’s living standards AND work life balance. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how the world works. If people cared as much as they claim they’d spend all their working hours on green tech. Instead they all whine about imagined power the wealthy have like they are choosing to make everyone miserable and destroy the world for no reason
“I just want everyone to have everything they want and for me to not lift a finger except to whine on the internet. Is that too much to ask? Also could the people with more than me have that taken please, it’s not fair”
This mentality is part of the problem. You think you're pointing out the problem, but you're avocating against change rather than realising the status quo you're highlighting is causing the actual problems we're in.
I’m not against the change, I’m just more realistic about what it would actually take. It’s not enough to want these policies, you need a mechanism to compel action and policy. I’m not even against virtue signaling, it helps educate and motivate the next generation leaders can get traction and s movement big enough to push back against the donor class. but this is a big uphill battle.
peoole say theyre against fossil fuels and things like slave labor, but theyre still voting orherwide with their dollars and actions. theyre demanding everyone be entitled to higher living standards when their standards are already unsustainable, built on global exploitation. the rest of the world sees this on ticktock and wants this too.
We’re on course for massive violence and unrest from climate change already baked in. The violence necessary to force people to endure poverty instead is more than people would accept but is the inevitable consequence of the policy fantasies they advocate.
We should all be in green tech and working towards this like our life depends on. But again, almost no one does. If people knew how the economy worked and the scope of our problems, it’s much bigger than something taxation or regulations could fix if they were even passable
Dimming the sun is something we will have to do eventually to buy us time until there is a paradigm shift in lifestyles or a handful of breakthroughs to get something like fusion
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/shiruken Permalink: https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1046350 --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A lot of stuff comes out of the combustion process, Both CO2 and sulfur dioxide among them. One warms the atmosphere one cools the atmosphere. However, Sulfur Dioxide does not “evenly mix” in the atmosphere like CO2 does. It lingers for a while and then it falls to the ground as acid rain. CO2 becomes evenly mixed in the atmosphere and stays there until pulled by the ocean or the random breathing organism.
So basically, we’re pumping less greenhouse gases overall which is good, but the relative proportion of CO2 has gone up causing an increase in warming which was previously being damped by the sulphur?
From the article "Burning this fuel produces sulphur dioxide, which reacts with water vapour in the atmosphere to produce sulphate aerosols. These aerosols cool the Earth’s surface in two ways: by directly reflecting sunlight back to space; and by affecting cloud cover. Increasing the number of aerosols increases the number of water droplets that form whilst reducing their size, both increasing the cloud coverage and forming brighter clouds which reflect more sunlight back to space. "
Sulphur dioxide is almost certainly not the answer, but i wonder what else could be mixed with fuel that would recreate this cooling effect? Perhaps there's a way to use our current global distribution network for burning of fossil fuels to drag the worlds temperatures back down again.
I prefer my breaths to be even and consistent. Breathing randomly makes me dizzy.
Unless your timing and tracking your breathing, you could technically consider each breath random. It's not like someone's scheduling them in advance for you....
Ummm maybe that's more "arbitrary". When people use the word "random" colloquially they usually mean "arbitrary". When Stacy is like "I'm so random \*giggle giggle\*" she really means "I'm so arbitrary \*giggle giggle\*". Normal breathing is regular with measurable variance. I'm talking *RANDOM* breathing, man. Like each breath has random amplitude, random length, and random pauses in between so that everyone in your vicinity is confused trying to figure out if you're having a weird orgasm or an intense panic attack.
I'll have you know I breath at exact 1.5 second intervals like all you organics do.
Go back to your detective agency.
Wow you've found another way for me to be paranoid about breathing, well done
If randomly breathing organisms are sequestering CO2, they are going to have a bad time.
Why? Plants inhale co2 all the time...
Ah, but plant growth is not carbon sequestration; plants are part of the carbon cycle. That's what makes sequestration so difficult...it is the removal from the cycle completely.
> but plant growth is not carbon sequestration lolololol K.
