Thank you, Quico. You are doing a wonderful job bringing reason and a pragmatic approach to an area currently dominated by emotional tribalism. What I would really like to see is a detailed post on how to accomplish stratospheric aerosol injection (can I call it SAI?) and what the practical concerns about it are. Also, what makes something an aerosol versus something that's not. Is it just size? Isn't the question of what is aerosolized important too?
You say you don't think this solution is politically viable, but I wouldn't be so sure about that. If the science is good I think it could sell. The people who are saying "Drill, baby Drill" aren't saying they want hotter weather and more hurricanes. They just don't want to suffer economically for a fix. And they to see that many of the climate doomers have an alternate agenda, as you pointed out. If we could get scientific consensus that SAI would work with less negative effects than continuing on our current path I think we could get enough of a consensus to begin trials and measure the results. Marine cloud brightening sounds more problematic and less understood.
Thanks for another enlightening article, Quico. Since it’s not remotely possible to dramatically curtail fossil fuel consumption in the near (or even medium) term, we better figure out a way to replace the dirty aerosols we’re removing with safe alternatives. But, as you’ve alluded to here and in other writing, the climate-activist industrial complex seems as opposed to that type of intervention as they are to more (zero carbon) nuclear power. It’s almost like their real concern is de-growth and retarding capitalism, rather than solutions that ameliorate global warming. But we all know that can’t be true. ;-)
As you acknowledge in your last sentence, their real interest absolutely IS de-growth and retarding capitalism — and, in doing so, destroying human welfare. But rather than being tongue-in-cheek about calling out the true motivations of the environmental evangelicals, I think it’s urgent that their dystopian recipe be combatted aggressively in the public square.
Quico, I have been following your writing on the impact of aerosols for some time now, it has been extremely illuminating. Of course, there are still a lot of unknowns, but the evidence is accumulating fast. Thinking in the context of potential geoengineering solutions, it appears that as we make various fuels cleaner (like the recent changes to ship fuel standards that reduced suplhur oxide levels), aerosol levels are reduced and there's less atmospheric cooling. Has there been any research on adding some compounds to fuels that will (1) be safe for environment; (2) act as reflectors of sunlight and thus contribute to global cooling? This could be an alternative to spraying salt crystals etc that requires large additional investment and effort.
I haven't heard of anything like this, no idea if it's technically viable.
But, in a way, I think technical viability is far less of a problem than cultural acceptability and political feasibility. We're not short of technically viable proposals. We could start stratospheric aerosol injection within a year or two if we really wanted to — all the technology exists already. (Marine clouds would take a bit longer, but also isn't *that* mysterious.)
The bottleneck isn't technically viable proposals. The bottleneck is social acceptability. These ideas freak people out in a deep way.
Thank you, Quico. You are doing a wonderful job bringing reason and a pragmatic approach to an area currently dominated by emotional tribalism. What I would really like to see is a detailed post on how to accomplish stratospheric aerosol injection (can I call it SAI?) and what the practical concerns about it are. Also, what makes something an aerosol versus something that's not. Is it just size? Isn't the question of what is aerosolized important too?
You say you don't think this solution is politically viable, but I wouldn't be so sure about that. If the science is good I think it could sell. The people who are saying "Drill, baby Drill" aren't saying they want hotter weather and more hurricanes. They just don't want to suffer economically for a fix. And they to see that many of the climate doomers have an alternate agenda, as you pointed out. If we could get scientific consensus that SAI would work with less negative effects than continuing on our current path I think we could get enough of a consensus to begin trials and measure the results. Marine cloud brightening sounds more problematic and less understood.
Thanks for another enlightening article, Quico. Since it’s not remotely possible to dramatically curtail fossil fuel consumption in the near (or even medium) term, we better figure out a way to replace the dirty aerosols we’re removing with safe alternatives. But, as you’ve alluded to here and in other writing, the climate-activist industrial complex seems as opposed to that type of intervention as they are to more (zero carbon) nuclear power. It’s almost like their real concern is de-growth and retarding capitalism, rather than solutions that ameliorate global warming. But we all know that can’t be true. ;-)
As you acknowledge in your last sentence, their real interest absolutely IS de-growth and retarding capitalism — and, in doing so, destroying human welfare. But rather than being tongue-in-cheek about calling out the true motivations of the environmental evangelicals, I think it’s urgent that their dystopian recipe be combatted aggressively in the public square.
I applaud Quico for his role in this effort.
Quico, I have been following your writing on the impact of aerosols for some time now, it has been extremely illuminating. Of course, there are still a lot of unknowns, but the evidence is accumulating fast. Thinking in the context of potential geoengineering solutions, it appears that as we make various fuels cleaner (like the recent changes to ship fuel standards that reduced suplhur oxide levels), aerosol levels are reduced and there's less atmospheric cooling. Has there been any research on adding some compounds to fuels that will (1) be safe for environment; (2) act as reflectors of sunlight and thus contribute to global cooling? This could be an alternative to spraying salt crystals etc that requires large additional investment and effort.
Thanks!
I haven't heard of anything like this, no idea if it's technically viable.
But, in a way, I think technical viability is far less of a problem than cultural acceptability and political feasibility. We're not short of technically viable proposals. We could start stratospheric aerosol injection within a year or two if we really wanted to — all the technology exists already. (Marine clouds would take a bit longer, but also isn't *that* mysterious.)
The bottleneck isn't technically viable proposals. The bottleneck is social acceptability. These ideas freak people out in a deep way.
Quico, very, very helpful, thank you!
And a small suggestion: instead of "idiotically", how about "ignorantly"?
"Not with toxic chemicals like we idiotically used to do, back when we were doing this by accident..."
Thank you Ken. Very useful.