
Reducing aerosols might paradoxically increase global temperature - bald
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1554-z?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20190919&utm_source=hybris-campaign&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=000_SKN6563_0000015103_41586-Nature-20190919-EAlert&sap-outbound-id=6D0CF7DB6EAFC0FF122B7336E2D928C997E7F0F4&utm_content=EN_internal_33414_20190919&mkt-key=005056A5C6311EE999B00D6056D2A9E7
======
chasontherobot
This paper shows the opposite, though:

"Here we show that more realistic modelling scenarios do not produce a
substantial near-term increase in either the magnitude or the rate of warming,
and in fact can lead to a decrease in warming rates within two decades of the
start of the fossil-fuel phase-out."

~~~
salicideblock
This.

The HN title is editorialized to the point of stating nearly the opposite of
the paper's conclusions.

------
yodelshady
I thought this was well understood? "Stratospheric aerosol injection", aka
deliberately hurling sulphur into the upper atmosphere, is a know proposition:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injectio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection)

It has a ring of "what could possibly go wrong?" about it. Doesn't mean it
wouldn't work though.

~~~
marsokod
Yeah, That's what I have been taught as well. Though the direct effect is very
small and it's not part of many geoengineering plans because it is not great
for us anyway. And you would also need to take into account the carbon
footprint of manufacturing said aerosols.

