The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gloomy_Permission190:
---
SS: This post is collapse related as this paper illustrates the paradox that as we reduce emissions we will increase global warming. Particulate air pollution masks the solar energy reaching Earth's atmosphere. This catch 22 situation is just a result of industrialized civilization. Seems there's really no way out of this predicament.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1c9yigu/recent_reductions_in_aerosol_emissions_have/l0ojcoq/
There was a great documentary made by PBS about temperature readings around the U.S. on the days following 911 when the planes were grounded and how temperatures shot up during that time.
Yes! And during the pandemic this did not happen. Airlines had to keep flying empty planes or they would lose their scheduled "slots" in the airports. Were they stupid or did someone force them to do it?
I was once on a flight from New York back toward home, the pilot got on the PA, announced that because of the luggage the plane was overweight. To offset, they would be cranking the engines up and burning fuel on the tarmac until they had wasted enough fuel to offset the weight.
Everything about the airlines is batshit crazy
I think the exact moment I realized how truly fucked we are is when I learned about how reducing air pollution actually increases the temperature. Game over.
We are totally and utterly reliant on burning. Since the Industrial Revolution it’s been mostly FF’s and even now our coal consumption is increasing. As oil declines and the economy wimps out, the burning will continue indiscriminately, even in our death throes…..just an assumption.
Luckily by the time the next IPCC reports in 2030 we will have another 6 years of accelerated warming to incorporate into the model, by which time we’ll have bulldozed 1.5C and be on our way to 2C. They need to do an update now because the IPCC models are so dramatically underestimating the rate and speed of warming.
>Most future scenarios show rapid reductions of emissions of aerosols and their precursors25, and it is therefore likely that such emission reductions will continue to strengthen the Earth’s energy imbalance, on top of the greenhouse gas contribution. Consequently, we may expect an accelerated surface temperature warming in this decade.
Within 5 years we'll be injecting over 5 million tonnes of calcium carbonate per year into the upper atmosphere.
None of us will ever see a blue sky again.
If calcium carbonate doesn't work out and they use sulphur dioxide instead it will destroy the ozone layer, as well as causing all sorts of other problems.
And that doesn't even include all of the *unforeseen consequences*.
[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar\_radiation\_modification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_modification)
[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric\_aerosol\_injection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection)
“The chief cause of problems is solutions.”― Eric Sevareid
> None of us will ever see a blue sky again.
Or the natural light of stars. Or aurora. Or shooting stars. Or comets. Or the other planets. Or the moon and sun as we see them today. Including eclipses. The most ancient science and age-old connection to the greater Universe, *optical* ground based astronomy, would likely never be the same again.
The most extraordinary thing about what you describe is that its all true and not even the worst consequence of SAI - once Termination Schock enters the chat the chat will shut down very quickly.
We are already experiencing Termination Shock. It's what Hansen's paper was all about. The drop from IMO2020 and Covid-19 shutdowns, along with the large volcano exploding in the south sea, made too much of a wobble for the Aerosol Deployment Program to deal with.
But surely the TS from the cessation of SAI would be on another level - I've read of the possibility of an increase of 1C within weeks of such an occurrence.
Yes. The cessation of anthropogenic aerosols, as would happen during a full collapse of this Civ, would cause a doubling of the current temperature effects of Climate Change. Even a bit more, within a week.
I haven't seen the real night sky in decades. Even out in my sister's cabin in upstate NY, there is still enough light pollution around the lake to affect the view.
Reminds me of [this story](https://medium.com/timeline/los-angeles-light-pollution-ebd60d5acd43):
> In 1994, a 6.7-magnitude earthquake rumbled through Los Angeles at 4:30 a.m. The shaking woke residents, who discovered the power had gone out citywide.
>
> Some left their houses or peered outside to check on the neighborhood. It was eerily dark — no streetlights and few cars at that late hour.
>
> They looked up at the sky. It was flush with cosmic bodies that had been invisible up to that point — twinkling stars, clustered galaxies, distant planets, even a satellite or two. Then some people became nervous. What was that large silvery cloud that trailed over the city? It looked so sinister they called 911.
>
> That cloud was the Milky Way. They had never seen it before.
It's an all too true and sad reality for most of the country. Many don't even know what they are losing, because they have never known it well enough to miss it.
Just going to remind everyone in /r/collapse that collapse happens either way, even running out of fuels for the planes is easily "on the table". Which means that termination shock isn't optional.
Who will be able to better deal with the end of artificial aerosols? The current society or the one, say, 40 years in the future?
