Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth

Cut In Ship Pollution Sparked Global Heating Spurt 121

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: The slashing of pollution from shipping in 2020 led to a big "termination shock" that is estimated have pushed the rate of global heating to double the long-term average, according to research. Until 2020, global shipping used dirty, high-sulphur fuels that produced air pollution. The pollution particles blocked sunlight and helped form more clouds, thereby curbing global heating. But new regulations at the start of 2020 slashed the sulphur content of fuels by more than 80%. The new analysis calculates that the subsequent drop in pollution particles has significantly increased the amount of heat being trapped at the Earth's surface that drives the climate crisis. The researchers said the sharp ending of decades of shipping pollution was an inadvertent geoengineering experiment, revealing new information about its effectiveness and risks.

Dr Tianle Yuan, at the University of Maryland, US, who led the study, said the estimated 0.2 watts per sq meter of additional heat trapped over the oceans after the pollution cut was "a big number, and it happened in one year, so it's a big shock to the system." "We will experience about double the warming rate compared to the long-term average" since 1880 as a result, he said. The heating effect of the pollution cut is expected to last about seven years. The research, published in the journal Communications Earth & Environment, combined satellite observations of sulphur pollution and computer modeling to calculate the impact of the cut. It found the short-term shock was equivalent to 80% of the total extra heating the planet has seen since 2020 from longer-term factors such as rising fossil-fuel emissions.

The scientists used relatively simple climate models to estimate how much this would drive up average global temperatures at the surface of the Earth, finding a rise of about 0.16C over seven years. This is a large rise and the same margin by which 2023 beat the temperature record compared with the previous hottest year. However, other scientists think the temperature impact of the pollution cut will be significantly lower due to feedbacks in the climate system, which are included in the most sophisticated climate models. The results of this type of analysis are expected later in 2024. [...] The new analysis indicates that this type of geoengineering would reduce temperatures, but would also bring serious risks. These include the sharp temperature rise when the pumping of aerosols stopped -- the termination shock -- and also potential changes to global precipitation patterns, which could disrupt the monsoon rains that billions of people depend on.
"We should definitely do research on this, because it's a tool for situations where we really want to cool down the Earth temporarily," like an emergency brake, said Dr Gavin Schmidt, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "But this is not going to be a long-term solution, because it doesn't address the root cause of global warming," which is emissions from fossil fuel burning.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cut In Ship Pollution Sparked Global Heating Spurt

Comments Filter:
  • by nikkipolya ( 718326 ) on Thursday May 30, 2024 @10:39PM (#64512165)
    • Sniff the cork . . .
  • by thesjaakspoiler ( 4782965 ) on Thursday May 30, 2024 @11:09PM (#64512197)

    Because some lunatic government is going to try some stupid geo-engineering trick with the atmosphere

  • by physicsphairy ( 720718 ) on Friday May 31, 2024 @12:24AM (#64512251)

    The cooling you get from sulfur dioxide is ~10^6 the warming you get from carbon dioxide. I.e., releasing 1 pound of SO2 into the atmosphere can offset a million pounds of CO2.

    The reason for restricting it in exhaust emissions is that it can combine with atmospheric water to produce acid rain.

    But if you release it into the stratosphere instead of the troposphere, that ceases to be much of a problem. And you get even better cooling effects.

    • by crioca ( 1394491 ) on Friday May 31, 2024 @02:42AM (#64512399)
      It's really not. It's not like the cooling effects of molecules like sulfur dioxide et al haven't been studied after all....

      The average atmospheric lifetime of sulfur dioxide is about 10 days.

      The average atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide is at least several centuries, probably a lot longer. It's not actually that well understood because of the way the ocean is constantly absorbing (and releasing) atmospheric CO2. Ocean acidification, by the way, also a big deal.

      If sulfur dioxide, or any readily available molecule for that matter, could feasibly be released into the atmosphere to reverse warming without risking even more adverse consequences, then the scientific community wouldn't be jumping up and down about how big a fucking problem anthropogenic global warming actually is.

    • however if a base aerosol is used instead, we can then not only block some of the sunlight but also reduce ocean acidity, which we have increased because oceans absorb near half of the CO2 we create.

    • So instead of compelling ocean shipping companies to /stop/ using high-sulfur fuels, we should instead be compelling every ship to float a schnorkel exhaust tube to a blimp running at 50,000m ?

      Honestly that sounds like a far more fun engineering challenge. :)

    • The cooling you get from sulfur dioxide is ~10^6 the warming you get from carbon dioxide

      Very interesting. Intuitively, a layperson with superficial knowledge such as me would think that while it would produce some amount sulfurous acid (not sulfuric, quite a difference), given the small amounts, even compared to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (~~0.3%?) would not that be the lesser of two evils? apparently not, but the details would make very interesting reading indeed.

