Podcast Summary
Latitude Media Rebrands and Expands Focus, Hosts Transition AI New York Conference: Latitude Media is rebranding and broadening its coverage to include advanced grid tech, AI, carbon removal, long duration storage, and more. They will launch a new b-to-b news site in October and host the Transition AI New York conference on October 19th.
Postscript Media, the company behind the Carbon Copy and Catalyst podcasts, is rebranding as Latitude Media and expanding its focus to cover business and tech trends in advanced grid tech, artificial intelligence, carbon removal, long duration storage, and more. This new b-to-b news site will launch in October, and Latitude Media is also hosting the Transition AI New York conference on October 19th, which will feature top experts discussing how artificial intelligence is shaping utilities, renewables, and storage developers. Additionally, Canary Media is hosting a live event in the Bay Area on October 3rd. The unexpected discovery that sulfur aerosols from shipping emissions have a similar effect to deliberate geoengineering experiments highlights the importance of understanding the potential consequences of such interventions. This finding, made by climate scientists, also underscores the need for careful consideration and regulation when it comes to geoengineering.
IMO regulations halted unintentional geoengineering experiment: IMO rules reduced shipping emissions, stopping an 'accidental' cloud brightening effect, highlighting geoengineering's complexities and need for caution
The International Maritime Organization's (IMO) regulations on high sulfur fuel in 2020 significantly reduced shipping emissions, which had previously contributed to making clouds brighter and reflecting more sunlight. This phenomenon, known as marine cloud brightening or intentional geoengineering, was suggested to occur over the North Atlantic due to the prevalence of shipping and lack of other causes for cloud formation. However, detecting this effect in the real world was challenging due to the variability of clouds. The IMO's regulations, while intended to reduce air pollution, inadvertently stopped this "accidental experiment" in geoengineering. This event highlights the complexities and challenges of intentionally manipulating the Earth's climate through geoengineering. It also underscores the importance of understanding the potential consequences of such interventions and the need for rigorous scientific research and careful consideration before implementing large-scale geoengineering projects.
Shipping emissions in North Atlantic have negative health consequences and contribute to increased air pollution: Shipping emissions in the North Atlantic lead to health issues and more pollution through cloud formation, but the IMO has implemented regulations to reduce these harmful emissions.
The shipping industry's emission of sulfate into the North Atlantic, while initially thought to brighten clouds and have a cooling effect on the atmosphere, actually has negative health consequences and contributes to the formation of more clouds, leading to increased air pollution. The North Atlantic is particularly susceptible to this effect due to its flat waters, high concentration of shipping traffic, and naturally low cloud cover. However, the brightening effect of sulfate on clouds only goes so far, and once clouds reach a certain size, they become less susceptible to being affected by aerosols. Furthermore, the North Atlantic's lack of topography and its high absorption of solar radiation make any increase in albedo, such as that caused by clouds, more impactful on global temperatures and radiative forcing than similar changes over land. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) recognized these issues and implemented regulations in 2020 to reduce the amount of sulfate in shipping fuel, addressing both the health concerns and the climate impact.
Impact of sulfate aerosols from volcanic eruptions vs shipping emissions: Volcanic sulfate aerosols have a larger cooling effect on the planet due to their presence in the stratosphere, while shipping emissions' sulfate aerosols have a smaller cooling effect and mainly impact human health.
While the sulfate aerosols released during volcanic eruptions and shipping emissions are chemically similar, their impact on the environment is vastly different due to where they are released in the atmosphere. Volcanic eruptions can eject sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere, where they can remain for up to 1.5 years and have a significant cooling effect on the planet due to their reflection of sunlight. In contrast, shipping emissions release sulfate aerosols close to the surface, where they have a much shorter lifespan and a much smaller cooling effect. Instead, the main concern with shipping emissions is the health impact of sulfate aerosols on humans, as they are often released near populated areas. In the late 1990s, human-generated sulfate emissions were estimated to have hidden a small fraction of the overall global warming, while the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, which released a much smaller amount of sulfate, cooled the planet by a similar amount. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) implemented regulations in 2020 to reduce shipping emissions, and it will be interesting to see the impact of these regulations on the environment and human health in the coming years.
New shipping rule reduces sulfate emissions, impacts air quality and potentially climate change: New IMO rule reduces sulfate emissions by 7-8 megatons, improving air quality and potentially contributing to climate change mitigation
Regulations, such as the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) new rule on reducing sulfate emissions from shipping, can significantly improve air quality and have indirect impacts on the environment. The IMO regulation, which went into effect on January 1, 2020, resulted in a reduction of around 7 to 8 megatons of sulfate emissions from shipping, which is approximately 10% of the overall sulfate emissions from anthropogenic sources worldwide. This reduction in sulfate emissions has led to observable changes in cloud coverage. Although it's not yet clear how much this reduction in sulfate emissions has directly impacted global mean temperature, scientists can measure the energy fluxes coming into and out of the Earth's system, which is known as the Earth's energy imbalance. The current Earth energy imbalance is estimated to be around 1.2 watts per square meter, which is a significant amount of energy that remains in the system instead of being emitted back. The temperature eventually responds to these changes in forcing, but not directly or linearly, as a lot of the energy gets stored in the oceans. Therefore, the impact of the IMO regulation on global mean temperature is still being studied. However, the reduction in sulfate emissions is a positive step towards improving air quality and potentially mitigating climate change.