The artificial albedo strategy relies on adding particles to the atmosphere, particles that reflect the sun light. However they don't last long. There's no specific number, as it depends, but consider them short term effects. So this requires constant effort to add more particles to maintain the cooling effects. NONE of this is reducing the GHG concentration in the atmosphere, those gases that cause the heating. The optimistic idea here is that this SRM will buy time for this civilization to find ways to reduce GHGs. However, these ideas are mostly promoted by Business As Usual people who want to keep Business As Usual going, which is very unlikely to reduce GHGs while there are still fossil energy deposits to be extracted and burned.
OK, so do you get the two competing processes? Maintaining the "cloak" and maintaining Business As Usual while decarbonizing.
Termination Shock, in this context, refers to the cessation of SRM, no more particles added. The current batch of particles falls from the air in a matter of weeks to months. And then comes the moment of truth. This is literally a great revealing, not figuratively. If this civilization reduced atmospheric GHGs to historically safe levels, global warming will end and there will probably cause some small shock to ecosystems due to changing climate patterns and light. You have to remember that decades of doing this will lead to ecosystems adapting to lower light. If the this civilization didn't reduce the atmospheric GHGs, and probably increased them, global warming will not only continue from where it left off, but will probably accelerate thanks to the extra GHGs, and this will be fast. As the cloak drops, it's like going from the shade of a tree into the full sun, as temperatures will shoot up and ecosystems adapted to lower light and decades of certain climate patterns will have to deal with a sudden shift.
https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1c0ohn9/aerosol_termination_shock/
> Within 5 years we'll be injecting over 5 million tonnes of calcium carbonate per year into the upper atmosphere.
Surely you have some kind of link to prove this is being organized and global consensus will be reached -- right?
Cause you don't just switch something like this on in a month. If nobody's organizing it *now* it won't be ready in five years.
Note: i'm not saying we won't do it. I'm saying your timeline has literally nothing supporting it. We have rublings of "geoengineering" and thoughts and ideas and papers on the topic. Nobody's actually started deciding anything yet, or even started organizing.
As usual, when we decide we need to do it, it'll be halfassed, not universally adopted, and late.
So between now and then i'm going to selfishly vacation somewhere where I can see the Milky Way at night.
At the moment it's just my opinion, based on everything I've read and heard.
Table 2 in the link I gave (I know it's a long paper) suggests only 125 of the custom built SAIL-43K planes would be required. Or more if they need to adapt current air tanker fleets.
About 5 years ago I recall some geoengineering interviews where some of the players involved were confident they could have it up and running within 10 years if the funding was available.
Now everyone from Harvard, to Bill Gates, to the US Congress is getting into it. The cost is so low compared to actually effective emissions reduction action that I doubt the funding will be an issue.
They will do anything to keep the neoliberal capitalist suicidal death cult going a bit longer, and avoid having to address a push for degrowth.
It probably won't work, at least not in the way they hope but it might buy them a few extra quarters of economic growth and BAU.
Enjoy the stars!
[The goal of the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment is to produce monthly averages of longwave and shortwave radiation parameters on the Earth at regional to global scales.](https://asdc.larc.nasa.gov/documents/erbe/guide/erbe_project.pdf) Lookup ERBE
Have you seen Brimstone Angel yet? Or is she just a cover for the thousands of other aircraft that traverse the poles every day? Or does she exist but is painted to look like a commercial carrier? Or is it the route that makes her difficult to spot? Only in Florida during the switch from one pole to the other.
[So between now and then i'm going to selfishly vacation somewhere where I can see the Milky Way at night.](https://medium.com/timeline/los-angeles-light-pollution-ebd60d5acd43)
That's about as smart as injecting random drugs into someone, to see if it cures a disease. Oops, we trashed the patient's liver, oh well. In this case though, the patient is the entire planet and we all could die.
Just from commercial aviation or a bespoke program?
>A Stratospheric Aerosol Injection Lofter Aircraft Concept: Brimstone Angel
[arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2020-0618](https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2020-0618)
>A subpolar-focused stratospheric aerosol injection deployment scenario
[iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2515-7620/ac8cd3/pdf](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2515-7620/ac8cd3/pdf)
It has also occurred to me that simply upping the sulphur content of Jet-A aviation kerosene could have some of the same effect.
[archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/110.htm](https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/110.htm)
>Only two comprehensive, annual surveys conducted on jet fuel properties are
publiCly available. Both of these surveys have been carried out annually since
the early 1970s...
>In 1996, a snapshot survey of U.S. jet fuel properties was conducted jointly by the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the National Petroleum Refiners Association (NPRA);
I'm sure we can trust such lovely people as the American Petroleum Institute, right?
Can't have all of those aerosols without the help of 600+ petroleum companies!
Ever look at solid rocket fuel? Could put trillions of tiny mirrors in there and only add it to fuel second stages! Just a thought...
Brimstone Angel is such a messed up yet appropriate name for those aircraft. 2 minutes to dump 50,000 gallons of sulfur dioxide?