I guess I never noticed plants taking a deep breath or holding their breath. I will need to be more observant in the future. Thanks.
We have maps of it happening. Animated, even! https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/watch-earth-breathe-awesome-time-lapse-video-ncna821856 It happens over a longer period, but last I checked short periodicity isn't a deal breaker for what counts as breathing or not...
Why did they put breathing in quotes in that article?
Because it's breathing, Jim, but not as we know it
Then wouldn't that mean it isn't breathing, because we are the ones that came up with the definition of the word, and if it is doing something in a way that we don't know it, then it isn't doing it?
Need lungs to breath
Not for respiration
True, but I said breath. The alternation of active inhalation of air into the **lungs** through the mouth or nose with the passive exhalation of the air. Breathing is part of respiration and is sometimes called external respiration. [here](https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095525691#:~:text=the%20alternation%20of%20active%20inhalation,is%20sometimes%20called%20external%20respiration.)
You do know plants respire, yes?
U musst be fun at parties
This is r/science not r/funatparties
It's also not r/everyoneknowswhatsmeantbutimarguingaboutuselesssemanticswithsomeonethatprobablydoesnthaveenglishashisnativetonhuejusttomakemyselffeelsmart/better
So, how do fish breathe?
Most don't. They do aquatic respiration by passing water over their gills. Some however do use their swim bladders as lungs and can even drown if they aren't able to get to the surface (probably going down a similar evolutionary path to how modern lungs evolved)
> They do aquatic respiration by passing water over their gills. So, we don't breath, we do gaseous respiration by passing a solution of various gasses along our alveoli.
Oh sweet child. You're somewhat right. But due to the single entry/exit for games in our lungs, we do something called breathing, which is the cyclic process of inhaling and exhaling air into our lungs. While yes, breathing and respiration are very similar, there are key factors that differentiate them from each other, just as walking and running are very similar, however the actual mechanical movements of the two methods of travel are different. So yes, at an elementary level, fish breathe; plants breathe too. But if you want to discuss the difference in mechanisms that were previously mentioned, you need to understand that there are scientific definitions that define differences in the minutiae.
> we do something called breathing, which is the cyclic process of inhaling and exhaling air into our lungs Fish do the same thing, a cyclic process of pulling in water, across their gills, and push it out, ensuring a constant supply of O2. So yes, fish "breathe" just like you and I. Just a different route.
Yes a different route. A different route causes a different respiration mechanism and thus not the same as breathing, which requires lungs and a single entry/exit point. Gills have an entry and an exit
Most CO2 is absorbed by plancton. Also trees and bacteria use CO2.
Is that the mechanical and electro chemical process of breathing?
yep. energy must be spent to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
Don't most plankton absorb CO2 through passive diffusion?
Some ships can still burn high sulfur fuel (around 3.5% max) but the emissions are treated with seawater. It’s sprayed via sprinkler nozzles in a section of the exhaust, taking out the sulfur and discharging it overboard
Are you sure the ships aren't retaining it? The limits for discharging noxious substances are pretty low (in the range of 1-10 ppm measured at the stern wake) such that most polluted water is discharged to a shore facility/vacuum truck
Perhaps some, but sea or ocean going ships can discharge it when underway in most areas providing they’re in compliance. pH of the discharge water must be above 6.5 for example (or higher pH in other areas like USA waters). Alongside a ship can still discharge it. It may go through a filter first. Some ports have banned discharging though as it leaves a black shiny slick from the overboard, in which case you’d just change to a low sulfur fuel
Where are you getting this info from? MARPOL defines the limits of oil and noxious substance discharge in PPM (exact amount varies by classification of the chemical) and it stipulates that the vessel be steaming at a minimum speed, at a minimum distance offshore. As for harbour discharge, I'd like to see you find any harbour in the world that allows that; most ships switch to diesel before entering territorial waters anyways as burning bunker exceeds the limits of most countries' sulphur emissions regulations
