This is in no way a "Let's do nothing" propaganda piece.
It is absolutely imperative that we, as a species, reign in our drive to combust things (or at least cease materialistically "burning through" the earth as if the only thing that matters is "now.") However, as I have maintained all along, listening to "activists" or "media advocacy productions" for so MANY years, you simply can't take everything they say as utter and complete "factual truth."
This article explains something in terms of science, which I have NEVER heard any 'advocate of climate' say... namely that we obviously don't know everything, and what we actually "do" about what we "think" we know can sometimes prove to be exactly contrary to what we intend.
From MIT Technology Review: The inadvertent geoengineering experiment that the world is now shutting off
Subtitled: As the air gets cleaner, the world is also losing an important cooling effect.
Usually when we talk about climate change, the focus is squarely on the role that greenhouse-gas emissions play in driving up global temperatures, and rightly so. But another important, less-known phenomenon is also heating up the planet: reductions in other types of pollution.
In particular, the world’s power plants, factories, and ships are pumping much less sulfur dioxide into the air, thanks to an increasingly strict set of global pollution regulations. Sulfur dioxide creates aerosol particles in the atmosphere that can directly reflect sunlight back into space or act as the “condensation nuclei” around which cloud droplets form. More or thicker clouds, in turn, also cast away more sunlight. So when we clean up pollution, we also ease this cooling effect.
Unlike the utterings of activists and ideologues, this idea is not based upon statistical assumptions, but measurements. It involves radiative forcing, and simple logic... verified through measurement. It is not ideology; it is not based upon "social" and or "political" conceptualization. It bears no narrative.
While the truth remains that the earth's warming trend is certainly not hindered by our collective behaviors, for the first time I can recall, it shows that our knee-jerk reaction of martializing public sentiment and 'stopping' what we were doing, may not have been a "solution" to the problem... it was more complicated than alarmists claimed, and relying on thespian media to 'report' may be shortsighted, and ultimately counterproductive.
In the article, the ill-effects of what he refers to generally as "air pollution" is abruptly shifted...
While society basically accepted for well over a century that ships were inadvertently emitting sulfur dioxide into the air, flipping those emissions back on for the purpose of easing global warming would amount to a form of solar geoengineering, a deliberate effort to tweak the climate system.
Many think such planetary interventions are far too powerful and unpredictable for us to muck around with. And to be sure, this particular approach would be one of the more ineffective, dangerous, and expensive ways to carry out solar geoengineering, if the world ever decided it should be done at all. The far more commonly studied concept is emitting sulfur dioxide high in the stratosphere, where it would persist for longer and, as a bonus, not be inhaled by humans.
This excerpt sort of obfuscates that "changing the way we had been using fossil fuels all along" was ALSO an "intervention." Whatever dynamics were in play as we made that change ALSO affected the ebb and flow of climate systems (that we pretended to understand well enough to force a socially engineered frame of mind in the entire world - against 'fossil' fuel use.)
I blame no-one in particular (although I realize that the whole matter has been exploited for personal profit and glory.) But I mean to convey the mistake we risk when listening to the "virtue" highlighted by media... that the media now aims to entertain, not to inform.
As a result of this measured effect, some are now entertaining the notion of "resuming" use of air polluting behaviors... since "it won't hurt the planets temperature." Never mind anything "other" than the planet's temperature [insert eyeroll]… (I expect lobbyists for the "industry" will be all over this, because: money.)
It is absolutely imperative that we, as a species, reign in our drive to combust things (or at least cease materialistically "burning through" the earth as if the only thing that matters is "now.") However, as I have maintained all along, listening to "activists" or "media advocacy productions" for so MANY years, you simply can't take everything they say as utter and complete "factual truth."
This article explains something in terms of science, which I have NEVER heard any 'advocate of climate' say... namely that we obviously don't know everything, and what we actually "do" about what we "think" we know can sometimes prove to be exactly contrary to what we intend.
From MIT Technology Review: The inadvertent geoengineering experiment that the world is now shutting off
Subtitled: As the air gets cleaner, the world is also losing an important cooling effect.
Usually when we talk about climate change, the focus is squarely on the role that greenhouse-gas emissions play in driving up global temperatures, and rightly so. But another important, less-known phenomenon is also heating up the planet: reductions in other types of pollution.
In particular, the world’s power plants, factories, and ships are pumping much less sulfur dioxide into the air, thanks to an increasingly strict set of global pollution regulations. Sulfur dioxide creates aerosol particles in the atmosphere that can directly reflect sunlight back into space or act as the “condensation nuclei” around which cloud droplets form. More or thicker clouds, in turn, also cast away more sunlight. So when we clean up pollution, we also ease this cooling effect.
Unlike the utterings of activists and ideologues, this idea is not based upon statistical assumptions, but measurements. It involves radiative forcing, and simple logic... verified through measurement. It is not ideology; it is not based upon "social" and or "political" conceptualization. It bears no narrative.
While the truth remains that the earth's warming trend is certainly not hindered by our collective behaviors, for the first time I can recall, it shows that our knee-jerk reaction of martializing public sentiment and 'stopping' what we were doing, may not have been a "solution" to the problem... it was more complicated than alarmists claimed, and relying on thespian media to 'report' may be shortsighted, and ultimately counterproductive.
In the article, the ill-effects of what he refers to generally as "air pollution" is abruptly shifted...
While society basically accepted for well over a century that ships were inadvertently emitting sulfur dioxide into the air, flipping those emissions back on for the purpose of easing global warming would amount to a form of solar geoengineering, a deliberate effort to tweak the climate system.
Many think such planetary interventions are far too powerful and unpredictable for us to muck around with. And to be sure, this particular approach would be one of the more ineffective, dangerous, and expensive ways to carry out solar geoengineering, if the world ever decided it should be done at all. The far more commonly studied concept is emitting sulfur dioxide high in the stratosphere, where it would persist for longer and, as a bonus, not be inhaled by humans.
This excerpt sort of obfuscates that "changing the way we had been using fossil fuels all along" was ALSO an "intervention." Whatever dynamics were in play as we made that change ALSO affected the ebb and flow of climate systems (that we pretended to understand well enough to force a socially engineered frame of mind in the entire world - against 'fossil' fuel use.)
I blame no-one in particular (although I realize that the whole matter has been exploited for personal profit and glory.) But I mean to convey the mistake we risk when listening to the "virtue" highlighted by media... that the media now aims to entertain, not to inform.
As a result of this measured effect, some are now entertaining the notion of "resuming" use of air polluting behaviors... since "it won't hurt the planets temperature." Never mind anything "other" than the planet's temperature [insert eyeroll]… (I expect lobbyists for the "industry" will be all over this, because: money.)
