22046097 - picturesque view of erupting volcano - illustration

Scientists Notice: Nightmare Sulfur Injection Geoengineering Plan Might Cause Problems

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

If you block the sun, you hurt food production. There’s even a study. But this terrifying problem has not stopped climate enthusiasts from pushing forward with an attempt to recreate the end of the dinosaur age, to “save” us from 1C of global warming.

Before geoengineering to mitigate climate change, researchers must consider some fundamental chemistry

By  University of Pennsylvania
NOVEMBER 22, 2021

It’s a tempting thought: With climate change so difficult to manage and nations unwilling to take decisive action, what if we could mitigate its effects by setting up a kind of chemical umbrella—a layer of sulfuric acid in the upper atmosphere that could reflect the sun’s radiation and cool the Earth?

According to a new study in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, a collaboration among Penn scientists and two groups in Spain, atmospheric conditions in the stratosphere pose a challenge to generating sulfuric acid, making its production less efficient than might have previously been expected. Thus more groundwork exploring the chemistry of how sulfuric acid and its building blocks will react in the upper atmosphere is required in order to confidently move forward with this climate geoengineering strategy, the researchers say.

“These fundamental insights highlight the importance of understanding the photochemistry involved in geoengineering,” says Joseph S. Francisco, an atmospheric chemist in Penn’s School of Arts & Sciences and a co-corresponding author on the study. “That’s critically important and it’s something that’s been ignored.”

Using sulfuric acid to blunt the sun’s rays as a means of curbing climate changeimpacts is based on a natural phenomenon: When volcanoes erupt, the sulfur they emit creates localized—or sometimes even far-reaching—cooling clouds that filter the sun. But those clouds emerge in the troposphere, which ranges from the Earth’s surface to about 10 kilometers up. Geoengineering using sulfuric acid would happen a good deal higher, in the stratosphere, from about 10 to 20 kilometers above the planet.

“One of the implications of this finding is, if you put sulfur dioxide up there, it’s going to just be recycling around,” Francisco says. “So it opens the door to whether we have a full understanding of atmospheric sulfur chemistry up in the stratosphere.”

The findings also highlight the need for a Plan B if the atmospheric chemistry doesn’t play out as expected. “It raises a fundamentally important question,” Francisco says. “If we put the sulfur dioxide in, can we get it out of the stratosphere?

Read more: https://phys.org/news/2021-11-geoengineering-mitigate-climate-fundamental-chemistry.html

The abstract of the study which discusses what geoengineering could do to plant growth;

Estimating global agricultural effects of geoengineering using volcanic eruptions

Published: 08 August 2018

Jonathan Proctor, Solomon Hsiang, Jennifer Burney, Marshall Burke & Wolfram Schlenker

Nature (2018)

Solar radiation management is increasingly considered to be an option for managing global temperatures, yet the economic effects of ameliorating climatic changes by scattering sunlight back to space remain largely unknown. Although solar radiation management may increase crop yields by reducing heat stress, the effects of concomitant changes in available sunlight have never been empirically estimated. Here we use the volcanic eruptions that inspired modern solar radiation management proposals as natural experiments to provide the first estimates, to our knowledge, of how the stratospheric sulfate aerosols created by the eruptions of El Chichón and Mount Pinatubo altered the quantity and quality of global sunlight, and how these changes in sunlight affected global crop yields. We find that the sunlight-mediated effect of stratospheric sulfate aerosols on yields is negative for both C4 (maize) and C3 (soy, rice and wheat) crops. Applying our yield model to a solar radiation management scenario based on stratospheric sulfate aerosols, we find that projected mid-twenty-first century damages due to scattering sunlight caused by solar radiation management are roughly equal in magnitude to benefits from cooling. This suggests that solar radiation management—if deployed using stratospheric sulfate aerosols similar to those emitted by the volcanic eruptions it seeks to mimic—would, on net, attenuate little of the global agricultural damage from climate change. Our approach could be extended to study the effects of solar radiation management on other global systems, such as human health or ecosystem function.

Read more (paywalled): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0417-3

You can just imagine the scenario. Scientists pump a bit of sulfur into the atmosphere and nothing happens. Then they pump some more, the needle still doesn’t move. Then suddenly an extreme atmospheric event, like a large hurricane or a volcanic eruption, throws up some extra water vapour, and the entire sky goes black.

I’m glad at least one of them asked the obvious question, how to get the sulfur out of the atmosphere if it all goes wrong? But I’m guessing if the opportunity arose for a full scale test they would still probably want to try it out.

4.9 14 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Keith Harrison
November 22, 2021 6:19 pm

Where’s Burl Henry when you need him to explain his simple theory of climate change where he tried to convince readers at Judith Curry’s site that SO2 is the control knob for temperature?

Burl Henry
Reply to  Keith Harrison
November 22, 2021 9:35 pm

Keith Harrison:

Every stratovolcanic eruption (VEI4 or greater) goes through the same cycle:

Initial cooling of the Earths’ surface from the injection of reflective SO2 aerosols into the stratosphere, where they circulate around the globe, reaching their maximum cooling effect, on average, 16 months after the date of the eruption. This cooling normally results in a La Nina.

Their aerosols eventually settle out of the atmosphere, in roughly 24-30 months, and temperatures recover to pre-eruption levels, or a bit higher, usually resulting in the formation of an El Nino.

SO2 introduced into the troposphere, from industrial activities, has the same cooling effect, but it is usually from relatively constant sources, so that what settles our is quickly replaced.

If an American business recession occurs, idled factories, foundries etc. result in fewer SO2 aerosol emissions, and temperatures rise until the recession ends, thus mimicking the warming phase of volcanic eruptions and often resulting in an El Nino.

So, geo-engineering by putting Sulfuric Acid aerosol mists into either the stratosphere or the troposphere.is just business-as-usual, and nothing to be worried about (except that a volcano may pop of and cause more cooling than wanted)

Patrick healy
Reply to  Burl Henry
November 23, 2021 3:34 am

Hang on a minnit’ we have been assured that the sun has no effect on our weather. It’s all controlled by Carbon Dioxide our vital plant food.
Did I miss out on a lesson somewhere,?

Reply to  Patrick healy
November 23, 2021 5:41 pm

We have never been assured that the sun has no effect on the weather.
All the research related to global warming has been driven by the UN’s mandate for the IPCC to ONLY investigate HUMAN_CAUSED rising temperatures or other climate changes.

