Reducing aerosols might paradoxically increase global temperature
1–5 of 5 posts
Re: Reducing aerosols might paradoxically increase global temperature
#2I thought this was well understood? "Stratospheric aerosol injection", aka deliberately hurling sulphur into the upper atmosphere, is a know proposition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injectio...
It has a ring of "what could possibly go wrong?" about it. Doesn't mean it wouldn't work though.
Re: Reducing aerosols might paradoxically increase global temperature
#3This paper shows the opposite, though:
"Here we show that more realistic modelling scenarios do not produce a substantial near-term increase in either the magnitude or the rate of warming, and in fact can lead to a decrease in warming rates within two decades of the start of the fossil-fuel phase-out."
Re: Reducing aerosols might paradoxically increase global temperature
#4This paper shows the opposite, though: "Here we show that more realistic modelling scenarios do not produce a substantial near-term increase in either the magnitude or the rate of warming, and in fact can lead to a decrease in warming rates within two decades of the start of the fossil-fuel phase-out."
This.
The HN title is editorialized to the point of stating nearly the opposite of the paper's conclusions.
Re: Reducing aerosols might paradoxically increase global temperature
#5I thought this was well understood? "Stratospheric aerosol injection", aka deliberately hurling sulphur into the upper atmosphere, is a know proposition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injectio... It has a ring of "what could possibly go wrong?" about it. Doesn't mean it wouldn't work though.
Yeah, That's what I have been taught as well. Though the direct effect is very small and it's not part of many geoengineering plans because it is not great for us anyway. And you would also need to take into account the carbon footprint of manufacturing said aerosols.