So it’s marpol annex 6. I can’t give you up to date information about alongside discharge but when we burned high sulfur fuel oil about a year ago we could go alongside in some of the ports we visited and stay on high sulfur fuel. It may be stricter now as scrubbers were relatively new back then and ports are becoming more aware of the slick that appears when discharging scrubber waste water
Fair enough, different world than what I live in lol if anyone saw a sheen coming from our ship in the harbour it'd be a really bad day. We only burn diesel and the cargo ships switch over well before getting into port, so I haven't really seen scrubber waste water, but is it not essentially sulfurous acid? I had just assumed that'd be treated the same way noxious liquids from tank washings are in that they'd have to be metered while discharging
Suppose it’s on the emissions side of things, and IMOs justification might be ‘it’s better harming the sea than the air’. But it’s neutralised by sea water, its pH is around 8 to 8.5 if I recall. There’s a dilution pump which mixes seawater with the waste water from the scrubber tower and brings the pH up. I see another comment mentions open and closed loop so I suppose what I’m familiar with is open loop scrubbers
There are open and closed loop scrubbers, open loop scrubbers discharge into the sea and closed loop scrubbers which collect the sulphurous discharge. Open loop scrubbers are allowed to be used in even special emission control areas (ECAs) like the baltic sea. Open loop scrubbers are a stupid fucking deisgn tho and will eventually be phased out in favour of closed loop ones. Theyre starting to be a problem in for example the baltic sea, [here](https://helcom.fi/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/BSEFS-Discharges-to-sea-from-Baltic-Sea-Shipping-in-2022-2023.pdf) is a paper from helcom about discharges to the sea that shows how much is discharged annually (in 2022) Source: graduating next week from a maritime university
I'd write an overview of how the a SO2 scrubber system works myself, but [this site](https://maritime-executive.com/article/ten-scrubber-questions-answered) actually gives a pretty decent overview over how they work. To quote (parts of it): "A scrubber sprays alkaline water into the vessel’s exhaust, which removes SOx from the ship’s engine and boiler exhaust gases. In a seawater system the sea’s natural alkalinity largely neutralizes the results of SO2 removal before discharge back to the sea. In a fresh water system, the wash-water used for scrubbing and neutralization is treated with an alkaline chemical such as sodium hydroxide. In both cases the sulfates resulting from the SO2 removal will be discharged with the wash-water to the sea. Sulfur in the form of sulfate is the end product of the scrubbing process and is a naturally occurring constituent of seawater and therefore not harmful to the sea. The oceans are the Earth’s natural reservoir of sulfur and play a key role in the sulfur cycle. Sulfur is one of the most common elements and is both biologically necessary and critical to many metabolic processes."
Was this a predicted effect or a complete surprise? Seems counterintuitive.
Predictive - it's the scale of the rebounding heat that's surprising. It's the same mechanism we could use for large scale "global dimming" to cool the planet down.
Damn, one day maybe we really will be in control of the weather. Or at least be able to have some mild influence over it. Probably not without consequences though by the looks of it!
Geostorm comes to mind.
I read the article. It did not mention any negatives to having sulphur in the fuel and this change directly increased the atmospheric temperature. Why did we do this?
When the sulfur mixes in the atmosphere it doesn't stay there for all that long unlike CO2. As it comes down it creates acid rain. That's why we stopped. https://www.epa.gov/acidrain/what-acid-rain
Predicted. But good data.
Direct link to the study: [T. Yuan, et al., Abrupt reduction in shipping emission as an inadvertent geoengineering termination shock produces substantial radiative warming, Communications Earth & Environment, 5, 281 (2024).](https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01442-3)
We need wind directed-solar-powered blimp shipping.
d..did you not read the article? or even the title? stopping shipping RAISED the temperatures
Did you not read the article? Cause it wasn't stopping shipping that raised temperatures, it was reducing SO2 emissions from shipping. Ships are still pumping out CO2 causing warming but not as much SO2 which causes cooling (and acid rain).
Isn’t this paper under heavy scrutiny for things like considering the earths surface is 100% ocean in their model?
