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 :)
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.
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
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!)
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.
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!).
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].
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.