An Unintended Test of Geoengineering is Fueling Record Ocean Warmth (science.org) 62
Researchers are now waking up to another factor why so many places on earth are getting warmer, one that could be filed under the category of unintended consequences: disappearing clouds known as ship tracks. From a report: Regulations imposed in 2020 by the United Nations's International Maritime Organization (IMO) have cut ships' sulfur pollution by more than 80% and improved air quality worldwide. The reduction has also lessened the effect of sulfate particles in seeding and brightening the distinctive low-lying, reflective clouds that follow in the wake of ships and help cool the planet. The 2020 IMO rule "is a big natural experiment," says Duncan Watson-Parris, an atmospheric physicist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. "We're changing the clouds."
By dramatically reducing the number of ship tracks, the planet has warmed up faster, several new studies have found. That trend is magnified in the Atlantic, where maritime traffic is particularly dense. In the shipping corridors, the increased light represents a 50% boost to the warming effect of human carbon emissions. It's as if the world suddenly lost the cooling effect from a fairly large volcanic eruption each year, says Michael Diamond, an atmospheric scientist at Florida State University. The natural experiment created by the IMO rules is providing a rare opportunity for climate scientists to study a geoengineering scheme in action -- although it is one that is working in the wrong direction. Indeed, one such strategy to slow global warming, called marine cloud brightening, would see ships inject salt particles back into the air, to make clouds more reflective. In Diamond's view, the dramatic decline in ship tracks is clear evidence that humanity could cool off the planet significantly by brightening the clouds. "It suggests pretty strongly that if you wanted to do it on purpose, you could," he says.
By dramatically reducing the number of ship tracks, the planet has warmed up faster, several new studies have found. That trend is magnified in the Atlantic, where maritime traffic is particularly dense. In the shipping corridors, the increased light represents a 50% boost to the warming effect of human carbon emissions. It's as if the world suddenly lost the cooling effect from a fairly large volcanic eruption each year, says Michael Diamond, an atmospheric scientist at Florida State University. The natural experiment created by the IMO rules is providing a rare opportunity for climate scientists to study a geoengineering scheme in action -- although it is one that is working in the wrong direction. Indeed, one such strategy to slow global warming, called marine cloud brightening, would see ships inject salt particles back into the air, to make clouds more reflective. In Diamond's view, the dramatic decline in ship tracks is clear evidence that humanity could cool off the planet significantly by brightening the clouds. "It suggests pretty strongly that if you wanted to do it on purpose, you could," he says.
Interesting subject, but not much new (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting subject, but I don't think that there's anything new since the last time Slashdot did the story, last week: https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
Re:Interesting subject, but not much new (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting subject, but I don't think that there's anything new since the last time Slashdot did the story, last week: https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
Each Dupe heats the Earth by .02 degrees.
Re: (Score:1)
And each complaint about dupes heats Earth by 0.01 degrees, but trigger complaints about inaccurate heating computations which then also generate heat. It's baking turtles all the way down...
Re:Interesting subject, but not much new (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps Slashdot is posting dupes in the hope that a chilling effect on their readership might help with climate change?
Re:Interesting subject, but not much new (Score:4, Funny)
I've been eating as much eggs, meat, and cauliflower as I possible can to increase my personal sulfur output.
Shouldn't be unforeseen (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's already known that particulate pollution in the atmosphere reduces warming.
Why do I have a feeling all of the "ship tracks" combined likely account for something along the lines of two tenths of a microshit of a representation of the entire cloud-blocking atmosphere?
Oh, and also, why do I have a feeling all of these "studies" proving why we need those old polluting ships back, are paid for by those who will profit the most from it?
Why would this be surprising?
it's not. It's only surprising when people don't start asking the obvious.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do I have a feeling all of the "ship tracks" combined likely account for something along the lines of two tenths of a microshit of a representation of the entire cloud-blocking atmosphere?
In a general sense I tend to share your skepticism, but in this case I think it's misplaced. I found TFA - and especially the photo of ship tracks - pretty convincing.
What the article says makes sense. Now all we need to do is start seeding the sky with salt water. Perhaps those ships could be retrofitted with equipment to spray seawater high into the air. That would increase CO2 emissions, but I'm guessing the net effect on warming would still be in the right direction. Plus, this may point the way to land
Re: (Score:1)
That would increase CO2 emissions, but I'm guessing the net effect on warming would still be in the right direction. Plus, this may point the way to land-based installations - perhaps even powered by solar and/or wind - that could create clouds to reduce warming.