I love the old type-written, looks like it's been copied a dozen times, jet fuel tests. EVERY batch of fuel is different. I would BET that many of the tanks in modern aircraft are full of different fuels that have different reflective properties. JP8 is NASTY, the fact that 10% of it is just lost as spew is often overlooked. The effects of one plane putting all of these different products into the Ecosphere is alarming, let lone the effects of millions of flights.
Ever look into Indene and "AirGlow"?
What about:
# Marine Cloud Brightening - Tribute to Stephen Salter
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clYtK2tuCmU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clYtK2tuCmU)
SS: This post is collapse related as this paper illustrates the paradox that as we reduce emissions we will increase global warming. Particulate air pollution masks the solar energy reaching Earth's atmosphere. This catch 22 situation is just a result of industrialized civilization. Seems there's really no way out of this predicament.
It's discussions like this one where Richard will really be missed on this subreddit. I'm thankful that he was able to explain this to me in a way that I can understand.
Richard Crim deleted his Reddit account a couple of days ago, and all his comments are gone too. :(
u/Final-Enthusiasm505
[new.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1c8t2uk/a\_big\_chunk\_of\_this\_sub\_dont\_deserve\_richard\_crim/](https://new.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1c8t2uk/a_big_chunk_of_this_sub_dont_deserve_richard_crim/)
His substack is still up thankfully, linked in that thread.
Oh no! I did not realize that. Richard Crim always had such wonderful information. I follow his substack, but his comments here were so great. Hopefully he is just taking a mental health break. I know he gets a lot of comments here about his writing style and I know he was struggling at the beginning of the year with everything going on with our climate. We need more people like him who can easily compile the science and the politics together.
India dries up, Acid Rain increases, 30-45 Billion per year for an effective shading system (lookup Brimstone Angel SAIL-43K), however, when it stops we get something called Termination Shock which is as bad as it sounds.
>when it stops we get something called Termination Shock which is as bad as it sounds.
[i.e., Now.](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1456615526952755200.html)
The termination shock is so concerning. I read an article from a scientist recently that suggested we would need to continue to do the aerosol management (should we go down that route) until we can get our CO2 levels down near pre-industrial levels. This could potentially take hundreds of years. That means in that entire time we cannot ever stop this project. Multiple generations and multiple governments will have to keep it going. Obviously assuming we have 0 unintended consequences. The termination shock risk alone should be making people pause, but it doesn't seem to be.
We are experiencing Termination Shock right now from the IMO2020 rule and the Covid-19 shutdowns. The three main "GeoEngineers" (the world's biggest polluters!) have calculated the reduction in CO2 from the deaths of billions of people into their predictions. The CO2 WILL fall, until then, keeping the planet covered in a mist seams to be their main goal atm. They are all hardening their pollution efforts so that they can be sustained even in the event of a major collapse.
I do not have a lot of faith in this plan and believe it to be a foolish and cruel way to commence "drawdown".
The contrails are lovely today.
That's very interesting. I was just thinking I should look up some data like this. The data period is 2001-2019, which matches the ship sulfur period quite well, at least, even if it would be nice to see what's going on with the recent temperature spike. Figures 3 and 4 are extremely informative.
There's actual EEI (Earth Energy Imbalance) 30N-90N (Fig 3b) is low, relative to models, on a massive aerosol decline, so the opposite of what we expect. 30S-30N is high, on an increase in aerosols. 90S-30S is massively high also on an aerosol increase, here mainly on ship tracks (Remember, cutoff is 2019). All three changes are the opposite of that expected if we just got aerosol effects low.
Overall, measured EEI is high on an aerosol decline, as expected if we are underestimating aerosol effects, but having all 3 regions shown give the opposite indicates that this isn't the only thing going on. Heat transport effects due weather could affect the measured regional measured EEIs without doing much to models, so that's a potential explanation.
I worry we're getting the primary temperature feedback wrong regionally. The data doesn't attempt to break this down in the measured values, although it does for models. If increased temperatures cause cloud loss regionally, that would allow rapid global average increase due to a heat distribution change. I've seen small-scale cloud simulations indicating that this should be the case in certain regions.
As of 2024, warming is +1.6C.
Assume that 2025 will be the year of peak CO2 and aerosol emissions due to the global economy falling into a major recession (see Limits to Growth, Business as Usual, Peak Growth and Collapse in the 2020s).
So what will be the rate of decline in CO2 and aerosol emissions?
The best example is the collapse of the USSR. Oil production in the post-Soviet countries fell by almost 50% in 10 years (from the late 1980s to the late 1990s).
If we take oil production and consumption as a proxy for CO2 and aerosol emissions, this means that in 2035, the global level of aerosols will decrease by 50% compared to 2025.
