
Injecting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to counter global warming - curtis
http://curtisb.posthaven.com/someday-soon-chemtrails-may-be-real?
======
bhouston
This is not new:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_\(geoengineering\))

[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/511016/a-cheap-and-
easy-p...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-
stop-global-warming/)

[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060804-globa...](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060804-global-
warming.html)

An academic friend of mine is pushing to publish a paper on this soon. It
seems credible as a way to slow global warming, but there will be side effects
(as there has to be with such significant modification of our environment)
that are hard to predict, and probably some of those side effects could be
harmful. The question is which path is the less harmful, and whether we have
to risk unpredictable side effects (could be minor or large) in order to avoid
global warming.

~~~
curtis
> It seems credible as a way to slow global warming, but there will be side
> effects (as there has to be with such significant modification of our
> environment) that are hard to predict, and probably some of those side
> effects could be harmful.

I think it's certain that some of the side-effects will be harmful, and it's
largely a question of magnitude. Because sulfur dioxide has a limited lifetime
in the atmosphere, however, it can be tested safely(1) at scale. From the
article:

 _The data from the Mount Pinatubo eruption tells us that sulfur dioxide in
the stratosphere can cause cooling comparable to the global warming we 've
seen so far. But it tells us something else as well: The effects of
stratospheric sulfur dioxide have a limited lifetime, on the order of just a
couple of years. This is bad in the sense that to be useful, the injection
program has to be sustained. But it is good -- very, very good -- in the sense
that it reduces risk. The program could be scaled up, the impact could be
measured, and, if the side-effects are too serious, it can be scaled back down
again very rapidly. This greatly reduces the risk of the undertaking._

(1) The side-effects shouldn't be any more harmful that what we've already
lived through with the Mount Pinatubo eruption.

------
ScottBurson
I strongly recommend that anyone interested in geoengineering read Oliver
Morton's excellent book, _The Planet Remade: How Geoengineering Could Change
the World_. I found it engagingly written, chock full of interesting science,
and open-minded without being credulous.

I think we're going to have to try stratospheric sulfur aerosols within the
next decade or so. Yes, I know it doesn't solve the ocean acidification
problem. I think we should be _experimenting_ with iron fertilization for that
purpose. It might not work, or the side-effects might be too severe, but the
attitude of the scientific community has been to actively suppress any such
research, and I think that's a serious mistake.

It is not a choice of whether we dare to modify the biosphere, or not. We are
already modifying it! That genie is not going back in the bottle. We should be
learning how to modify it intentionally as well as unintentionally.

~~~
ScottBurson
Let me say a little more to give you a taste of the book. Morton opens the
Introduction with two questions:

(1) Do you believe the risks of climate change merit serious action aimed at
lessening them?

(2) Do you think that reducing an industrial economy's carbon-dioxide
emissions to near zero is very hard?

I'll quote snippets:

 _To judge by what they say, and by what policies they support, most people in
favour of action on climate change are in the Yes /No camp: they want to act
on the risks; they don't think that getting off fossil fuels is a terribly
hard problem._ [...] _Most of those against action on climate are in the No
/Yes camp: they don't think climate is very much of a worry; but they do think
that getting off fossil fuels is very difficult, even impossible._ [...]
_Neither of these approaches works for people like me in the Yes /Yes camp._

[Added in edit] Morton goes on to support both positions. The argument for (1)
is not that climate disaster is inevitable on our current course, but that the
risk is too great to ignore. The argument for (2) is more involved; he lays
out numbers showing how little progress has been made and pointing out how
billions of people still have little or no access to energy at all. As their
standard of living rises to what we in the rich world would consider the
poverty level, they will inevitably burn more carbon.

------
jkh1
by destroying forests ? Sulphur dioxide is what causes acid rains
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain))
which kill trees
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Triangle_(region)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Triangle_\(region\))).

~~~
curtis
I didn't cover it in the blog post, but the amount of sulfur dioxide needed is
less than what we're already emitting into the lower atmosphere.

From Wikipedia[1]:

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the amount of
sulfur dioxide released in the U.S. per year was:

    
    
      Year 	SO2
      1970 	31,161,000 short tons (28.3 Mt)
      1980 	25,905,000 short tons (23.5 Mt)
      1990 	23,678,000 short tons (21.5 Mt)
      1996 	18,859,000 short tons (17.1 Mt)
      1997 	19,363,000 short tons (17.6 Mt)
      1998 	19,491,000 short tons (17.7 Mt)
      1999 	18,867,000 short tons (17.1 Mt)
    

also[1]:

 _As of 2006, China was the world 's largest sulfur dioxide polluter, with
2005 emissions estimated to be 25,490,000 short tons (23.1 Mt)._

Presumably we can reduce sulfur dioxide pollution in the lower atmosphere
enough to completely offset any that we're releasing into the stratosphere. Is
that better or worse? I don't know. But it would seem like right now the
Mountain pine beetle is a much greater threat to trees than acid rain is.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide#As_an_air_pollu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide#As_an_air_pollutant)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_pine_beetle#Current_o...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_pine_beetle#Current_outbreak)

------
codecamper
Naive article that forgets to mention "ocean acidification".

At some point, not so far off, the oceans become too acidic for krill to form
their exoskeletons. Once that happens the ocean food chain is done.

