Inlay

Profile

Dan Visioni

Climate scientist studying aerosols, chemistry, radiation, climate & society from Volcanoes 🌋and Climate Intervention. Assistant Professor at Cornell EAS, from 🇮🇹proudly🏳️‍🌈 More at https://dan-visioni.github.io/ and https://www.wcrp-climate.org/ci-overview

Our webinar "Exploring climate interventions at the science-policy interface", co-organized by 2 @wcrpclimate.bsky.social Lighthouse Activities (Climate Intervention Research & Safe Landing Initiative) held Monday is now up on YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qefw... Hopefully the 1st of a series :)

The “Tower of Babel” has always sounded to me much less a tale about hubristic humans and much more one of a petty jealous god who didn’t want competition and was afraid of humans. A big tall tower where everyone speaks the same language sounds pretty rad.

May be all be like the Knicks, punched hard in the first half, coming out barely on top, and then back with a fucking vengeance on the second half amen

acp.copernicus.org/articles/26/... Took a while but we finally published the first multi-model radiative fording results from the Hunga Tonga Volcano Impact Model Observation Comparison Project. Roughly -0.2W/m2 at TOA, mainly from the SO₂, with the water v actually contributing to aerosol growth.

Every good scenario is good in the same way [I like it]. Every bad scenario is bad in its own way [someone I don’t like likes it].

There should be a 3rd medium in between LinkedIn (where everyone is overly enthusiastic and every study is conclusive and stellar and proof something is scalable. Only good vibes!) & Bluesky (where everything is met with snark if it even hints at something working as intended. Only bad news here!).

In general people should feel free to read the study and criticize the methodology -it’s crucial to release results & process, it’s crucial to be accountable and transparent and not have a profit motive here- but *most* of the responses I see are either just intellectually lazy or apodictic.

Interesting to read the responses to this, broadly categorized as: - How dare you talk about CDR, focus on mitigation (they’re different but compatible things) - Oh sure what can go wrong (uhm that’s part of the research process) - You could never demonstrate it’s safe (lots to unpack there!)