Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Thomas
@aviationdoctor.eth
One thing I love about Farcaster is its open-mindedness — when we reach out and consult each other about our respective domains instead of blindly accepting pseudo-truths at face value like seems to happen on X. Anyway, here @laursa.eth and I shine some light on recent climate denial claims
12 replies
18 recasts
70 reactions
BrixBountyFarm 🎩
@brixbounty
Thought you might share your thoughts on the role if sulfate reduction, and/or volcano > water vapor. No rush. Thanks. https://theconversation.com/tongas-volcanic-eruption-could-cause-unusual-weather-for-the-rest-of-the-decade-new-study-shows-231074
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Thomas
@aviationdoctor.eth
This is super interesting. There aren't precedents that I know of. But yes, water vapor is actually responsible for about half of all radiative forcing, ahead of CO2. We don't talk about it much because humans generally don't introduce water vapor into the stratosphere (that may change if hydrogen-powered aircraft take over). Also, atmospheric water vapor has a really short life span (couple of weeks) compared to centuries or more for CO2, so it's usually not a concern. But in this instance it was a large amount of H2O at once so the effect is noticeable, mostly on the ozone layer but also (very slightly) on positive forcing. I don't have the data to say whether a regular volcanic eruption of the same magnitude, but spewing particulates instead of H2O in the stratosphere, would have had a greater (negative) forcing effect than the H2O had (in the positive direction).
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Thomas
@aviationdoctor.eth
All I know is that atmospheric seeding is one of the geoengineering ideas pushed forth to try and reduce the amount of solar radiation that reaches the surface of the earth, precisely because particulates (whether from ships, volcanoes, or seeding) are very effective at that
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