Human-Caused CO2 was a convenient scapegoat, most likely because is was proposed in 1902 or thereabouts. None of the colorful energy graphs, pages and pages of haphazard research could all be pointed to human caused atmosphere warming.

It’s main purpose was to elicit programs that could generate large amounts of cash for the UN, and start controlling the activities of as many people as possible so they could order people to do things.

It was not about weather threats, transport, emissions of CO2, or anything similar. It was about political control.

Most everyone has been hoodwinked into wasting time arguing a dead end instead of countering the real threat.

Last edited 1 year ago by Philo
Reply to  Burl Henry
November 23, 2021 7:04 am

Nice imagination.
Same, as so many researchers that program excessive climate response into their models.
Only, the data doesn’t back that claim.

Spot The Volcano, 1815 Editioncomment image

New Data, Old Claims About Volcanoescomment image

Burl Henry
Reply to  ATheoK
November 23, 2021 10:07 am


“Nice Imagination”

?? Volcanoes behave EXACTLY as I have described.

As I noted, it takes about 16 months for the maximum cooling for an eruption to occur. as their aerosols circulate around the planet.

Both of your graphs show a decrease in temperatures AFTER the eruption, confirming what I have stated. ..

Tom Halla
November 22, 2021 6:20 pm

As if anyone understands climate well enough to do engineering? As the computer models cannot handle clouds, except as a supplied parameter, it would be a bit presumptuous to try engineering,

Smart Rock
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 23, 2021 3:56 am

Presumption is a fundamental part of Climate Science.

We presume that CO2 controls the climate, and then we use that presumption to create models that “prove” that CO2 controls the climate. QED.

So now it is presumed that SO2 will save us from the CO2 disaster we have modelled. And we will create models that “prove” it.

Science is so easy when you start with the conclusion and use mega-computers to derive that conclusion, innit?

Rich Davis
Reply to  Smart Rock
November 23, 2021 9:48 am

It would be a good face-saving move for the elites to stage a salvation mission that puts an irrelevant amount of sulfate into the stratosphere and then “prove” that the continued failure of climate models is due to their continuous (presumably extremely expensive, graft-enabling) mitigation efforts rather than a fundamental error in the models. They could then back down from their suicide mission without admitting any error. The windmills and solar panels grift has run its course. A new scam is needed!

November 22, 2021 6:23 pm

Was discussed here:
 Date : Thursday, November 11th, 2021

Place: Virtual (via Zoom)
 Time : 10.00m

 Speaker: Greg Slater
         (LMSAL, Palo Alto)
 Title: The Strong Case For Immediate Global Cooling by Stratospheric Injection of SO2
The arguments and the data are presented to make the case for the rational and moral imperatives for the immediate deployment of the first large scale tests of global cooling using stratospheric injection of SO2, to be followed immediately thereafter by a transition to operational systems for continuous global cooling, in order to stabilize global temperature and sea levels, and extreme weather events, and to stop the associated rising global deaths, suffering, drought, forced migration, etc., which in turn are dangerously straining the very stability of societies worldwide.

Figure Caption: Schematic climate futures [After MacMartin et al, 2019, ‘Mission-driven research for stratospheric aerosol geoengineering’].

Topic: LMSAL Seminar Zoom Meeting
Time: Nov 11, 2021 10:00 AM Pacific Time (US and Canada)

Join Zoom Meeting

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 22, 2021 8:41 pm

If it all goes wrong, can we sue Lockheed Martin?

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
November 22, 2021 10:29 pm

No for the same reasons you can’t sue over the coronavirus … outside the reach of your country laws.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 22, 2021 9:13 pm

And here I was thinking gain-of-function “experiments” were the nadir of evil mad science. The criminally insane Dr. Frankensteins at Lockheed Martin are a million times worse. That corporate House of Horrors needs to be closed down immediately and their employees placed in straitjackets in padded cells. Their plan to BLOCK THE SUN dangerously strains the very stability of societies and Life Itself worldwide.

Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
November 23, 2021 12:45 am

That’s the plan.

Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
November 23, 2021 8:04 am

or maybe
“scorch the sky”?

Rich Davis
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
November 23, 2021 9:53 am

We’re going to block the sun unless you pay us!

How ‘bout one QUADRILLION dollars?

(And I want sharks with frickin’ laser beams on their heads with that)

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 23, 2021 2:09 am

It is great fun to sit around of an evening over beer and pretzels speculating “what if” about assorted mad schemes. Unfortunately, there are always a few deluded individuals who then attempt to implement these mad schemes. As Bill Gates recently tried to implement his nutty idea for injecting chalk dust into the atmosphere. Luckily, cooler heads shot down his trial balloon.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 23, 2021 6:43 am

Shouldn’t these True Believers establish that the Earth is actually overheating first, before they go messing with the atmosphere to try to cool things off?

First things first. They are putting the cart before the horse.

Rick C
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 23, 2021 7:24 am

for the immediate deployment of the first large scale tests of global cooling using stratospheric injection of SO2, to be followed immediately thereafter by a transition to operational systems for continuous global cooling…

Umm.. I think he skipped the rather important step of evaluating the results of your test before implementing your scheme. I sincerely hope that there is some iron clad legal mechanism that can prevent nut cases from screwing around with the planet with little or no evidence that the intervention is need, would work, would not cause a disaster, etc. Oh wait, the UN is already screwing up the plant for no good reason with their anti-fossil fuels program so I guess there’s nothing to stop other foolish schemes. What was I thinking?

Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
November 23, 2021 9:47 am

I’m glad to see that the real engineers are taking this on.

Of course, real engineers get paid big money to find solutions to pressing political problems. Always have and always will.

So when you hear about real engineers discussing geo-engineering, you already know that they have lined up big money grants from your politicians to proceed.

In other words, when you vote for a candidate that says they will “fight global warming”, you voted for geo-engineering and the funding dollars to proceed.

What did you expect? You can’t save the earth without it.

Zig Zag Wanderer
November 22, 2021 6:25 pm

Dangerous loonies, the lot of them.

Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
November 23, 2021 8:19 am

What could possibly go wrong?

Nuclear energy might be used to loosen polar ice caps. Sea ice could be melted by covering it with black soot to increase the absorption of sunlight. Dr Stephen Schneider is a climatologist from the National Center for Atmospheric Research:

“Can we do these things? Yes! But will they make things better? I’m not sure. We can’t predict with any certainty what’s happening to our own climatic future. How can we come along and intervene then, in that ignorance? You could melt the icecaps, what would that do to the coastal cities? The cure could be worse than the disease.”