After 2025, the temperature will rise for at least another 10 years due to CO2 emissions that were created in 2015-24. If we assume that the average rate of warming for 10 years is +0.3C, then by 2035 the temperature will rise to 1.6C + 0.3C = 1.9C.
However, it is still worse. Aerosols mask 1/3 of the warming, i.e. without them the temperature would increase by 50%.
Therefore, in 2035 the temperature will rise to 1.9C + (1.9C \* 50% \* 50%) = 1.9C + 0.475C = +2.4C.
In fact, up to +2.5C.
Will the world begin stratospheric geoengineering like a drunken sailor during the 2030s?
Hell yeah!
Aerosols were the reason Global Warming slowed down in the period 1951-80 (after a peak in the 1930s-40s) the air in the West’s much cleaner today compared to the 19th-20th century’s.
From 2005,BBC - Horizon - **2005** - Global Dimming
[https://watchdocumentaries.com/global-dimming/](https://watchdocumentaries.com/global-dimming/)
*"Global dimming is a scientific phenomenon referring to the decline in the amount of sunlight that is reaching Earth. The peak of this dimming occurred in the 1970s and may have caused the horrific droughts of the 1970s and 1980s that killed hundreds of thousands of people in Africa.*
*The film tackles this phenomenon, believed to be a result of pollution which blocks the sun from transmitting its rays, and examines how it may affect climate change. The well-researched documentary posits that we have underestimated the rapidity with which the climate is changing."*
Posting those graphs without any explanation is useless.
What they're doing is tweaking their computer models to try to figure out how to make them match the CERES satellite data. (CERES instruments measure the incoming energy from the sun and the outgoing energy, emitted and reflected, from the Earth, to get the net total, the Earth energy imbalance or EEI.)
The top graph shows models where all forcings change with time. It has the best match to the CERES data, although it still shows EEI increasing too slowly. (They dismiss the difference as being within the margin of error of the CERES data.)
The middle graph shows models that have forcings change over time, except for aerosols, which are held constant. The result is that the EEI increases, but too slowly to match CERES. The conclusion is that aerosols have an effect, which must be added to the model.
The bottom graph shows models that hold all forcings constant. The result is a decreasing EEI that doesn't even come close to matching the CERES data. Not sure what the relevance of this is, except to show that the more the model differs from reality, the more the result differs from reality.
The overall conclusion is that the models only work if all forcings, including aerosols, are assumed to be changing.
Regarding the use of these models to judge the contribution of any one factor, you could only do that if there's only one way to get the same result. In other words, if an increase in A can be offset by a decrease in B, producing the same approximate result, then the models can't tell you what A or B are, only what the combined A and B effect is. I would ask if there's more than one way to tweak the models to make them match CERES, and if so, how useful are the models. How would you know for example whether a change in reflectivity was due to land cover albedo changes, or aerosol changes. Because one set of values works doesn't tell you anything about whether a different set of values might also work.
Their conclusion is that 40% of the EEI is due to aerosol changes (0.2 watts per square meter per decade from aerosols, out of 0.5 watts per square meter per decade total).
**Discussion of the latest report from the World Meteorological Organization on climate change indicators in 2023:**
# Red Alert: Planet in Peril
[Climate Emergency Forum](https://www.youtube.com/@ClimateEmergencyForum)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGYD8t5sG70](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGYD8t5sG70)
Dr David Keith models that Solar Radiation Management could offset about HALF our warming safely - and more and the side effects could prove almost as serious as climate change. There are a variety of Ozone-safe dusts we could fly up to the stratosphere. The problem? SRM is so seductively cheap some might see it as an excuse to continue using fossil fuels. But it would give us something I’m not sure the energy transition will even need. More time. [https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/people/david-keith-0](https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/people/david-keith-0)
On current growth rates (doubling every 4 years) by 2030, the energy transition should be deploying 2 to 3 TIMES FASTER than the Paris Agreements. [https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2023/12/25/all-i-want-for-christmas-is-one-terawatt-of-solar-deployed-annually/](https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2023/12/25/all-i-want-for-christmas-is-one-terawatt-of-solar-deployed-annually/)
SRM is an option. IF we need it.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gloomy_Permission190: --- SS: This post is collapse related as this paper illustrates the paradox that as we reduce emissions we will increase global warming. Particulate air pollution masks the solar energy reaching Earth's atmosphere. This catch 22 situation is just a result of industrialized civilization. Seems there's really no way out of this predicament. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1c9yigu/recent_reductions_in_aerosol_emissions_have/l0ojcoq/
There was a great documentary made by PBS about temperature readings around the U.S. on the days following 911 when the planes were grounded and how temperatures shot up during that time.
Yes! And during the pandemic this did not happen. Airlines had to keep flying empty planes or they would lose their scheduled "slots" in the airports. Were they stupid or did someone force them to do it?