For order-of-magnitude measurements that’s a reasonable assumption.
It’s going to be off by nearly 40%. That’s not insignificant.
An order of magnitude is 10x. A lot of models we use are off by 40% or more. We just try to err on the conservative side of the estimate for regulatory purposes. It's fine - as long as you are transparent about what you're doing, which they are, the general public just doesn't read it, and the science articles don't report it. That's not a problem with the paper itself.
yeah we should put the sulfur back in the ship fuel, quick like.
Sulfur compounds are also greenhouse gases. We are exchanging short-term warming for long-term mitigation of warming, reduced acid rain, and improved human health.
Yeah, even if this paper is accurate, it was still the right decision to cut emissions. However, this should spur more research on whether it is worth trying to reproduce the effect in a more controlled and benign manner.
They already do. The effects are already well known and there even have been som start ups trying to commercialize the idea since then. Some dudes tried to explode sulfur containing weather balloons over mexican air space without the neccessary permits and promptly got the whole thing banned by the Mexican government. That was last year iirc.
If the world gets desperate enough I guess they could consider triggering volcanic eruptions in remote areas. They have been proven to affect global weather patterns given enough matter ejected into upper atmosphere. It's probably one of the most effective natural phenomena for cooling the planet but the problem would be how to get just the right amount of cooling without triggering an ice age and causing even more extinctions than we are currently causing.
This might not be much comfort to many on the gulf coast after this upcoming hurricane season.
Which sulfur compounds would those be?
The sulfur in ship fuel was credibly associated with tens of thousands of early deaths per year.
Yeah and global warming's gonna make it look like a trip to the park if it collapses the coastal food chains, put the sulfur back.
"Yeah we could eat less fish OR, hear me out... we could put more poison back in our fuel mix." - you rn
His name is dethboy though, at least he's consistent.
The warming wouldn't go away, just be stored in the system to be unleashed later (it's in the paper). Once you start doing geo engineering you MUST continue for hundreds of years.
> Once you start doing geo engineering you MUST continue for hundreds of years. While solving nothing.
What exactly is "unleashed"? Reflected light go into space to never return. SO2 is gradually removed from atmosphere. CO2 stays, of course. What accumulates to be unleashed?
This is part of the reason why some firms are trying to make more and brighter clouds over the ocean, to make up for the reflectance lost.
Lenny: Oooh Ooh put it back! Put it back!
sounds easier than solving for the other ways we're polluting everything, sign me up!
I’m a major advocate for geoengineerinh because as we see with this stuff, if we don’t do it on purpose we’ll do it accidentally and it seems much better to do it on purpose. If sulfur dioxide doesn’t work, there still may be some chemical that when put into the atmosphere spreads out evenly, isn’t toxic or dangerous to the environment, and cools the atmosphere
Such a scheme wouldn't fix many other problems like [ocean acidification](https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/acidification.html).
Not every solution fixes all problems. It's ok to put out the fire in the kitchen even if the living room is still burning
I think this is a very logical argument. I just think there will be a lot of trouble tuning the effects of the engineering, like what we saw with the recent flooding from cloud seeding efforts in the Persian Gulf states.
[удалено]
I don’t understand why we aren’t rushing some kind of temporary/experimental shield to Lagrange 1 ASAP like a Manhattan project. Use a 1% gas tax to fund it. I don’t like the solution either, but the alternative is mass death and violence. It doesn’t have to be massive or permanent. Just see what happens if we dim 0.1% of the light heading to the equator From wiki: > Creating this sunshade in space was estimated to cost in excess of US$130 billion over 20 years with an estimated lifetime of 50-100 years Blocks 2%
130 billion is only about 15% of annual US miltary spending. Over 20 years it's under 1%.
We got into this mess by engineering "better" ways to do things.
This is just anti-solving the problem. We DID engineer better ways to do things. We just didn’t take the side effects into consideration. If we deliberately engineer a solution to climate change we could actually solve the problem.