Steve Case
November 22, 2021 6:35 pm

if we could mitigate its effects by setting up a kind of chemical umbrella—a layer of sulfuric acid in the upper atmosphere that could reflect the sun’s radiation and cool the Earth?

I really didn’t need to read any further. What could possibly go wrong? It’s a legitimate concern that the ignorant and stupid people in charge these days actually have the power to try this sort of bullshit. Will they try, and will the people with their heads screwed on tight actually rise up and put a stop to it?

Reply to  Steve Case
November 22, 2021 6:48 pm

Think of it as a COVID-19 vaccine for Gaia, who is naturally immune.

Reply to  Steve Case
November 23, 2021 7:42 am

I remember reading a sci fi story a long time back, one of the problems the protagonists had to deal with was that so many satellites had been launched into orbit, that there was a noticeable dimming of the sun.

Lee Sherman
Reply to  Steve Case
November 23, 2021 2:40 pm

You won’t know until it is too late. Geo’engineering’ should be halted world wide. Irreversible effects can be quite serious.

No one
November 22, 2021 6:38 pm

Soylent black.

Zig Zag Wanderer
November 22, 2021 6:39 pm

I now believe that the CAGW movement is not a political one, nor a religious one, it is a cult, and a very dangerous one. It has all of the hallmarks of an organised cult.

These people urgently need deprogramming.

Last edited 1 year ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Steve Case
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
November 22, 2021 7:05 pm

These people urgently need deprogramming.

One upon a time, the mice decided that the
cat needed a bell hung around its neck.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Steve Case
November 22, 2021 10:33 pm

Archibald Douglas, 5th Earl of Angus known as Bell The Cat for dealing with the favourites of James III.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Steve Case
November 23, 2021 10:01 am

But who will bell the cat?

Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
November 22, 2021 11:05 pm

worshipers of death

Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
November 23, 2021 12:48 am

GangGreen are a bunch of very malicious, very stupid cults.

Alasdair gray
November 23, 2021 1:15 am

Would you prescribe a religious cull to deprogram them – permanently

November 22, 2021 6:41 pm

This is just the latest attempt of the Lunatics to put themselves in charge of our Asylum.

download (9).jpg
Al Miller
November 22, 2021 6:44 pm

OK if some jack asses actually try it I will get my pitchfork out and take part in stopping the madness.
You just can’t fix stupid, nor do degrees in science seem to increase use of the scientific method – or even an understanding of what it is.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Al Miller
November 23, 2021 7:04 am

“OK if some jack asses actually try it I will get my pitchfork out and take part in stopping the madness.”

Yes, I think that would be the time to hit the streets, if something this idiotic were to be put in motion.

November 22, 2021 6:52 pm

Two thoughts. First is a quote from Galaxy Quest: Did you guys ever WATCH the show?

Second is the basis for Snowpiercier.

Apparently the proponents of this want to bring fiction to reality, however poorly that might turn out. Neither show was intended to be a How To manual. Snowpiercer was intended at some level (outside of bad SF) to be a cautionary tale. Cheers –

November 22, 2021 7:14 pm

Just nuke china that would put plenty of fine particulates into the upper atmosphere and fix the worst offender while you are at it /sarc
these alarmist are mad enough to do it they want to destroy us in any case

Reply to  H B
November 23, 2021 6:25 am

Another idea that came from failure of synapses firing was the “nuclear winter”. Nukes don’t put dust in to the air. Maybe, in a very special case, you would actually want a ground burst as a bunker buster. I’m surprised nobody calls people out on nuclear winter fantasy.
Off Topic : Another fantasy is the saying we have enough nukes to kill the worlds population a hundred times over. Not nearly enough nukes to kill even a small percentage of the worlds population.
Ok maybe a big percentage of world population would die if all nukes exploded over all the major high population densities going from largest to smallest.
Latent radiation and loss of infrastructure would be a bigger problem than the explosions themselves if all nukes went off.

Chris Hanley
November 22, 2021 7:15 pm

With climate change so difficult to manage …

Do these people who call themselves ‘scientists’ ever have moments of self-reflection, do they ever look objectively at their own utterances, what climate are they attempting to achieve?

Doug Danhoff
November 22, 2021 7:26 pm

Most climate fanatics ,including those who consider them selves experts a
Have ignored an essential discipline to be fully knowledgeable in climate . This field Is Palio-geology …. It’s essential to know where we have been is we want to know where we are headed … Without the help of man we have had periods of time much hotter than what is feared now ..And earth adapted . Just as a hot tropical day often brings cool rain to balance temperature. Extremes like glacial advances inevitably lead to inter glacial periods that balance conditions . In all the geological history we can examine proxies show a nature adjustment .

The alarmist seem to always assume a fragile earth poised on a knife edge ready to tip into a catastrophic state .
If you want proof all you have to know that we are still here. We’re we constantly at “tipping points we as a race would have been erased eons ago .
Don’t worry alarmists , I’m sure that you too can adapt …in a few decades you can proclaim global cooling ….blamed on man of course

November 22, 2021 7:34 pm

Firstly, these people need to get together and without the “precautionary principle” in mind, decide what is the BEST average temperature for the planet, mankind, plants, and wildlife. They will probably decide on about 19 degrees C. Then consider what they think would be the best way to warm it up.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  DMacKenzie
November 23, 2021 2:16 am

Considering the inability of these nutters to agree on much of anything within their own set of parameters, it would probably take them decades to decide on their ideal temp/climate. Witness that to date they have yet shared this with the rest of us.

Lee Sherman
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
November 23, 2021 5:31 pm

They want it to be a constant temp, ie, no change. They have not noticed that in nature, the only constant is change. You can’t fix stupid.

Roger Knights
November 22, 2021 7:47 pm

So, instead, why not dump iron oxide into the ocean, to absorb CO2 and feed some salmon or krill? It’s been done already (in the Gulf of Alaska), resulting in many more salmon and no harm to the environment. It could be ramped up in small steps, for caution, and terminated at once if untoward effects were noticed. Its only defect is that it would work, a no-no per green thinking.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 22, 2021 10:12 pm

The postulated that iron might reduce other elements else where nothing was found
Whales it is postulated enriched the upper ocean with iron as we have reduced their population we need to replace that iron
Greentards hate it there might be a simple productive answer to CO2 increase in the atmosphere
It is high time we started looking after the oceans ie replace what nutrients we remove, photosynthesis will do the rest

Reply to  H B
November 22, 2021 11:16 pm

But we need more CO2, not less. 1000ppm looks about right.