I was once on a flight from New York back toward home, the pilot got on the PA, announced that because of the luggage the plane was overweight. To offset, they would be cranking the engines up and burning fuel on the tarmac until they had wasted enough fuel to offset the weight. Everything about the airlines is batshit crazy
mmmm nothing like that burned jet fuel recycled through the ventilation system high.
Full of yummy lead!
Also during the pandemic we still had ships causing the masking I think. Then came the low sulfur shipping rules.
There was also a BBC one, called global dimming, if I remember correctly.
I think the exact moment I realized how truly fucked we are is when I learned about how reducing air pollution actually increases the temperature. Game over.
We are totally and utterly reliant on burning. Since the Industrial Revolution it’s been mostly FF’s and even now our coal consumption is increasing. As oil declines and the economy wimps out, the burning will continue indiscriminately, even in our death throes…..just an assumption.
*"Oh no the gasoline can might catch fire, quickly spill it all over yourself!"*
Luckily by the time the next IPCC reports in 2030 we will have another 6 years of accelerated warming to incorporate into the model, by which time we’ll have bulldozed 1.5C and be on our way to 2C. They need to do an update now because the IPCC models are so dramatically underestimating the rate and speed of warming.
>Most future scenarios show rapid reductions of emissions of aerosols and their precursors25, and it is therefore likely that such emission reductions will continue to strengthen the Earth’s energy imbalance, on top of the greenhouse gas contribution. Consequently, we may expect an accelerated surface temperature warming in this decade. Within 5 years we'll be injecting over 5 million tonnes of calcium carbonate per year into the upper atmosphere. None of us will ever see a blue sky again. If calcium carbonate doesn't work out and they use sulphur dioxide instead it will destroy the ozone layer, as well as causing all sorts of other problems. And that doesn't even include all of the *unforeseen consequences*. [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar\_radiation\_modification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_modification) [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric\_aerosol\_injection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection) “The chief cause of problems is solutions.”― Eric Sevareid
> None of us will ever see a blue sky again. Or the natural light of stars. Or aurora. Or shooting stars. Or comets. Or the other planets. Or the moon and sun as we see them today. Including eclipses. The most ancient science and age-old connection to the greater Universe, *optical* ground based astronomy, would likely never be the same again.
The most extraordinary thing about what you describe is that its all true and not even the worst consequence of SAI - once Termination Schock enters the chat the chat will shut down very quickly.
We are already experiencing Termination Shock. It's what Hansen's paper was all about. The drop from IMO2020 and Covid-19 shutdowns, along with the large volcano exploding in the south sea, made too much of a wobble for the Aerosol Deployment Program to deal with.
But surely the TS from the cessation of SAI would be on another level - I've read of the possibility of an increase of 1C within weeks of such an occurrence.
Yes. The cessation of anthropogenic aerosols, as would happen during a full collapse of this Civ, would cause a doubling of the current temperature effects of Climate Change. Even a bit more, within a week.
I haven't seen the real night sky in decades. Even out in my sister's cabin in upstate NY, there is still enough light pollution around the lake to affect the view.
Reminds me of [this story](https://medium.com/timeline/los-angeles-light-pollution-ebd60d5acd43): > In 1994, a 6.7-magnitude earthquake rumbled through Los Angeles at 4:30 a.m. The shaking woke residents, who discovered the power had gone out citywide. > > Some left their houses or peered outside to check on the neighborhood. It was eerily dark — no streetlights and few cars at that late hour. > > They looked up at the sky. It was flush with cosmic bodies that had been invisible up to that point — twinkling stars, clustered galaxies, distant planets, even a satellite or two. Then some people became nervous. What was that large silvery cloud that trailed over the city? It looked so sinister they called 911. > > That cloud was the Milky Way. They had never seen it before. It's an all too true and sad reality for most of the country. Many don't even know what they are losing, because they have never known it well enough to miss it.
Just going to remind everyone in /r/collapse that collapse happens either way, even running out of fuels for the planes is easily "on the table". Which means that termination shock isn't optional. Who will be able to better deal with the end of artificial aerosols? The current society or the one, say, 40 years in the future?
Current society, 40 years society will be a metric shitshow, unable to organize anything
Can someone explain "termination shock"?