Shipping regulations leading to increased radiative forcing: Shipping regulations reducing sulfur emissions inadvertently contribute around 0.1 watt per square meter to global radiative forcing, equivalent to about 10% of Earth's energy imbalance and a potential 0.05 degrees Celsius temperature increase.
The international regulations enacted to reduce sulfur emissions from shipping have led to an unintended consequence of increased radiative forcing, contributing approximately 0.1 watt per square meter globally. This equates to around 10% of the Earth's energy imbalance and a potential increase of around 0.05 degrees Celsius in global temperatures. However, this impact is smaller than the year-to-year variability in the climate system, and detecting and attributing specific activities to climate change remains a significant challenge. The overall impact of sulfate emissions and their potential future trajectory is still an area of ongoing research.
Regional Effects of Shipping Emissions on Climate Change: Shipping emissions have regional impacts on climate change that need more attention. Unmasked warming from aerosol elimination and CO2's long-term impact should be considered.
The elimination of anthropogenic emissions would first result in an unmasked warming effect due to the disappearance of aerosols. However, over the long term, CO2 would have a more significant impact. There was once a consensus within the scientific community that shipping emissions would have a forcing effect, but the consequences for global warming commitments were not considered. Now, there is a growing interest in understanding the regional and transboundary effects of these changes, particularly in relation to the North Atlantic. The heat changes in this region could have significant impacts on the rest of the system, and it is crucial to determine whether recent extreme weather events can be attributed solely to natural variability and long-term warming or if there are additional contributing factors. The scientific community should focus more on these regional effects and their potential transboundary consequences. While CO2 is the most well-known contributor to climate change, regional effects can have significant impacts on smaller areas. Therefore, it is essential to reconsider how we approach the study of climate change and its regional implications.
Unintended consequences of IMO regulations on North Atlantic sea surface temperature: The IMO regulations, intended to reduce emissions, may have unintended consequences on North Atlantic sea surface temperature and potential contribution to heat waves. This raises questions about the potential impacts of intentional climate interventions, like geoengineering, and the importance of detecting and understanding these changes.
The IMO regulations, which aimed to reduce emissions, may have unintended consequences on North Atlantic sea surface temperature and potential contribution to heat waves. This raises the question of what we can learn from this accidental experiment about the potential impacts of intentional climate interventions, such as geoengineering. If we had been more prepared and focused on detecting such changes, we could have gained valuable insights into the efficacy, costs, and side effects of climate interventions. With the increasing global focus on climate change and potential interventions, it's crucial that we invest more resources into detecting and understanding the impacts of both intentional and unintentional climate changes. The challenge lies in the difficulty of establishing counterfactuals and trusting climate models to make accurate predictions. The IMO regulations serve as a reminder that we must be proactive in observing and understanding the complex climate system.
Exploring geoengineering counterfactuals and regulation insights: The group is discussing ways to safely and effectively research geoengineering's potential effects, drawing inspiration from shipping regulations, while acknowledging the ethical and scientific complexities.
The ongoing discussion in the group revolves around building a counterfactual for potential geoengineering effects and understanding their variability. Additionally, there has been a surge in bringing geoengineering to a global public consciousness through various reports, but there is a lack of clarity on how to conduct experiments safely and effectively. The shipping regulation example could provide valuable insights, as it demonstrates that even small effects can inform modeling and knowledge, but also set a threshold for permissible experiments with minimal long-term consequences. The field's progress in the past year and a half is uncertain, as there have been no large-scale experiments, but the ongoing debate centers around the ethical and scientific implications of geoengineering. Ultimately, the group is exploring ways to navigate these complexities and move towards a more informed and responsible approach to geoengineering research.
Encouraging global conversation about potential climate interventions: International organizations and states are discussing potential climate interventions, but it's crucial to consider the potential benefits and risks before implementation and address unknown impacts.
While Australia is taking local measures to preserve coral reefs, the focus should be on a global conversation about potential climate interventions. The main hurdle isn't the implementation of large-scale experiments, but rather getting people to think about it in a positive and informed way. International organizations and states play a crucial role in this discussion. The fact that organizations like the European Commission, the White House, and the United Nations Environmental Program are having this conversation is a positive sign. Additionally, the World Climate Research Program's desire to act as an impartial arbiter in this field is encouraging. Before considering experiments, it's essential to address potential unknown impacts and consider whether climate intervention is worth pursuing at all. Previous volcanic eruptions have shown that significant climate changes can occur without catastrophic consequences for the planet. Therefore, the priority should be on open and inclusive discussions about the potential benefits and risks of climate intervention.
From theory to practice in geoengineering: Collaborative and long-term approach necessary to fully understand geoengineering's implications and potential benefits
While small-scale experiments in geoengineering, such as releasing sulfates into the atmosphere, have shown promise, climate scientist Dan Vizzioni believes that the focus should be on moving from theoretical discussions to practical implementation. He emphasizes the importance of getting more people on board and conducting long-term experiments to understand the potential impacts and feasibility of geoengineering solutions. Vizzioni also acknowledges the value of modeling and simulation in the early stages of research, but stresses the need to transition from hypothetical scenarios to actual implementation. He concludes by expressing his skepticism about the impact of small-scale experiments and emphasizes the importance of planning for the long term. Overall, the key takeaway is that while geoengineering holds potential, a collaborative and long-term approach is necessary to fully understand its implications and potential benefits.