Jay Willis
Reply to  H B
November 23, 2021 2:59 am

Yes good point, but why not just leave the whales to engineer the oceans, recycle iron and farm the krill, as they have done for millennia. All we need to do is just stop killing them.

Reply to  Jay Willis
November 23, 2021 9:58 am

We did stop killing them. I checked and all the whaling ships and processing plants are gone. You cannot buy a can of whale oil anywhere.

Now, we are also postponing crabbing season and re-routing shipping lanes to stop impeding whale migration.

It’s a great time to be a whale.

November 22, 2021 7:54 pm

“But this terrifying problem has not stopped climate enthusiasts from pushing forward with an attempt to recreate…”

As so often, none quoted. Who are the enthusiasts pushing that? Everyone quoted in the article seems to think it is a bad idea. 

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 22, 2021 9:47 pm

You didn’t read the article well:

“The findings also highlight the need for a Plan B if the atmospheric chemistry doesn’t play out as expected. “It raises a fundamentally important question,” Francisco says. “If we put the sulfur dioxide in, can we get it out of the stratosphere?

Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 22, 2021 10:04 pm

Francisco is not pushing the idea. He’s a leading author of the paper cited, saying that it is a bad idea. The quote you give is not supportive.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 23, 2021 12:55 am

They won’t even speak to Francisco.

Joe Biden and Boris Johnson may discuss with their wives, but their genius is quite sufficient to determine what is THE SCIENCE and ensure that no real scientists get funded, let alone heard.

Mike Edwards
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 23, 2021 12:13 am


How about this recent paper as a starter for 10 – it also contains references to a load of other publications on the same topic:


“Halving warming with stratospheric aerosol geoengineering moderates policy-relevant climate hazards”
The idea of using SO2 is hardly new – it’s been around for at least 15 years that I know of.

Jay Willis
Reply to  Nick Stokes
November 23, 2021 3:09 am

Nick, the nutter from Lockheed Martin, quoted above, seemed pretty keen to get moving with the plan.

That’s often the problem with this kind of noble cause fallacy where well meaning people create a crisis out of nothing to advance a reasonable agenda. The unintended consequences can be some idiot from a well funded, massive and under utilised military engineering company can spot a global opportunity of almost immeasurably profitable but harmful endeavour and is willing and able to lobby cretinous politicians to get it done. That’s the problem with the climate crisis and incidently similarly with covid.

Abolition Man
November 22, 2021 7:59 pm

Hey, guys!
We really were just kidding when we called you the Climate Cult of Doom! We were just trying to use irony and satire to make our point! You weren’t supposed to take it literally!
Griffter? Simon? Izaak? Guys!? GUYS!!? Oh, shit!

Reply to  Abolition Man
November 22, 2021 11:17 pm

leftards don’t have a sense of humour.

November 22, 2021 8:09 pm

 the obvious question, how to get the sulfur out of the atmosphere if it all goes wrong?”

Boris Johnson and griff to the rescue …..

I mean, they’ve done so well with carbon dioxide. Maybe I missed something ??

Abolition Man
November 22, 2021 8:50 pm

“What did you find, Lieutenant?”
“Well, General, there appears to have been the beginnings of an advanced civilization on this planet just 300,000 years ago! They were beginning the exploration of space and moving along towards the first steps of an interstellar polity when suddenly they committed societal suicide!”
“Suicide? Whatever for?”
“Well, sir, they apparently destroyed their nascent civilization to “Save the Planet!” The irony is that this destruction left them incapable of dealing with lowering CO2 levels during the second period of glaciation following, and almost ALL life forms perished as the base of their food chain collapsed!”
“You have successfully translated many of their historical records!?”
“Yes, sir! We have been able to decipher much of their written and electronically recorded material! We haven’t finished translating all their records; would you believe that they had dozens of languages still, and didn’t have written fonts for expressing sarcasm OR irony!”
“No fonts for sarcasm or irony!? How bizarre! Perhaps their leaders didn’t understand them!”
“Sir! Our leaders don’t understand sarcasm or irony!”
“That will be all, Lieutenant! I’m giving your report an UltraSecret code; disclosure brings death!”

Alexy Scherbakoff
November 22, 2021 8:58 pm

Children’s scenarios. They wouldn’t know how to get enough sulphur compounds into the atmosphere to make any difference.

Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
November 23, 2021 7:23 pm

Get rid of low sulfur diesel and go back to the original.

Walter Sobchak
November 22, 2021 9:39 pm

“And if we just change this little bit of DNA on this virus …”

Don’t trust them.

November 22, 2021 10:24 pm

Obviously before we embark on planet changing measures, in this case ones that are designed to change the global temperature, we need to have a global referendum and take a vote on whether the inhabitants of the planet are in favor of them.

I mean, for one country or two or three to just get together and do it would be profoundly undemocratic and wrong.

And for the UN to think it has the right to approve such measures would also be quite wrong. This is a matter for elected politicians and voters all over the world to decide.

I guess we could get the UN to organize the global referendum. It would keep them out of mischief for a few years…

Teddy Lee
Reply to  michel
November 23, 2021 2:20 am

Michael, Why include the politicians?

Reply to  michel
November 23, 2021 3:37 am

“…get the UN to organize the global referendum.” ???

C’mon, they would be pushed to organise a piss-up in a brewery.

Reply to  michel
November 23, 2021 3:57 am

“I guess we could get the UN to organize the global referendum. It would keep them out of mischief for a few years…”

Er, no. That would be the beginning of world government right there, which is exactly what they want. Far from keeping them out of mischief it would’ve a trojan horse for tyranny.

Reply to  michel
November 25, 2021 5:08 pm

I guess I should have marked this as sarcasm. Or irony.

November 22, 2021 10:43 pm

I am beyond uncertain as to how creating near global ice-melt acid rain will slow sea level rise.

November 22, 2021 11:20 pm

I thought we’d solved the “acid rain crises” of the 70s & 80s

Now these idiots want to bring it back?