I'm not "guessing" here. I'm confident that greedy humans in leadership positions will do and say anything to protect profits, or secure more. It's all right there in History 101. The real question is why are we still guessing and not auditing the auditors due to the obvious motivation to lie through their teeth. Also from TFA:
Another influence has been recent weather, especially stalled high-pressure systems that suppress cloud formation and allow the oceans to bake in the Sun.
We really gonna piss away billions/trillions of taxpayer dollars enriching the next set of Al Gores and Greta Thunbergs, only to find out via actual undiluted uninfluenced studies
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Shouldn't be unforeseen (Score:4, Informative)
why do I have a feeling all of these "studies" proving why we need those old polluting ships back, are paid for by those who will profit
That is called a prejudice. You are predisposed to think studies on a topic and/or its result reporting is conducted in bad faith, for some reason. That isn't impossible. There have been poorly-conducted studies in the past where a researcher bias influenced experiment results, and the researcher's knowledge of the sponsorship might have influenced what they wrote, BUT jumping to the conclusion that a study was done in bad faith or results were corrupted, or the experiments tampered with requires evidence.
Of course organizations who stand to profit from the result merely sponsoring studies isn't enough to discredit study results either.. Plenty of companies would gladly pay for research on topics in order to cause basic research to happen If they are convinced that it would be beneficial for their business for the true facts to be known. An example would be when Cell phone companies face baseless worries from people that cell phones might cause cancer -- If cell phone sales suffer, and the companies are convinced their products are actually safe, then it's a reasonable course for them to encourage research in that area by offering grants or bounties to researchers to look into that topic. Once grant is made grant is made, and it doesn't indicate that the research funds are conditional based on what the outcome of the studies will be (supportive or not), But known Safety is great for business, clears up liability, and known danger can be mitigated and addressed - Help understand what it is and explain to customers how they can be safe -- unknown danger or uncertainty is quite bad for business.
Re: (Score:1)
why do I have a feeling all of these "studies" proving why we need those old polluting ships back, are paid for by those who will profit
That is called a prejudice. You are predisposed to think studies on a topic and/or its result reporting is conducted in bad faith, for some reason.
For some reason? Grow up and stop assuming we're children here. It's quite obvious why you, I or anyone with half a brain would question damn near every "study" that comes out today wanting to point THE finger at THE problem with the weather. Why? Human behavior for thousands of years. Not a damn thing has changed with greed and corruption since we invented it. Nothing.
...Plenty of companies would gladly pay for research on topics in order to cause basic research to happen If they are convinced that it would be beneficial for their business for the true facts to be known.
Well that's the childrens story-time version of that, sure. Reality and history says plenty of companies can and have paid to "cause"
Re: (Score:2)
For some reason? Grow up and stop assuming we're children here.
Now you're projecting.
It's quite obvious why you, I or anyone with half a brain would question damn near every "study" that comes out
It's more likely you simply didn't like the result, and everything else is an excuse, because you don't find an issue with the research, you would rather baselessly accuse teams of falsifying data. For some reason you want to hold researchers to some standard to which you don't hold to yourself when analyzin
Re: (Score:1)
Assuming corruption with no evidence about a corrupted study or bad character of scientists is just as incorrect as the wrong you claim that researchers made.
I would have agreed with you. Before selling clickbait became a valid for-profit strategy, and Too Big To Fail defined how the most corrupt, deal with losses.
I'm not assuming. I'm demanding a hell of a lot more proof before the clickbait audience blindly believes a study. After 50 years of questionable evidence, people still spend millions for the "benefits" of fish oil in smelly capsules. It ain't hard to herd the masses down any for-profit path if you sell it right. Just ask PT Barnum.
As far as the r
Re: (Score:2)
After 50 years of questionable evidence, people still spend millions for the "benefits" of fish oil in smelly capsules
This outcome doesn't have to do with the validity of studies; the studies are not inconsistent with benefits but can't conclusively show benefits. The issue there is peoples' acceptance of unrealistic interpretations of what researchers published -- A study, no matter how good it is, can have the meaning of its results presented in a warped manner for marketing purposes.
Studies about the
Re: (Score:2)
After 50 years of questionable evidence, people still spend millions for the "benefits" of fish oil in smelly capsules
This outcome doesn't have to do with the validity of studies
It wasn't validating "studies". It was proving how gullible the audience paying for it can be with but one or two bad studies, which is the entire reason you question with further repeatable evidence, preferably via another party not under the same corporate umbrella, while also following the money. That's how the game should be played today to combat the growing problem of clickbait selling bullshit studies a bit too easily. The Boy has cried Bullshit in the name of Profit far too long to enable the lux
Re: (Score:2)
two tenths of a microshit
Bravo!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and also, why do I have a feeling all of these "studies" proving why we need those old polluting ships back,
Same here.