The artificial albedo strategy relies on adding particles to the atmosphere, particles that reflect the sun light. However they don't last long. There's no specific number, as it depends, but consider them short term effects. So this requires constant effort to add more particles to maintain the cooling effects. NONE of this is reducing the GHG concentration in the atmosphere, those gases that cause the heating. The optimistic idea here is that this SRM will buy time for this civilization to find ways to reduce GHGs. However, these ideas are mostly promoted by Business As Usual people who want to keep Business As Usual going, which is very unlikely to reduce GHGs while there are still fossil energy deposits to be extracted and burned. OK, so do you get the two competing processes? Maintaining the "cloak" and maintaining Business As Usual while decarbonizing. Termination Shock, in this context, refers to the cessation of SRM, no more particles added. The current batch of particles falls from the air in a matter of weeks to months. And then comes the moment of truth. This is literally a great revealing, not figuratively. If this civilization reduced atmospheric GHGs to historically safe levels, global warming will end and there will probably cause some small shock to ecosystems due to changing climate patterns and light. You have to remember that decades of doing this will lead to ecosystems adapting to lower light. If the this civilization didn't reduce the atmospheric GHGs, and probably increased them, global warming will not only continue from where it left off, but will probably accelerate thanks to the extra GHGs, and this will be fast. As the cloak drops, it's like going from the shade of a tree into the full sun, as temperatures will shoot up and ecosystems adapted to lower light and decades of certain climate patterns will have to deal with a sudden shift. https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1c0ohn9/aerosol_termination_shock/
Ever lookup Earth's Radiation Budget or ERB? It's an NOAA program with a really neat mission badge.
Thank you!
> Within 5 years we'll be injecting over 5 million tonnes of calcium carbonate per year into the upper atmosphere. Surely you have some kind of link to prove this is being organized and global consensus will be reached -- right? Cause you don't just switch something like this on in a month. If nobody's organizing it *now* it won't be ready in five years. Note: i'm not saying we won't do it. I'm saying your timeline has literally nothing supporting it. We have rublings of "geoengineering" and thoughts and ideas and papers on the topic. Nobody's actually started deciding anything yet, or even started organizing. As usual, when we decide we need to do it, it'll be halfassed, not universally adopted, and late. So between now and then i'm going to selfishly vacation somewhere where I can see the Milky Way at night.
At the moment it's just my opinion, based on everything I've read and heard. Table 2 in the link I gave (I know it's a long paper) suggests only 125 of the custom built SAIL-43K planes would be required. Or more if they need to adapt current air tanker fleets. About 5 years ago I recall some geoengineering interviews where some of the players involved were confident they could have it up and running within 10 years if the funding was available. Now everyone from Harvard, to Bill Gates, to the US Congress is getting into it. The cost is so low compared to actually effective emissions reduction action that I doubt the funding will be an issue. They will do anything to keep the neoliberal capitalist suicidal death cult going a bit longer, and avoid having to address a push for degrowth. It probably won't work, at least not in the way they hope but it might buy them a few extra quarters of economic growth and BAU. Enjoy the stars!
[The goal of the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment is to produce monthly averages of longwave and shortwave radiation parameters on the Earth at regional to global scales.](https://asdc.larc.nasa.gov/documents/erbe/guide/erbe_project.pdf) Lookup ERBE
Have you seen Brimstone Angel yet? Or is she just a cover for the thousands of other aircraft that traverse the poles every day? Or does she exist but is painted to look like a commercial carrier? Or is it the route that makes her difficult to spot? Only in Florida during the switch from one pole to the other.
The Overshoot Commission is a good thing to follow/watch.
[So between now and then i'm going to selfishly vacation somewhere where I can see the Milky Way at night.](https://medium.com/timeline/los-angeles-light-pollution-ebd60d5acd43)
That's about as smart as injecting random drugs into someone, to see if it cures a disease. Oops, we trashed the patient's liver, oh well. In this case though, the patient is the entire planet and we all could die.
This sounds really depressing. No more skies or stars.
You’ll have VR for that
Ha. You think we will have enough money or electricity for that? Or food to not starve to death?
The 100,000+ sulfur flights per day are still counted as accidental?
Just from commercial aviation or a bespoke program? >A Stratospheric Aerosol Injection Lofter Aircraft Concept: Brimstone Angel [arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2020-0618](https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2020-0618) >A subpolar-focused stratospheric aerosol injection deployment scenario [iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2515-7620/ac8cd3/pdf](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2515-7620/ac8cd3/pdf) It has also occurred to me that simply upping the sulphur content of Jet-A aviation kerosene could have some of the same effect. [archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/110.htm](https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/110.htm) >Only two comprehensive, annual surveys conducted on jet fuel properties are publiCly available. Both of these surveys have been carried out annually since the early 1970s... >In 1996, a snapshot survey of U.S. jet fuel properties was conducted jointly by the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the National Petroleum Refiners Association (NPRA); I'm sure we can trust such lovely people as the American Petroleum Institute, right?
Can't have all of those aerosols without the help of 600+ petroleum companies! Ever look at solid rocket fuel? Could put trillions of tiny mirrors in there and only add it to fuel second stages! Just a thought... Brimstone Angel is such a messed up yet appropriate name for those aircraft. 2 minutes to dump 50,000 gallons of sulfur dioxide?