David Solan
November 22, 2021 11:32 pm

Again, What’s Up With That has joined the mob against an innovative
scientific/engineering advance which could represent a valid alternative to the
usual pathetic nostrums and elixirs being offered to us by the dumbed-down
“science” and “intellectuals” of our age. Contrary to the comments being thrown
around by many think-they-know-it-all trolls, geo-engineering, through the
reduction of sunlight striking the surface of the earth by the introduction of
an upper atmospheric haze, represents a golden alternative to the lowering of
the temperature of the earth compared to any and all other crackpot ideas we are
now being offered to effectuate that result by our crazy world.

First, it is fantastically inexpensive compared to the big-government schemes
of the global warming whackadoodles (as an example, just use a swarm of
solar-powered, self-flying drones going up and down all day long for several
months in some isolated area near the equator). The global-warming hoaxsters
hate it on this basis alone.

Second, from MUCH past experience we know it is guaranteed to be effective:
if Nature can cool the earth over and over again by sheer chance exploding a
highly toxic mixture of gases and particulates up into the atmosphere whenever
it randomly decides to volcanically erupt somewhere on earth, surely we can do a
much better job with advanced technology, deliberate intention, and carefully
controlled measures. Of course it can also easily be intentionally stopped at
any phase of its introduction so as to prevent any further cooling activity, if
that’s what the monitoring suggests should occur.

And of course it’s self-limiting. Did you ever hear of gravity? It’s on all
the time and would eventually clear any part of the atmosphere, lower or upper,
of any sunlight-blocking, particulate/aerosol matter suspended in it given a few
years. This would especially be true considering the presence of water vapor in
an atmosphere with some very cold regions in it, which regions would eventually
condense enough of this unending supply of water vapor near or around such
matter and drag it down with the precipitation it would inevitably and
continuously cause.

Of course the amount of sunlight falling on the Earth is not the limiting
factor for photosynthesis. So we don’t have to worry about light-starving the
plants. MANY experiments have shown that the amount of CO2 in our air is far
more a limiting factor for photosynthesis and we know (courtesy of China) that
that’s not going down anytime in the future … for sure, no matter what the
“carbon footprint” of America or Europe does.

The earth has been warming, off and on, for 1000’s of years since the last
ice age. And it has taken an extra little hit of warmth these past few
centuries, especially in the lands and surface waters of the Northern Hemisphere
(this is probably anthropogenic, but definitely NOT caused by CO2 — or anything
else in our atmosphere — absorbing outgoing infrared radiation! The atmosphere
can cool by sending incoming heat energy back into outer space, but it is too
tenuous and rapidly moving all over the place to do much differential warming
anywhere on earth). This extra hit might continue some more in the future and
might become a wee bit inconvenient, especially when (not “if”) the Sun decides
to go back to its usual sunspot activity cycle stopping those cosmic rays from
slamming into the Earth, thereby cooling it. Cooling the earth a small amount
now, extremely easily accomplished through some sun-veiling, atmospheric
technology, would have zero chance of causing a consequential “catastrophic”
cooling effect thereafter and be just what the doctor ordered for our planet.

And none of this could possibly result in a new Ice Age as long as it’s used
only over short periods of time. The ice ages came about through many 100’s of
years of gradual, reflective ice accumulation in the Northern Hemisphere in the
past (see Milankovich). But the technology we are talking about could be
stopped by man in a matter of hours as soon as the slightest questionable
massive ice buildup was noted, if not before.

David Solan

Brian Bishop
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 23, 2021 5:22 am

it’s quite possible you could both be right.

The only issue I see setting Solan apart from solon is that this study suggests that sulfer dioxide particles injected higher in the atmosphere are less assured to follow the same reaction pathways they do from volcanic injection in the troposphere meaning notably less sulfuric acid production and thus less effective ‘shade’ as well as inadequate knowledge of what interstage SO3 chemistry would get up to. But this is just a rest stop on the way to theoretical and emperical knowledge about how to actually engineer the climate and I can’t see on what basis Worral worries that we would acheive no result although he could be right that it we don’t need a ‘shade’.

In general though, the arguments here seem far more the eeyore type. I don’t know where that attitude comes from. Forgetting what climate change there actually is and to what extent it is anthropogenic, we have no problem pumping CO2 into the atmosphere so considering other changes, incidental or directed seems logical. I don’t think this is frankenworld because there is a bit more CO2 and I can equally see no issue with the thought or actual experiments at mimicking volcanoes IF cooling were actually desirable. We might not be perfect mimics and it could have unintended consequences as vaguely hinted at in this research.

The hostility to the idea here seems overblown although it’s ironically apoplectic in the warmist camp where they writhe in agnoy over the harm that a little CO2 might bring. If they truly thought warming was the existential threat they claim and that economic and geopolitical forces are proving too great to permit a change in energy production on the scale they propose they would be at the forefront of geoengineering research.

But in our camp of folks that suggest that human priorities ought to be the focus of national and international undertakings, it does seem passing strange that there is such hostility to inquiry into active management of the climate. If we’ve changed the environment through various large scale activities like agriculture, even changed the earth’s rotation from mass water storage I have no doubt that we could engineer the climate; albeit it quite reasonable to question whether the current or emerging climate is actually detrimental such that such means ought to be employed.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Brian Bishop
November 23, 2021 7:32 am

“But in our camp of folks that suggest that human priorities ought to be the focus of national and international undertakings, it does seem passing strange that there is such hostility to inquiry into active management of the climate.”

We’ve seen how humans screw things up in the past.

Besides, we don’t need to cool the Earth’s atmosphere, it’s cool enough already. Only bogus “unprecedented warming” Hockey Stick charts say it is “the hottest year evah!”.

All we really need to do is throw away the bogus Hockey Stick charts. That will cool the Earth sufficiently.

Burl Henry
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 23, 2021 11:20 am

Tom Abbott:

“We don’t need to cool the Earth’s atmosphere, it is cool enough already”

If net-zero is implemented, temperatures will soar, because the cooling SO2 aerosols from the burning of fossil fuels will have been eliminated. We may very well need to have cooling down the road.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Burl Henry
November 24, 2021 3:14 am

I know that’s your hypothesis, Burl.

How did temperatures cool from 1880 to 1910? Was it because CO2 was reduced at that time, which allowed SO2 to take over? During this time, how much human-derived SO2 was going into the atmosphere? Was it equivalent to today?

Burl Henry
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 24, 2021 11:28 am

Tom Abbott:

Between 1880 and 1910,average anomalous global temperatures decreased from (-) 0.227 deg. C- to (-) 0.490 deg. C., a decrease of 0.263 deg. C.

