this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
385 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

59402 readers
2532 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Jajcus@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sulfur polution actually has cooling effect, so it is kind of opposite of greenhouse gases. It sucks in different ways, though.

[–] Addv4@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If in the upper atmosphere yes, but I doubt any of the sulfer from these gets anywhere near that height, and actually just falls back down to pollute down here.

[–] Killing_Spark@feddit.de 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's actually been theorized that ships using cleaner fuel (read: less sulfur output) contributed to the peak temperatures of the atlantik ocean

[–] JungleJim@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Thankfully we already have non-sulfur cloud seeding technology so now that we know the oceanic clouds made it cooler we can make more clouds without sulfur, netting us the heat shield without the pollution.

[–] cyd@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

No, the link seems to be real. Very recent studies based on satellite data have detected a reduction in cloud reflectivity caused by the reduction in sulfur emissions. This will accelerate global warming; by exactly how much is currently not known.