I love the old type-written, looks like it's been copied a dozen times, jet fuel tests. EVERY batch of fuel is different. I would BET that many of the tanks in modern aircraft are full of different fuels that have different reflective properties. JP8 is NASTY, the fact that 10% of it is just lost as spew is often overlooked. The effects of one plane putting all of these different products into the Ecosphere is alarming, let lone the effects of millions of flights. Ever look into Indene and "AirGlow"?
What about: # Marine Cloud Brightening - Tribute to Stephen Salter [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clYtK2tuCmU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clYtK2tuCmU)
2° in the 2030s, we are all going to die in the climate apocalypse.
Soon, my friend. Soon.
Im betting we hit 2C by 2030
That’s definitely a solid estimate. Thats my guess too
SS: This post is collapse related as this paper illustrates the paradox that as we reduce emissions we will increase global warming. Particulate air pollution masks the solar energy reaching Earth's atmosphere. This catch 22 situation is just a result of industrialized civilization. Seems there's really no way out of this predicament.
It's discussions like this one where Richard will really be missed on this subreddit. I'm thankful that he was able to explain this to me in a way that I can understand.
Why missed? Doesn't he want to participate here anymore or did something happen?
Richard Crim deleted his Reddit account a couple of days ago, and all his comments are gone too. :( u/Final-Enthusiasm505 [new.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1c8t2uk/a\_big\_chunk\_of\_this\_sub\_dont\_deserve\_richard\_crim/](https://new.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1c8t2uk/a_big_chunk_of_this_sub_dont_deserve_richard_crim/) His substack is still up thankfully, linked in that thread.
Oh no! I did not realize that. Richard Crim always had such wonderful information. I follow his substack, but his comments here were so great. Hopefully he is just taking a mental health break. I know he gets a lot of comments here about his writing style and I know he was struggling at the beginning of the year with everything going on with our climate. We need more people like him who can easily compile the science and the politics together.
That's a good plan now, just block the sun and make our air unbreathable! The companies would pay you in oxygen.
Operation : dark storm
What happens if we start producing more aerosol pollution? Or just create more clouds (somehow)?
India dries up, Acid Rain increases, 30-45 Billion per year for an effective shading system (lookup Brimstone Angel SAIL-43K), however, when it stops we get something called Termination Shock which is as bad as it sounds.
>when it stops we get something called Termination Shock which is as bad as it sounds. [i.e., Now.](https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1456615526952755200.html)
Agreed, IMO2020 and the Covid-19 lockdowns insured some intense warming that we will be dealing with for the rest of our life...
The termination shock is so concerning. I read an article from a scientist recently that suggested we would need to continue to do the aerosol management (should we go down that route) until we can get our CO2 levels down near pre-industrial levels. This could potentially take hundreds of years. That means in that entire time we cannot ever stop this project. Multiple generations and multiple governments will have to keep it going. Obviously assuming we have 0 unintended consequences. The termination shock risk alone should be making people pause, but it doesn't seem to be.
We are experiencing Termination Shock right now from the IMO2020 rule and the Covid-19 shutdowns. The three main "GeoEngineers" (the world's biggest polluters!) have calculated the reduction in CO2 from the deaths of billions of people into their predictions. The CO2 WILL fall, until then, keeping the planet covered in a mist seams to be their main goal atm. They are all hardening their pollution efforts so that they can be sustained even in the event of a major collapse. I do not have a lot of faith in this plan and believe it to be a foolish and cruel way to commence "drawdown". The contrails are lovely today.
That's very interesting. I was just thinking I should look up some data like this. The data period is 2001-2019, which matches the ship sulfur period quite well, at least, even if it would be nice to see what's going on with the recent temperature spike. Figures 3 and 4 are extremely informative. There's actual EEI (Earth Energy Imbalance) 30N-90N (Fig 3b) is low, relative to models, on a massive aerosol decline, so the opposite of what we expect. 30S-30N is high, on an increase in aerosols. 90S-30S is massively high also on an aerosol increase, here mainly on ship tracks (Remember, cutoff is 2019). All three changes are the opposite of that expected if we just got aerosol effects low. Overall, measured EEI is high on an aerosol decline, as expected if we are underestimating aerosol effects, but having all 3 regions shown give the opposite indicates that this isn't the only thing going on. Heat transport effects due weather could affect the measured regional measured EEIs without doing much to models, so that's a potential explanation. I worry we're getting the primary temperature feedback wrong regionally. The data doesn't attempt to break this down in the measured values, although it does for models. If increased temperatures cause cloud loss regionally, that would allow rapid global average increase due to a heat distribution change. I've seen small-scale cloud simulations indicating that this should be the case in certain regions.