Over the same period Industrial SO2 aerosol emissions increased by 23 Megatons, and temperatures dropped, as expected.

(and forget about CO2, it has no climatic effect)

With respect to today, as the result of global Clean Air efforts, atmospheric SO2 levels are decreasing, and temperatures are increasing, also as expected.

Brian Bishop
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 23, 2021 12:21 pm

“We’ve seen how humans screw things up in the past.”

that is a throwaway line. It is the same one used by the environmentalists to push net zero, i.e. we’re screwing up the world by emitting CO2.

I concede that I’m not sure cooling is needed (albeit see @burl henry’s comment) but with the world poised to drive itself off a cliff in the name of warming, folks who are thinking about the various ways to put the brakes may have worthwhile ideas. Indeed better theoretical and emperical understanding of such potential control measures reveal whether it is fear of warming that is actually driving this policy or just plain misanthropy. I doubt neither man’s ability to make great accomplishments nor his ability to screw things up, but you never get the former without a bit of the latter and the precautionary principle inherent in outright rejection of this technology is frightening.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Brian Bishop
November 24, 2021 3:26 am

“concede that I’m not sure cooling is needed (albeit see @burl henry’s comment) but with the world poised to drive itself off a cliff in the name of warming,”

I think you are assuming too much. There is no evidence that the world is driving itself off a cliff with regard to warming.

The only “evidence” for that position are bastardized “Hockey Stick” temperature charts.

Legitmate unmodified, regional surface temperature charts tell a completely different story. They show that we are *not* living in the warmest times in human history. They show it was just as warm in the past as today. They show that CO2 is not the control knob of the Earth’s temperatures. They show there is no need to cool the Earth’s atmosphere.

The 1000-year-long Mann Hockey Stick has been invalidated by the National Academy of Sciences, and the Jones, instrument-era Hockey Stick has never been validated because Jones refuses to show his work and won’t allow others to try to duplicate his work.

This is the ONLY “evidence” that the Earth is overheaing. Think about that. Your only evidence are a couple of bogus, bastadized Hockey Stick charts, which are disproven by the written, historical temperature records, and the NAS, and which show a completely different picture of the Earth’s temperature history.

There is no unprecedented warming today.

Last edited 1 year ago by Tom Abbott
Tom Abbott
Reply to  David Solan
November 23, 2021 7:26 am

“The earth has been warming, off and on, for 1000’s of years since the last
ice age. And it has taken an extra little hit of warmth these past few

There’s the fly in the ointment. There is no evidence for an extra little hit of warmth today. Today is cooler than it was for humans in the not-too-distant past.

We don’t need to cool the atmosphere. It is cool enough right now.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 23, 2021 9:46 am

The earth stopped warming during the Holocene Optimum. For the last 7000 years, there has been a gradual cooling. Since the end of the Holocene Optimum, the peak of each warm period has been cooler than the previous.

Burl Henry
Reply to  David Solan
November 23, 2021 11:13 am

David Solan:

“The technology we are talking about could be stopped by man in a matter of hours”

Assume that SO2 aerosols have been introduced to achieve a desired amount of cooling, and then there is a large volcanic eruption. Temperatures will plummet, and stopping the introduction of aerosols will have no effect.until they eventually settle out of the atmosphere

Large scale GEO-engineering should be tried ONLY after a method of removing excess SO2 from the atmosphere has been developed..

November 22, 2021 11:47 pm

How much sulphur dioxide would be needed, and how would we get it up there?
In 1816 Mount Tamburo exploded with the result that world temperatures fell by up to 3 degrees C, giving the ‘year without a summer’ and it took up to three years for temperatures to return to normal.
Meanwhile crop production fell disastrously and many people and animals died.
Would the effect of seeding the upper atmosphere with SO2 behave in the same way in falling back over time, and would the seeding need to be repeated at regular intervals.
Would the fallout of sulphuric acid from the upper atmosphere cause a drop in the pH of rain?
The suggest use of iron would seem to be easier and cheaper to do and seems less likely to cause a runaway problem compared to what would happen if a volcano blew up at the same time as the SO2 seeding.
I would hope the modellers who planned the whole operation would be more accurate than the current generation of modellers.

Reply to  StephenP
November 23, 2021 12:06 am

As an aside I see that wind in the UK is providing less than 4 GW, where yesterday we had a peak demand of 44 GW.
I ask you, aren’t there any politicians who see the downside of what they are foisting on us?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  StephenP
November 23, 2021 7:38 am

The politicans are probably going to see the downside pretty soon.

Idiocracy. We are all living in an Idiocracy.

M Courtney
November 23, 2021 12:20 am

We don’t understand the climate well enough to know what reducing CO2 emissions will do – apparently nothing frim 2020 but that was a surprise.

So we have already committed to Geoengineering without a map. We just decided to do CO2 reduction instead of Sulphate increase.

This means that the Sulphate idea has a lot of political merit. It doesn’t need to be done now. The CO2 idea does but the addition of a gas can wait. So under the Precautionary Principle we should:

1) Stop trying to reduce CO2 emissions.
2) Prepare to use the Sulphate emissions.
3) Do not use the Sulphate emissions until it becomes absolutely necessary.

Part 3 might take a while.
But you can see why India, Russia and China might like the idea for COP27.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  M Courtney
November 23, 2021 7:49 am

“Part 3 might take a while”

Well, if it cools down in the near future (a couple of decades) to the levels we hit in the 1970’s and the 1910’s, then people won’t be worrying about trying to cool the temperatures.

Let’s give ourselves a couple of more decades before deciding it’s too hot and we need to cool things off.

The present short-term trend is cooling, and the long-term trend is cooling. We should wait a little while before getting too exercised over the temperatures.

Alarmists can start worrying when we get back up to 1998/2016 temperatures. Until that time, please zip the alarmism. We are currently 0.3C cooler than 1998/2016.

It may be a while before we get back to the 1998/2016 highs.

M Courtney
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 23, 2021 11:45 am

At least you understood what “take a while” means.
The down votes are clearly a sign of people not actually understanding the post.
Thy probably think “a while” may come to an end…

Burl Henry
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 23, 2021 5:17 pm

Tom Abbott:

The 1998 and 2016 “highs” were caused by massive decreases in industrial SO2 aerosol emissions:(from the burning of fossil fuels. Temperatures increased because of the cleaner air.