They are just fighting against the obvious solution [youtube.com].
Re: Shouldn't be unforeseen (Score:2)
Oh, and also, why do I have a feeling all of these "studies" proving why we need those old polluting ships back, are paid for by those who will profit the most from it?
No ships were removed. The change was about the fuel used by the ships.
And the study wasn't about discovering that sulphur dioxide seeds clouds. It was about the scale at which they have done by the ship traffic.
Finally, I have not seen any serious proposal on starting to increase sulphur emissions. Rather, we can do it by much safer means, like by spraying seawater mist into the air, and not only that, we can be much more selective on the locations where that is done. So if the salt seeding the clouds most
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
https://earthobservatory.nasa.... [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
It's already known that particulate pollution in the atmosphere reduces warming. Why would this be surprising?
In other words... Cleaner air and/or less cloudy atmosphere lets more sunlight through. Film at 11.
And before people start advocating for way more air pollution and/or more clouds, let me just say "Venus."
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but the impact hadn't been quite quantified yet. James Hansen (et al) has a pre-print paper in the works : https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.044... [arxiv.org] (section 5.6)
> Decline of aerosol emissions since 2010 should increase the 1970-2010 global warming rate of 0.18C per decade to a post-2010 rate of at least 0.27C per decade.
If correct (not that big an if, unfortunately), that means that the 1.5C goal is failed. And it changes the IPCC "business as usual" scenarios considerably.
Re: (Score:2)
We've blown through every single date proposed. Pretending otherwise is....the plan apparently.
Re: (Score:2)
It's already known that particulate pollution in the atmosphere reduces warming. Why would this be surprising?
It's not surprising per se. It is, however, an experimental measurement, and experimental measurements are critical in verifying models. We know (approximately) how much aerosols were produced, and where they were inserted into the atmosphere; we have satellite measurements of the cloud albedo, so we have decent measurements of the input parameters.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the type of pollution; the CO2 turns us into Venus (hot as hell due to CO2) while the short-lived particles reflect some heat and cause other environmental problems; which is why there is a move to phase them out.
What the article suggests is a greener particle like a salt gets pumped into the air. The trick is finding the best particle to use and then how to get the boats to do it.... perhaps a fuel additive? maybe just pay a subsidy for that kind of fuel?
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that ships have been sailing the oceans for almost a thousand years, and the bulk of that time had no meaningful regulations, then it doesn't take a scientist to recognize that they may have been geoengineering global climate models for all of this time!
After all, maritime industry has been known to be a major factor in climate chang
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What (Score:5, Interesting)
The way I have hears this described is that the sulphur caused a short term cooling effects that in effect was masking the long term warming effect co2 has been causing, that was off hand so it may actually play out differently. I think this will be an interesting field of study over the next year or two so the exact mechanism and effect will become clearer.
That said I think this is a very interesting and important phenomenon for two reasons:
1. It shows that human activity is in fact able to affect measurable change on the atmosphere, this is a point in favor of AGW
2. By that same turn this means other geo-engineering concepts and projects can work and should be seriously investigated as ways to mitigate the effects of AGW. We've been accidentally geoengineering for decades without even knowing it.
Technology got us into this pickle I don't think we should eschew using technology to help get out of it.
define "getting out of it" (Score:2)
Instead of being interested in restoring some natural balance, we'd probably best get used to trying to manage the climate longer term, the same way we are interested in being able to deflect asteroids and such. The natural balance oscillating into Ice Ages is unlikely to be something we'd like, given the history of the past few million years.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, that's why I am very interested to see what we can get done with carbon capture projects and should seriously investigate them, a reason i support nuclear power since we can build an excess of it for that exact purpose but a lot could be done with renewables as well.
It's not fair to the rest of the planet but really "natural balance" is what's balanced for humans at this point, we got the big ol brains to make the decision and we have already.
"The planet is fine, the people, are fucked"
Re:Slowly getting there (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
The heat isn't coming from the sun, but rather from the core of the earth. There's some pretty interesting data showing the oceans are being heated from below.
We know that heat is coming from the sun, we measure it. It's about 240 Watts per square meter (averaged over day and night).
We also know heat is coming from the core of the Earth. It's about 0.05 watts per square meter.
This is not causing global warming.
Doesn't fit the "andromorphic climate change" narrative though, so it's currently being ignored.
It is being ignored because it's trivial. And, right, it doesn't fit the "andromorphic climate change" narrative because it changes on geological time scales; not in a decade or two.