~~~
curtis
No, the article doesn't mention ocean acidification. Yes, that's a big deal.
I'm personally concerned that it's much more dangerous than sea level rise.
However, the article does acknowledge that there are big limits to what
stratospheric sulfur injection can do:

 _Stratospheric sulfur dioxide injection is not a panacea. But what it can do
is buy us time. ... It can buy us time to deploy large scale climate
engineering projects that do remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere..._

I didn't discuss other climate engineering proposals because I was trying to
keep the post short.

~~~
codecamper
The point is that climate engineering should be revealed by the scientists
only after the mathematically challenged, climate change naysayers are
literally defecating in their pants watching a tsunami wave washing towards
New York city.

Otherwise, they'll just start doing that & continue burning the coal.

------
FreeFull
Even if we stop global warming, what do we do about the carbon dioxide
dissolved in the oceans making them more acidic than they should be?

~~~
fragsworth
Baking Soda?

We'll just dump chemicals everywhere.

~~~
s_kilk
We'll use Snakes to solve the Rat problem, then we'll send in Boars to take
care of the Snake problem. Of course, we'll need Bears to deal with the Boars
when they get out of control.

~~~
soVeryTired
Once winter rolls around, the bears hibernate and the problem disappears.

~~~
astrodust
Tell me you're running for office. That's logic so air-tight who could not
vote for you.

------
dfarts
Wouldn't it be better to stop pollution and let the Earth recover on her own
accord in time?

~~~
jdavis703
That's never going to happen. Americans will never give up their trucks. The
Chinese won't give up their coal fired power plants. Developing nations won't
give up slash and burn forestry programs. Why? Because we're all motivated by
greed. Instead I think the solution is to make pollution expensive: some have
proposed a carbon tax as one way of dealing with this. Perhaps there are other
ways involving behavioral economics or something that could also be attempted.

~~~
astrodust
Americans _are_ giving up on their trucks:
[http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/07/the-clearest-
explanat...](http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/07/the-clearest-explanation-
yet-for-why-millennials-are-driving-less/398366/)

China _is_ giving up on coal fired power plants:
[http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/10/21/china-coal-
crack...](http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/10/21/china-coal-crackdown-
cancel-new-power-plants/)

Why? Because things change.

~~~
ScottBurson
There are some encouraging trends, but the progress they've made to date is
still very small compared to the size of the problem.

Perhaps the most encouraging trend is the exponential growth of the
photovoltaic solar panel industry. If that continues, it will certainly be a
huge help. But you have to weigh that against the fact that there are still a
couple of billion people with no access to power at all. All together, world
carbon emissions are not likely to fall anytime soon.

~~~
astrodust
A 40% decline in licenses is not "very small". It's enormous.

Likewise China realized it couldn't double down on coal indefinitely, they had
to back off. When your pollution becomes so bad planes can't take off you have
to re-think your strategy.

China used coal because it was cost-effective, but now the costs _of_ coal are
too high to sustain its use. They're just going where the money is, and right
now that's solar.

China itself doesn't have a lot of fossil fuels other than oil so naturally
they're interested in something that makes them energy independent. Energy is,
after all, power.

------
blondie9x
Article doesn't mention the negative consequences. Acid rain destruction of
animal and plant life as well.

------
hendler
Personally, this feels like misinformation. There are such drastic
consequences to S02. Take this recent article
[https://www.yahoo.com/news/mystery-solved-cause-
londons-1952...](https://www.yahoo.com/news/mystery-solved-cause-
londons-1952-151500901.html)

------
gajjanag
I first came across this idea in an excellent book by Olle Haggstrom: "Here Be
Dragons: Science, Technology and the Future of Humanity", which talks more
generally about large scale/long term problems for humanity.

It is the only book I know of that takes a comprehensive view of a variety of
such issues (climate change, extraterrestrials, strong AI, etc) and is written
in a scientific manner with numerous citations, and little to no empty
statements as is typically found in "popular" books.

------
perilunar
Bugger using high-sulfur fuel in aircraft, how about we just pop some nukes
into a couple of dormant volcanoes and blow their tops off?

------
microcolonel
Anyone watch Snowpiercer?

~~~
08-15
Are you suggesting the solution is a Sacred Engine running on... uhhh... magic
and small children, I guess?

(I get it, you're implying that the release of some "cooling compound" might
cause an ice age. I'm just not convinced that a 2+ hours long string of plot
holes and terrible acting can teach us anything.)

~~~
microcolonel
I think that the more plot holes and mediocre acting a movie has, the more it
teaches us. ;- )

------
throwaway5752
It's all pointless. Massive photovoltaic infra could have been deployed
decades ago but it would have harmed wealthy interests so they injected tens
of billions of dollars into disrupting and controlling the political system of
the US. Putting the continuation of this civilization as we know it at risk,
all for a bit of money in a single person's lifespan. And it worked. In bad
moments one wonders if it's better off they succeed.

~~~
igravious
Referring to your bio info.

"People will downvote a throwaway account much more aggressively than a non-
throwaway. Liberating, but a little disappointing."

You're meant to use it briefly and then, you know, throw it away. The clue is
in the name! You've had your account for 1077 days, that's hardly temporary.
All your account is is anonymous, not temporary.

~~~
twic
In a very real sense, all our accounts are temporary.

~~~
astrodust
People who won't at least pretend to stand behind their remarks are going to
get slammed more heavily than those who will be around to face criticism.