1998: 7.7 Megaton reduction
2016: 29 Megaton reduction.

Because of current efforts to abandon the burning of fossil fuels, it may not be very long before we see temperatures spike again.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Burl Henry
November 24, 2021 3:47 am

Well, just to nitpik a little: The high temperatures of 1998 and 2016 were so close to each other that they were in the margin of error of the measuring instrument, so they are about as near equal as we can get.

Considering that, why didn’t the temperatures climb higher in 2016, than in 1998, when a much larger reduction in SO2 took place?

Burl Henry
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 24, 2021 8:36 am

Tom Abbott:

Temperatures did climb higher in 2016 that in 1998

Using the Hadcrut4 data set, average Jan-Dec anomalous global temperatures were 0.589 deg. C. in 1958, and 0.797 deg. C in 2016, a difference of 0.21 deg. C..

Using NASA/GISS data, temperatures in 1998 were 0.62 deg. C ind in 2016 they were 0.99 deg. C, a difference of 0.47 deg.C.

Both data sets show a higher temperature increase for increased amounts of reductions in SO2 aerosol emissions.

Peta of Newark
November 23, 2021 12:54 am

There is A Mechanism ‘out there’ to pull Sulphur down out of the sky.
There must be lest the sky would be full of it (by now after 4+ Billion years of volcanoes

Thus ‘they’ are wasting their time and everyone else’s money
Also surely Shirley, creating Acid Rain and we all know how hideous that was.

But no they are not. wasting time money
Why.. (cut-to-the-quick = Acid Rain Science was/is = Junk, Check the linky)

Reason: Ask any contemporary farmer or simply watch what they do.
The use Sulphur as fertiliser. And especially since, certainly in The West. the air was ‘cleaned up’, farmers have found themselves buying Sulphur mixed into the NPK fertilisers they’d normally buy. After those 3 nutrients, Sulphur becomes the next Liebig Limiter for all plant and microbial life & growth

Those of an enquiring disposition might wonder, is or are the observed changes in Earth temperature following a volcano actually caused by what they think.
Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that The Plants, down on the ground, respond to the Sulphur ## and increase their growth rates, change varieties and in new patterns and places.

Thus they change the colour of Earth (its Albedo) and thus its temperature. When they grow more, they transpire more water and water, when it’s ‘moving’ ALWAYS has a cooling effect.

## Myriad other goodness falls out of clouds of volcano dust. Volcano dust and rock is the most fertile stuff on this planet. It is THE ONLY fertile stuff on this planet
Ask anyone who lives near a volcano.
You will also find that they are some of The Healthiest and longest lived peeps on this Planet.
funny that innit

But no. The Dancing Angels ** always know better

** That’s gotta be the first and last time anyone called Fauci a ‘dancing angel’

edit to PS. For the unitiated and those not in possesion of a solar power meter (ebay is your friend), well-fertilised strongly growing plant-life appears to be a darker shade of green.
Strangely and bizarrely, those strong healthy and darker coloured plants actually have a higher albedo than their less well fed, pale & anaemic cousins.
now that is really is a funny thing.
Bear it in mind when next lecturing anyone on the subject of ‘Radiation’ or what you imagine a Black Body to be

Last edited 1 year ago by Peta of Newark
Patrick Peake
November 23, 2021 1:04 am

I guess that if we did this then we could put enough sulphur into the atmosphere to allow us to keep burning cheap coal. Have I missed something?

Alan M
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 23, 2021 4:14 am

But only the poor quality coal 😉

November 23, 2021 2:21 am

I see some of it comes from Penn State. Since that is where Mann is a “Distinguished Researcher”, there is no need to read further.

Paul Stevens
November 23, 2021 5:13 am

They haven’t addressed the real problem. What will China’s response be when this misguided effort reduces crop yields to the point there is famine, life loss and insurrection from a ravaged population? Which of the countries that injected the sulphur gets the first nuclear missile in retribution?

As if it would be possible to get international agreement to perform this experiment. After 30 years of “consensus” on global warming, it hasn’t been possible to scale back CO2 emissions except in those circumstances in which it made financial sense. (Fracking for lower cost natural gas in the US or offshore windfarms in the UK where corporate pals are cleaning up with government subsidies and tax incentives.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Paul Stevens
November 23, 2021 7:56 am

I can see anyone who does atmospheric cooling to be the target of every person who has suffered through a bad weather event. Everything bad that happens will be blamed on the foolish SO2 experiment, whether it is connected or not.

These guys better get themselves some good lawyers and they probably ought to get themselves an Army to protect themselves from other Armies of outraged nations.

Deliberate SO2 atmospheric cooling in a cooling world is such a stupid idea!

This is what living in a delusional world will get you.

All this from a bogus, “unprecedented warming” Hockey Stick chart.

Last edited 1 year ago by Tom Abbott
Tom Abbott
November 23, 2021 6:15 am

From the article: “It’s a tempting thought: With climate change so difficult to manage”


Having trouble managing the climate, are you?

Tom Abbott
November 23, 2021 6:18 am

From the article: “what if we could mitigate its effects by setting up a kind of chemical umbrella—a layer of sulfuric acid in the upper atmosphere that could reflect the sun’s radiation and cool the Earth?”

We already have that. It’s called water vapor. It’s hard at work right now reducing the temperatures.

Tom Abbott
November 23, 2021 6:24 am

From the article: “According to a new study in the Journal of the American Chemical Society”

Who can trust anything these guys say? They think Michael Mann is a legitimate scientist. They cover up for Mann and other Data Manipulators even though they know they are supporting a distored temperature record.

Our Science Associations are hopelessly corrupted because they support Charlatan science. They know the temperature record is bogus, yet they promote it anyway for political, social, and monetary reasons.

They are no better than Mann and the rest of the science distorters.

4E Douglas
November 23, 2021 6:25 am

“Mad science is never having to worry about :what is the worst possible outcome?”
from a T-shirt vendor I knew.

Timo, not that one
November 23, 2021 6:31 am

Sure. Let’s take a chance of totally blocking the Sun’s light from reaching the Earth. That will extinguish almost all life here. I suppose at that point, global warming will be inconsequential.

These warmunists should all be arrested and imprisoned. That would be the best way to “save” the Earth

Tom Abbott
November 23, 2021 6:32 am

From the article: ““So it opens the door to whether we have a full understanding of atmospheric sulfur chemistry up in the stratosphere.”