    • Do you really believe that sulfur will stay in the stratosphere and not eventually drift down and cause acid rain?
  • So we get lower sulphur pollution at the cost of some extra global warming...

  • by devslash0 ( 4203435 ) on Friday May 31, 2024 @02:43AM (#64512401)

    Just shows how fragile and unpredictable the planet ecosystem is. Like in any complex system, changes should be introduced gradually, observed and adjusted along the way. Meanwhile, we're going all in on a relative revolution. No wonder we're seeing unexpected results.

    • What is unexpected about banning high sulfur fuels resulting in less sulfur emissions, or about less sulfur emissions decreasing the Earth's albedo? As for gradually introducing changes, maybe we should have thought about that before doubling the CO2 levels during the industrial revolution, or before deciding to continually increase the rate at which we're pumping it into the atmosphere even now.

    • by sinij ( 911942 )

      Just shows how fragile and unpredictable the planet ecosystem is.

      It is not. The geological record has sufficient evidence to disprove this assertion.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      What are you talking about? There is no status quo.
      20000 years ago, mile thick glaciers covered most of Canada, Northern US, and parts of Europe. Earth is still warming up naturally from that ice age, one of dozens of ice ages the planet has experienced in the past few million years. For most of the time that complex life has existed, the planet has been warmer than today.

      40MYA Antarctica was ice free. Even in historic times there were natural climate disruptions: 'The little ice age" during mideval tim

      • The status quo is for climate to change.

        The status quo for climate is slow change.

        When we have fast change-- the Chicxulub impact event, for example-- results can be catastrophic.

    • Just shows how fragile and unpredictable the planet ecosystem is. Like in any complex system, changes should be introduced gradually, observed and adjusted along the way. Meanwhile, we're going all in on a relative revolution. No wonder we're seeing unexpected results.

      And these proposed "fixes" have an interesting side effect - they allow and even encourage using the filthiest petrochemicals without restraint - and allow the petrochemical people to brag about how they are saving the planet, who cares about CO2 and Methane? We just inject some more sulfur into the air, so there is no problem.

      Well, other than thousands of years of acid rain, killing off marine and riverine life, destroying buildings and infrastructure and forests, and harming humans and wildlife.

      And s

  • Just highlights the need for technological solutions. And the hubris ship has obviously already sailed (pun intended), so don't let that stop you.

    We aren't going to de-industrialize, no matter how much some people emote about it, so we'd better find cooling mechanisms ... perhaps like this one.

    • Just highlights the need for technological solutions. And the hubris ship has obviously already sailed (pun intended), so don't let that stop you.

      We aren't going to de-industrialize, no matter how much some people emote about it, so we'd better find cooling mechanisms ... perhaps like this one.

      Well, as long as we don't mind making things worse.

      The good news is that the oil industry will be incentivised to remove all pollution requirements, and thye price of high sulfur petroleum will skyrocket. Bituminous coal will suddenly be in high demand, as we enable the "cure" and help out the worst polluters at the same time.

      And do it for thousands of years, all the time injecting more Carbon. The Carbon cycle is quite long, the aerosol cycle is measure in days.

      Is this petroleum and coal stuff go

  • Isn't there an additive you could add that does this but in a more "green" way? Assuming sulfur is really that bad.

  • Correlation does not equal causation.
  • Let's cut a few degrees of the thermostat
  • It is my considered opinion that climate, and the weather it creates, is a very complicated process, a very very very complicated process, and anyone who claims they can tell you what will happen in 50 years is full of shit.

    • by cpurdy ( 4838085 )
      Ignorance is not a badge worn without great pride, I see.

      It's quite amazing what we can do with observations, analysis, and math. Let's restate your supposition, but put it back into the 1960s:

      It is my considered opinion that flying, and the danger it entails, is a very complicated process, a very very very complicated process, and anyone who claims they can tell you how to get to the moon sometime in the next 50 years is full of shit.

      Thankfully, we have people who learn things. We call this "edjumicat

  • So let me see if I get this straight. Decreasing pollution increase "global warning" and increasing pollution causes "global warming." Sounds like people just want to scream "global warning" or "global climate change" and they will pick ANY change to claim the sky is falling down. This is disgusting. But it at least it shows the fraud and intention of much of the business, political and science communities to make big bucks off of an unsolvable, and possibly nonexistent, crisis. Not a good look if you ask m

Life is a whim of several billion cells to be you for a while.

Working...