• wischi@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    16 hours ago

    It’s not really hard to implement at all but would just trade pest for cholera. We could just burn a lot of coal again, the dustier and dirtier the better. But that’s pretty bad for air quality but it would seriously cool the planet.

      • wischi@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        Aerosols aren’t gases in the classial sense and reflect sunlight. This works especially well high up in the atmosphere.

        https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/climate-science/aerosols-small-particles-with-big-climate-effects/

        There are studies that collect data around volcano eruptions and coal power plants getting online and offline. Long story short: Climate is complicated; I’m not a climate scientist and not to be trusted; it would work great at cooling the planet; we definitely shouldn’t do it (yet?) because it masks the temperature problem and could lead to us not reducing CO2 because we “wouldn’t have to”, but it could be a tool if we might be on the edge of a catastrophic runaway effect that causes too much water to evaporate into the atmosphere.

        Update: Btw, you are right about dark particles low in the atmosphere, those typically warm the planet. It’s mainly sulfur dioxide aerosols byproduct that cool the planet (also mentioned in the NASA article)