Will pumping SO2 into the stratosphere to curb global warming a good idea?

Question

This theory proposes to release sulfur dioxide (SO2) via planes to curb global warming. The SO2 will reflect sunlight and cool the Earth. Can and should this be done?

http://www.clipp.org/news/content/263.php

Answer 1

It's not too smart to do something difficult to reverse to try to fix this. Other ideas include launching millions of reflectors to deflect solar radiation, which is also reckless and difficult to reverse.

The best idea I've seen so far is to plant more trees as carbon sinks. Another idea worth study is seeding the ocean with iron sulfide to stimulate algae and phytoplankton growth. The new algae and plankton then consume CO2. Both of these are reversible in case AGW advocates are wrong and we're actually going into a cooling phase.

Let's not even start talking about peak oil. Wait, someone already did. The Athabasca Tar Sands in Alberta, Canada contain more petroleum than has been pumped from the ground since the dawn of history. Guess who's opposed to accessing that oil? The usual suspects, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and the Rainforest Action Network. They want us to run out of oil and they wanted this long before the AGW scare began.

Answer 2

i think it's just amazing.  for example, those scientists are way dumber than me, "I think it's weakness is the fact that human scientists have a drop in the bucket of the knowledge it would take to understand how our climate truly works."

hey, let's put a box around a parrot, and "produce a model that does what they already though the climate would do" -- that's not how it works. the model is pretty general, and the data drives it.  what you do is start with conditions 20 years ago, and put in data that you know occurred 10-20 years ago.  if the model is good, it'll predict what the climate was 10 years ago.  that's what they do, and the models are reasonably accurate.

or, "The main weakness in my opinion is the impossibility of accounting for all the variables and therefore the amount judgment that must go into writing the software."  a model can account for as many variables as you want.  the real problem is define how important each variable is in the process.  isn't it interesting how people with no understanding at all are absolutely sure of the problem.

"you should look at the number of scientists that have sued to get their names taken off the ipcc report."  oh my.  that's interesting.  and with so many people intent on casting doubt on the IPCC report, that list must be posted hundreds of times on the internet.  why don't we post a few of those links.

"The really big weakness is the total absense of data about the geothermal flux. The ocean is warmed quite a bit by the geothermal flux and science knows nothing about how much this has on climate"  oh darn, those climate modelers are just soooooo stupid.  let's see, first we need to see where that heat is generated, and how convection brings it into the atmosphere.  if you look half way down this page:

http://www.wunderground.com/education/ab...

you can see the path of the gulf stream, during the rest of it's journey around the world.  "This North Atlantic deep water flows southward toward Antarctica, eventually making it all the way to the Pacific Ocean, where it rises back to the surface to complete the Great Ocean Conveyor Belt. It takes about 1000 years for the water to make a complete circuit around the globe."  so it takes, maybe 500 years for heat released along the mid Atlantic ridge to make it into the atmosphere.

Answer 3

It can be, but it certainly shouldn't be.  SO2 also causes acid rain and health problems.  

Plus plants need sunlight, so causing global dimming is a poor way to slow global warming.

Plus it would be difficult to know how much SO2 to pump into the atmosphere, and if we continue to emit more and more CO2, we would have to pump more and more SO2 into the atmosphere.

It's simply not a good solution.  A far better one would be to simply decrease our greenhouse gas emissions.  We need to end our addiction on fossil fuels anyway because they're a finite resource and we're approaching peak oil production.

Answer 4

we could. it has been proposed as a last ditch measure to stop global warming but it has many problems. such as acid rain and a study linking sulphide aerosols and low rain fall.

Answer 5

Playing along with the crowd,it's not really a feasible solution.To emphasize the other suggestions,one could say the same about; nuclear power,fish farming,fertilizer for agroculture...etc.All of these have/had a negative environmental impact potential.Land based pollutants are more detrimental then CO2,because the effects are almost immediate and long lasting.If you totally  destroy an ecosystem,it has no chance to recover from a slight warming trend.

Answer 6

read michael crighton's state of fear novel.

Answer 7

No.

Trying to oppose one huge man made change with another is not a bright idea.

Instead we should reduce our impact by reducing our production of greenhouse gases.

"If the Earth came with an operating manual, the chapter on climate might begin with a caveat that the system has been adjusted at the factory for optimum comfort, so don't touch the dials."

Answer 8

Let's see now,how can the 'deniers' claim that man has no power to control the weather or destroy the atmosphere with excess CO2,but yet claim that man can put more gunk in the atmosphere to fix it? Kinda lacks deep thought! Sort of like the old nursery rhyme about getting a cat to get rid of the mice,a dog to get rid of the cats,and so on...

Answer 9

I don't believe we should mess with the weather.  Right now it's doing what it always does.... leave it alone.  

Heck.... look at the stupid move that we have made with ethanol.  A classic example of a knee-jerk reaction to a make believe problem.

Answer 10

Trade acid rain for global warming?

See - these are the problems that happen when "solutions" are proposed to problems where we don't have enough information.....