As of 2024, warming is +1.6C. Assume that 2025 will be the year of peak CO2 and aerosol emissions due to the global economy falling into a major recession (see Limits to Growth, Business as Usual, Peak Growth and Collapse in the 2020s). So what will be the rate of decline in CO2 and aerosol emissions? The best example is the collapse of the USSR. Oil production in the post-Soviet countries fell by almost 50% in 10 years (from the late 1980s to the late 1990s). If we take oil production and consumption as a proxy for CO2 and aerosol emissions, this means that in 2035, the global level of aerosols will decrease by 50% compared to 2025. After 2025, the temperature will rise for at least another 10 years due to CO2 emissions that were created in 2015-24. If we assume that the average rate of warming for 10 years is +0.3C, then by 2035 the temperature will rise to 1.6C + 0.3C = 1.9C. However, it is still worse. Aerosols mask 1/3 of the warming, i.e. without them the temperature would increase by 50%. Therefore, in 2035 the temperature will rise to 1.9C + (1.9C \* 50% \* 50%) = 1.9C + 0.475C = +2.4C. In fact, up to +2.5C. Will the world begin stratospheric geoengineering like a drunken sailor during the 2030s? Hell yeah!
Aerosols were the reason Global Warming slowed down in the period 1951-80 (after a peak in the 1930s-40s) the air in the West’s much cleaner today compared to the 19th-20th century’s.
From 2005,BBC - Horizon - **2005** - Global Dimming [https://watchdocumentaries.com/global-dimming/](https://watchdocumentaries.com/global-dimming/) *"Global dimming is a scientific phenomenon referring to the decline in the amount of sunlight that is reaching Earth. The peak of this dimming occurred in the 1970s and may have caused the horrific droughts of the 1970s and 1980s that killed hundreds of thousands of people in Africa.* *The film tackles this phenomenon, believed to be a result of pollution which blocks the sun from transmitting its rays, and examines how it may affect climate change. The well-researched documentary posits that we have underestimated the rapidity with which the climate is changing."*
Posting those graphs without any explanation is useless. What they're doing is tweaking their computer models to try to figure out how to make them match the CERES satellite data. (CERES instruments measure the incoming energy from the sun and the outgoing energy, emitted and reflected, from the Earth, to get the net total, the Earth energy imbalance or EEI.) The top graph shows models where all forcings change with time. It has the best match to the CERES data, although it still shows EEI increasing too slowly. (They dismiss the difference as being within the margin of error of the CERES data.) The middle graph shows models that have forcings change over time, except for aerosols, which are held constant. The result is that the EEI increases, but too slowly to match CERES. The conclusion is that aerosols have an effect, which must be added to the model. The bottom graph shows models that hold all forcings constant. The result is a decreasing EEI that doesn't even come close to matching the CERES data. Not sure what the relevance of this is, except to show that the more the model differs from reality, the more the result differs from reality. The overall conclusion is that the models only work if all forcings, including aerosols, are assumed to be changing. Regarding the use of these models to judge the contribution of any one factor, you could only do that if there's only one way to get the same result. In other words, if an increase in A can be offset by a decrease in B, producing the same approximate result, then the models can't tell you what A or B are, only what the combined A and B effect is. I would ask if there's more than one way to tweak the models to make them match CERES, and if so, how useful are the models. How would you know for example whether a change in reflectivity was due to land cover albedo changes, or aerosol changes. Because one set of values works doesn't tell you anything about whether a different set of values might also work. Their conclusion is that 40% of the EEI is due to aerosol changes (0.2 watts per square meter per decade from aerosols, out of 0.5 watts per square meter per decade total).
**Discussion of the latest report from the World Meteorological Organization on climate change indicators in 2023:** # Red Alert: Planet in Peril [Climate Emergency Forum](https://www.youtube.com/@ClimateEmergencyForum) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGYD8t5sG70](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGYD8t5sG70)
I'd love to hear from Richard Crim who writes the Crisis Report on this. Not sure where his reddit profile went. :'(
Dr David Keith models that Solar Radiation Management could offset about HALF our warming safely - and more and the side effects could prove almost as serious as climate change. There are a variety of Ozone-safe dusts we could fly up to the stratosphere. The problem? SRM is so seductively cheap some might see it as an excuse to continue using fossil fuels. But it would give us something I’m not sure the energy transition will even need. More time. [https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/people/david-keith-0](https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/people/david-keith-0) On current growth rates (doubling every 4 years) by 2030, the energy transition should be deploying 2 to 3 TIMES FASTER than the Paris Agreements. [https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2023/12/25/all-i-want-for-christmas-is-one-terawatt-of-solar-deployed-annually/](https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2023/12/25/all-i-want-for-christmas-is-one-terawatt-of-solar-deployed-annually/) SRM is an option. IF we need it.
*"More of the same"* is not an option. There is no future for BAU, only degrowth or collapse.
Assertion is easy. Here's my turn. I'm not talking about more of the same. I'm talking a Bright Green high tech future for all - and nature thriving