It had to be done, the result of burning high-sulpher fuels is nasty stuff. But the jump in temperatures should not be attributed to CO2 or used as a reason for some politician's policy prescription.
Additionally, on the other side of the debate/argument, the energy was always incoming, the reduction in the sulfates just exposed the issue.
From The Guardian,May 30:
Sudden cut in pollution in 2020 meant less shade from sun and was ‘substantial’ factor in record surface temperatures in 2023, study finds
The slashing of pollution from shipping in 2020 led to a big “termination shock” that is estimated have pushed the rate of global heating to double the long-term average, according to research.
Until 2020, global shipping used dirty, high-sulphur fuels that produced air pollution. The pollution particles blocked sunlight and helped form more clouds, thereby curbing global heating. But new regulations at the start of 2020 slashed the sulphur content of fuels by more than 80%.
The new analysis calculates that the subsequent drop in pollution particles has significantly increased the amount of heat being trapped at the Earth’s surface that drives the climate crisis. The researchers said the sharp ending of decades of shipping pollution was an inadvertent geoengineering experiment, revealing new information about its effectiveness and risks.
High ocean surface temperatures smashed records in 2023, alarming experts who have struggled to explain the huge rises. But scientists have mixed views on the role played by the cut in shipping pollution.
Those behind the new study say it could be a “pretty substantial” factor. Others say it is only a small factor, and that the reasons for the extraordinary rises in sea and global temperatures remain an alarming mystery.
Dr Tianle Yuan, at the University of Maryland, US, who led the study, said the estimated 0.2 watts per sq metre of additional heat trapped over the oceans after the pollution cut was “a big number, and it happened in one year, so it’s a big shock to the system”.
“We will experience about double the warming rate compared to the long-term average” since 1880 as a result, he said. The heating effect of the pollution cut is expected to last about seven years....
....MUCH MORE
During the run-up to the new rules, 2018 - 2020, we had quite a few posts, maybe 100, on what was going on. Here are a few of the ones that focused on money:
Big Oil Traders Set to Cash In On Low Sulphur Shipping Fuel ChangeNot really related except in a climate change sense, yesterday's:
Oil: The Impact On Refiners Of Shipping's Low-Sulpher Fuel Ruels After 2010
"Maersk Braces For A $5+ Billion Fuel Bill In 2020"
Top Norwegian Oil Analyst Quitting DNB to Pursue 2020 Low Sulphur Fuel Rule Riches
Shipping: The New Low Sulpher Rules Will Have A Huge Impact On the Oil Business (shipping and world economy too)
Rich Rewards Await Top Oil Refiners as Ships Make Low Sulpher Switch Fuel
Shipping: "Hapag-Lloyd Expects USD 1 Bn in Extra Fuel Costs from 2020 Sulphur Cap"
Shipping: CEO of Third Largest Fleet Says "We're All Going to Go Bust"
Shipping: "CMA CGM Says Global Sulphur Cap to Cost Customers $160 Per Container on Average"
That's serious money, say on a 10,000 TEU average voyage, $1.6 million per trip?
Jeez, no wonder the industry is freaking out....
"Tonga’s volcanic eruption could cause unusual weather for the rest of the decade, new study shows"