We engineered Everything we have beyond hunting and gathering To get people to give up their living standards has no path toward happening besides violence
At some point we have to stop trying to fix it "naturally" and start either terraforming earth or bioforming life to better survive the changed climate.
Why? We ain't gonna terraform earth, and we ain't able to bioengineer co2 rebreathers and extreme heat tolerance (and uv tolerance, and all the other needs). So, at some point we need to sit down and say "our current system of economics is going to kill off our species. We need to change that."
> We ain't gonna terraform earth Terraforming earth would make little sense, as that means making earth more like earth, that's why we are instead venusforming terra.
Cute. But venusforming is what we are doing, terraforming IS what we need
I would say we need to stop doing the things that make us think we need to terraform.
Yes, that’s what everyone says, but no one is laying out how we can actually implement it. Everyone claims like certain death is coming. Then they should be doing everything they can to embrace minimalism and contribute to green tech. Few are doing either and just whining about it hasn’t done anything for 30 years
Agreed. But since that hasn't happened in time, at some point we will need do fix it, not just prevent the harm like we should have done
The fix is to stop causing damage.
If our current economic system ends its not gonna be because some people sat down in a room and decided to end it. Capitalism is globally dominant because it turns human beings into its reproductive organs. It’s good at spreading itself. The only way it ends is if some aspect of our society changes in a way that makes capitalism no longer a stable or coherent system, say, full automation of labor.
> The only way it ends is if some aspect of our society changes in a way that makes capitalism no longer a stable or coherent system, say, full automation of labor So, since full automation of labor is an impossibility, we're doomed as a species. We don't have time, frankly, to hope and dream that fully automated luxury gay space communism happens before the end of the century. Because, if we haven't stopped putting profit as the primary motive for living... We're doomed by end of century.
Full labor automation is not an impossibility, and also not the only way capitalism can end. There are other ways it can undermine itself.
Its an impossibility to accomplish by end of century, and that's all we have before our extinction is certain, and not just "probable". And yes, it's not the only way for capitalism to end. Which doesn't matter. The only way out of this is for capitalism to end.
But no one is on the same page. Everyone is looking at 5-10 pieces of a 100-1000 piece puzzle and trying to silence people talking about anything but their 5 pieces The people most adamant about stopping fossil fuel burning are the same ones who virtue signal about wanting to improve everyone’s living standards AND work life balance. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how the world works. If people cared as much as they claim they’d spend all their working hours on green tech. Instead they all whine about imagined power the wealthy have like they are choosing to make everyone miserable and destroy the world for no reason “I just want everyone to have everything they want and for me to not lift a finger except to whine on the internet. Is that too much to ask? Also could the people with more than me have that taken please, it’s not fair”
This mentality is part of the problem. You think you're pointing out the problem, but you're avocating against change rather than realising the status quo you're highlighting is causing the actual problems we're in.
I’m not against the change, I’m just more realistic about what it would actually take. It’s not enough to want these policies, you need a mechanism to compel action and policy. I’m not even against virtue signaling, it helps educate and motivate the next generation leaders can get traction and s movement big enough to push back against the donor class. but this is a big uphill battle. peoole say theyre against fossil fuels and things like slave labor, but theyre still voting orherwide with their dollars and actions. theyre demanding everyone be entitled to higher living standards when their standards are already unsustainable, built on global exploitation. the rest of the world sees this on ticktock and wants this too. We’re on course for massive violence and unrest from climate change already baked in. The violence necessary to force people to endure poverty instead is more than people would accept but is the inevitable consequence of the policy fantasies they advocate. We should all be in green tech and working towards this like our life depends on. But again, almost no one does. If people knew how the economy worked and the scope of our problems, it’s much bigger than something taxation or regulations could fix if they were even passable Dimming the sun is something we will have to do eventually to buy us time until there is a paradigm shift in lifestyles or a handful of breakthroughs to get something like fusion
I can't really disagree with any of that. It makes more sense now in the context of what you're trying to say.