How large a scale and with how many countries participating would cloud seeding be able to reverse these effects? Last I remember it was only a few countries in Asia that were attempting anything of the sort.
There's a serious proposal to do that with a fleet of wind-powered ships, seeding low-lying clouds with seawater. Wikipedia cites a cost of $5 billion/year for a large deployment, and a maximum potential of offsetting two-thirds of our current anthropogenic warming. If we stopped doing it then things would be back to "normal" in a couple weeks. There would be local weather changes, but less than what's caused by unabated heating.
A disadvantage of solar radiation management like this is that it does nothing for ocean acidification. But it could buy us time by heading off feedback effects that cause the planet to emit a lot more greenhouse gas of its own, due to melting permafrost, forest fires, etc.
IMO implementing solar shielding measures, while still pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is a recipe for a rapid climate apocalypse, an epic dilemma, probably worse than adapting to progressive climate worsening.
We've just got a taste of it, when we realized the sulfur contamination by crude oil burning cargo ships was unknowingly off-setting climate effects by solar shielding, because cleaning up emissions apparently accelerated climate change. So there we have a horrible scenario: Pollute the environment or suffer rapid global warming.
Imagine the fun, if we engineered and employ a shielding "solution", intentionally. Comfortably sitting around 1.5°C, at some point, me may notice out there is some horrible chemistry happening in the upper atmosphere due to our "inert" shielding agents, where the fallout increasingly sterilizes every mammal on the planet, but we also kinda, uppsie-doopsie now additionally have 4°C worth of CO2 in the atmosphere waiting for prime time, so... stopping with the shielding emission would cause extremely rapid warming acceleration collapsing every ecosystem on the planet.
I hope you still get the point. It might have unforeseeable consequences and at some point we may end up trapped in a dilemma.
When we've gone carbon neutral, we may think about these measures to reduce the temperature a bit again, but it's just a recipe for disaster, if used to "buy some time".
Against your unforeseeable consequences, I'll balance the entirely foreseeable consequences of excess heat, plus the unforeseeable consequences of excess heat. It's not like our choices are between cloud seeding and a pristine planet.
The reason we need this to buy some time is that those climate feedbacks aren't far away. We've seen in the geological record that really doesn't take much excess heat (usually from orbital variations) to kick off a warming cycle that would take things entirely out of our hands.
Simply eliminating emissions would have been a great plan, but we're beyond that now. A lot of climate scientists say the safe CO2 level is 350ppm. I remember when we blew past that and they said "ok, but seriously don't go past 400ppm." Now we're at 425ppm with emissions going strong. Solar power, electric cars, all this stuff gives me hope for the future if we can do it in time, but we're in a race and we're losing.
And it's not like this sort of cloud seeding would deploy all at once. We'd ramp up gradually and see how it goes. At the very least, we could replace the cloud cover that the article says we've eliminated over the past twenty years.
Disregard the obvious environmental risks of spraying silver iodide in the air, cloud seeding will artificially redirect rainfall in specific areas, which may deprive downstream regions of water, harming biodiversity. Note that cloud seeding is currently used for drought management, not global warming mitigation.
Cloud seeding aims to increase precipitation, not to increase evaporation. It might actually reduce cloud cover overall, since precipitation causes moisture to fall out of the air.
Sarah & Duck is such a nice change from the typical loud and fast action kids programming. Shaun the sheep is another good slower alternative though not always as calming
Gartic Phone can be up to 30 players I think. It's like the game of telephone mixed with pictionary. It's browser based so you can play on mobile/tablet/pc.
https://garticphone.com/
But what if those friends and family that are immediately nearby don't share the same interest? Seems healthy(ish) to peruse the interactions that you find interesting/stimulating similar to reading a book/magazine or playing a video game.
What I don't get about the article is if there is a difference between glass, plastic, and aluminum cans. I would assume the article is going over plastic bottles but around here most TopoChico options come in glass.
completely depends on the price point, if consoles can get low enough, the barrier of entry for great graphics in a single package will be hard to beat. exclusives will also help push gamers into consoles
