@lavergnetho
Thanks. I only read the SAI part. Sad that some framings are dubiously blurry and wouldn't stand in a debate. Unnecessarily lessens the importance of the paper.
(€-costs shd be irrelevant anyway when saving habitability, no?)
Major point, certain, irrefutable: ocean acidification worsens with continued emissions. Today, acidity is already worse than in the last 300 million years, they write! 😱
Learned why polar SAI makes no sense at all (night for 6 months), and that all tropical stratospheric injections are dispersed to mid-latitudes by normal planetary wind bands, and there, all the sulphur or other aerosol eventually then rain out.
Every year.
Does that mean, German forest dies from acid rain – again. Perfect. 🙄 (Paper also speaks of bad impacts on health from the toxic rain on humans [and likely general faunal])
Remains unclear: whether Arctic Antarctica benefit from SAI at all if not injected directly overhead.
Btw, I wish scientists would stop saying "reducing GHG"
It's misunderstood as "Ah, a bit less is enough?"
Please spell it out: "reduce GHG to zero (fast)". (and not merely "asap")
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/science/articles/10.3389/fsci.2025.1527393/full
#geoengineering #SAI #SRM