Re: (Score:3)
"Despite its geological significance, Earth's interior heat contributes only 0.03% of Earth's total energy budget at the surface, which is dominated by 173,000 TW of incoming solar radiation.[7]" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I am not a global warming alarmist, but while there is some heat coming from the interior (for the oceans, heating water near plate spreading centers) it is utterly inconsequential/feeble compared to the sun, far less than 1%. The affect of airborne particulates and gases generated by the same source - volcanos, etc, - also utterly swamps the thermal energy from geological sources.
Re: (Score:2)
"andromorphic climate change"
Climate change due to hormone supplements?
Seems bogus (Score:3)
It's hard to believe that ship tracks made anything but a negligible contribution to the earth's albedo.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ship tracks and aircraft contrails are the two most obvious signs of life on the planet when looking down from the ISS during daylight. Even the largest cities just look like brown smudges. At night, of course, city lights are there.
Ship tracks and aircraft entrails are the signs of life?
And here I thought it was that whole atmosphere thing sustaining a planet full of life-perpetuating water,...which can be validated from the fucking moon with the naked eye.
You act as if our local universe has another seven Earths just down the street. We're quite unique as a planet, and it's obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to believe that ship tracks made anything but a negligible contribution to the earth's albedo.
Just to be clear the "ship tracks" are not the wake they leave in the water, it's the clouds they leave with their exhaust. And because they contained a lot of sulphur (and not just water vapour) they really did change the albedo.
Did you look at the image in the linked article? The fact you can clearly see them from space makes it fairly easy to imagine them making a contribution.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean I'd be surprised if they hit like 50% or something, but 5%? I could see that. And that would be non-negligible.
There are a lot [geographyrealm.com] of pictures available of the effect... But of course they're all small views, so they don't give a great idea of what the global impact is.
Re: (Score:2)
Having subsequently followed a few of the links people have posted here - some researchers claim it's on the order of 33%. I'm open to that being true (obviously they've done some amount of research on this, versus me just spouting off); but I'm quite surprised.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd suggest finding some science lessons on the phases of matter then apply some basic math: Gas density is very low compared with liquids or solids.
Then maybe a little climate science data... like how little atmosphere we actually have and that most of it by volume is empty space and the vast majority of the gas is below flight altitude... which is why we don't fly economically at higher altitudes! People don't put 2 and 2 together... We'd just fly upward really high and glide down to travel huge distanc
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like blasphemous heresy to suggest such things but I have to wonder. Is burning the world's trash the better option? (for ocean temps, not in terms of air quality)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you're going to burn trash, I figure there are some prerequisites, concerns that need to be addressed:
1. As I understand it, these days the majority of trash pollution in the oceans is actually from trash dumped into the ocean directly from various ocean-going vessels. So stopping littering would be #1
2. It isn't a binary option between ocean and burning. Landfills are an option. Despite what some people think, we're hardly running out of space to just dump garbage.
3. Going through the stream
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the early '70s, when I was in Uncle Sam's Navy, trash and garbage would be put into dumpsters on the pier when we were in port. When we were well out to sea, it would be put into plastic trash bags along with something heavy, and dumped over the stern to sink. When we were close to shore, it woul
Re: (Score:2)
I'd imagine that the US Navy does better these days, however, the vast majority of ships are NOT the US Navy, so you're pretty much right from what I remember reading.
And this includes the vast number of civilian transport ships and their often minimally paid and trained crews from less developed nations.
I get a pretty large amount of litter just from people throwing stuff out the window of their cars in front of my property, and this is the US where there's been a lot of effort teaching people to not do th
Stop posting dupes! (Score:2)
This us a dupe! You're all discussing the same crap a second time.
Re: (Score:2)
Is not us, wtf autocorrect
OPEN LOOP SCRUBBERS (Score:2)
One popular "solution" to the IMO 0.5%w Sulfur restriction was not to buy expensive low-S fuel but to continue to buy hi-S (3.5%w) and route the exhaust gas through a new scrubber. Easily done because the engines are usually low-speed diesels with lots of exhaust pressure. Any two-stroke engines might have needed a [bigger] blower.
The scrubbers are packed to increase surface area. And fed seawater as absorbtion medium! I don't know if any pretreatment is applied beyond a strainer. Then the rich absorba
Re: (Score:2)
I should add that open-loop scrubbers need _a_lot_ of seawater to absorb the SOx while keeping temperatures down. The limit I remember is 140'F (60'C) for scaling. So all of the fuel heat goes into the wake, one way or another. Creates a bigger water thermal track that if the hot exhaust gasses were discharged to atmosphere as usual.
Dirty Diesel Fights Global Warming (Score:2)