I think this is the crux of the matter. Global Cooling advocates have been promoting this idea of human-derived SO2 cooling for decades, but they have never produced evidence that human-derived SO2 changes the Earth’s temperatures.

Huge Volcanic eruptions *can* cause a reduction in temperatures. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo caused the temperatures to cool by about 0.5C for about two years. A temperature drop that the average citizen didn’t even notice.

But Human-derived SO2 is not the equivalent of a huge volcanic eruption, and human-derived SO2 does not go very high in the atmosphere, and it doesn’t stay there very long.

The advocates of human-derived SO2 causing climate change have not proven their case.

Burl Henry
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 23, 2021 7:00 pm

Tom Abbott:

In their discussion of atmospheric aerosols, NASA states that “Stratospheric SO2 aerosols reflect sunlight, reducing the amount of energy reaching the lower atmosphere and the Earth’s surface, cooling them”.

And, anthropogernic SO2 aerosols (from the burning of fossil fuels) absorb no sunlight but they reflect it, thereby reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface”. Thus, their climatic effects are identical,

Industrial SO2 aerosol emissions peaked in \\the late 1970’s, and affected temperatures to the extent that there were fears of a return to a new Ice Age.

And as mentioned earlier, the 2016 temperature spike was due to a 27 Megaton decrease in industrial SO2 aerosol emissions.

The case for human-derived SO2 causing climate change has been PROVEN many, many times, and is the primary cause of our warming temperatures (decreased atmospheric SO2 levels )due to global Clean Air efforts

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Burl Henry
November 24, 2021 4:06 am

“The case for human-derived SO2 causing climate change has been PROVEN many, many times, and is the primary cause of our warming temperatures (decreased atmospheric SO2 levels )due to global Clean Air efforts”

Spurious correlations are not evidence.

The El Nino’s of 1998 and 2016 had nothing to do with the temperatures going higher during those years?

November 23, 2021 7:38 am

I’ve said for years, that if we just make all cars white and have roofs be made out of the lightest color material practical, we can eliminate at least 20% of so called global warming.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  MarkW
November 23, 2021 2:01 pm

Don’t laugh. They’re doing this in Australia. At least one city has banned dark rooves for all new buildings!

November 23, 2021 7:46 am

That there are people even thinking about this is terrifying.

November 23, 2021 8:51 am

Thou shalt not stand in the way of a good tax credit-based climate meme stock, federal grant program for failed ideas, and the next big SPAC IPO. Stand aside or be labeled a denier.

Roy W Spencer
November 23, 2021 9:14 am

They obviously did not take into account the observation that Atmospheric CO2 decreased after Pinatubo, probably due to enhanced photosynthesis from increased sky indirect solar radiation penetrating vegetation canopies deeper.

Joao Martins
November 23, 2021 9:21 am

Some more pages of pseudo-erudite BS.

Statement #1: “the global agricultural damage from climate change

First of all, as a …
pre-condition to continue to analyse the remaining of the authors’ elevated ideias,

I have to kindly ask …
for a well substabtiated scientific demonstration of …
the thruth of Statement #1, …
either the postulated being taken as actual, or …
as “expected” (in this case, giving well specified conditions under which that can, not “could“, happen).

Otherwise …
I should classify this publication …
as what it seems: …
pure and simple speculation.

Last edited 1 year ago by Joao Martins
November 23, 2021 9:33 am

The solution is for all warmistas to immediately wear white hats.

It’s the least they could do to save the planet they so desperately fear is burning up.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Doonman
November 23, 2021 11:13 am

Tin foil hats would be more reflective and also repel the space alien hypno control waves. Ought to be mandated for warmunists. I think the Austries and Ozzies are onboard already.

Steve Z
November 23, 2021 10:15 am

Back in the 1960’s and 1970’s, people were (rightfully) blaming SO2 emissions, mostly from coal-fired power plants and diesel engines, for “acid rain” which was damaging trees, which led to the EPA limits on SO2 emissions, which have decreased over the past 50 years despite increases in consumption of coal and diesel fuel.

So now, in the interest of preventing “global warming”, people want to inject sulfuric acid into the stratosphere? Hey, everybody, let’s bring back the acid rain that we worked so hard to get rid of 50 years ago! What a great idea! (sarc)

Burl Henry
Reply to  Steve Z
November 23, 2021 7:09 pm

Steve Z:

Higher temperatures are an unfortunate side effect of decreased atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels

AGW is Not Science
November 23, 2021 12:30 pm

Ideas like this remind me of an H.L Mencken quote, something about spitting on one’s hands, hoisting the black flag, and…

November 23, 2021 2:52 pm

It’ll eat through the dome and we’ll all drown!

Michael S. Kelly
November 23, 2021 3:47 pm

According to Our World in Data (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/so2-emissions), humanity reached a peak in SO2 production at 151.5 million tonnes per year in 1980. We’re now below 100 million tonnes. I haven’t been able to find an estimate for Tambora’s SO2 output in 1815, but the 1783 eruption of Iceland’s Laki volcano had an SO2 output estimated to be 120 million tons. It resulted in a year long “Laki haze” over Europe. Given that Laki was only a VE3 eruption, while Tambora was a VE7 (it’s a log scale, btw), I’d say it’s a good bet that Tambora put as much as 1E12 tons of SO2 into the atmosphere. While it resulted in a “year without summer,” causing world-wide havoc, Tambora didn’t freeze the planet. In fact, it would have just met the Paris “accords”. Given that humans have, since 1850, only managed to generate 9.6E9 tonnes of SO2, I don’t know how we would ever be able to influence – let alone control – the climate by this means.

Burl Henry
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly
November 24, 2021 3:19 pm

Michael S. Kelly:

Since late 1979, satellite measurements of the amount of SO2 emitted by volcanic eruptions has become available.

For a VEI4 eruption, the average amount of SO2 needed to provide 0.2 deg. C of cooling (for example) is ~.0.2 Megatons, of SO2, not an impossible amount.

November 24, 2021 11:04 am

I read that article. Now I have an unbelievable headache.


What part of “Don’t mess with Mother Nature” do these mordant i======es NOT understand????

Can we PLEASE, PLEASE round them up and send them to Proxima Centauri A or B????

Why are they so dead set on destroying a system that works?

Frances MacPherson
Reply to  Sara
November 26, 2021 1:05 pm

GeoEngineering.org offers insight, evidence.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights