In the realm of climate science, where alarmism often reigns supreme, various forms geoengineering keep popping up. But as with many “solutions” to the so-called climate crisis, there’s one which stands out as potentially causing more problems than it purports to solve.
“A technology being studied to curb climate change… would affect food productivity in parts of planet Earth in dramatically different ways, benefiting some areas, and adversely affecting others…”
The idea behind SAI, (Stratospheric Aerosol Injection) is borrowed from volcanic eruptions. By spraying sulfur dioxide gas into the stratosphere, it’s believed that a protective layer of sulfuric acid will form, shielding the Earth from the Sun and cooling it down.
“The SAI scenario, inspired by volcanic eruptions, would involve spraying sulfur dioxide gas into the stratosphere… the process would shield the Earth from the Sun, cooling it.”
Even if we accept the premise that global warming is an issue (a premise many, including yours truly and most readers on this site, find questionable), this “solution” seems to be riddled with problems. A study from Rutgers, published in the journal Nature Food, used computer models to predict the impacts of such an intervention on major food crops like corn, rice, soybeans, and wheat.
“Writing in the journal, Nature Food, the scientists described the results of computer models simulating varying climate scenarios and their impacts over time on the production of the world’s four major food crops…”
And the results? Well, they’re a mixed bag at best.
“Not one of the 11 climate change or climate intervention scenarios we analyzed benefits everyone,” said Brendan Clark, a doctoral student at Rutgers and lead author on the study.
Depending on where you are in the world, this geoengineering could be a boon or a disaster. For instance, while places like Canada and Russia might see a boost in crop production, other areas might suffer.
“Large amounts of climate intervention to significantly reverse warming and lower the global average temperature would favor agricultural production in the tropics…”
But here’s where the irony lies: in the quest to “solve” a problem that might not even be as dire as some claim, we’re introducing a whole host of new problems. And these aren’t just theoretical issues; they’re challenges that could directly impact food sources and livelihoods.
“Nations may have different ideas of what constitutes an optimal global temperature, which could lead to conflicts. It would be like people fighting over the thermostat in a house, but on a global scale.”
Alan Robock, a Distinguished Professor of Climate Science at Rutgers, seems to echo this sentiment of uncertainty: “Are we willing to live with all these potential impacts to have less global warming?”
“We’re trying to quantify each of the potential risks and benefits so we can make informed decisions in the future.”
But here’s a thought: instead of diving headfirst into solutions for a problem that’s still rife with uncertainties, perhaps it’s time to take a step back. Maybe, just maybe, the cure shouldn’t be worse than the disease – especially when the diagnosis is still up for debate.
“It’s very complicated and it’s hard to reach a conclusion, such as saying whether climate intervention is good or bad. I don’t know at what point people will reach a decision. But, for me, I feel like it’s almost impossible,” said Lili Xia, an assistant research professor at Rutgers.
Rather than starve millions through ill-conceived policies and interventions, some serious introspection may be needed.
In conclusion, sometimes, the best course of action is inaction. Especially when the problems we’re trying to solve might not be as clear-cut as some would have us believe.
Source: EurekAlert!
As if global climate models are accurate enough to do engineering with them?
democrats are never concerned with the law of unintended consequences – and Dr. Mercola points out that the particles are cancer causing as well – like the vax is this just another depopulation scheme?
And of course this violates the ORIGINAL Precautionary Principle which, to paraphrase, admonished “if you are contemplating a significant change but don’t fully understand the possible outcomes, DON’T DO IT!”. This concept was turned on it’s heard at the Rio Conference.
“Precautionary Principle”
Practical applications.
Galveston Texas built a seawall around the island after it was wiped out around the turn of the century.
Covington Kentucky (opposite Cincinnati on the Ohio River) built a flood wall after the 1937 flood. (It has flood gates which I think are still tested every year so the land below the wall can still be used.)
Paradise CA had a two lane evacuation route running through it for forest fires. One of those lanes was eliminated by installing “bulb outs” to make a parking lane. It became a bottle neck. The town was wiped out. Many died. On the road.
In the rebuild, to prepare for such a fire emergency in the future yet retain the parking lane, eliminate the curbs that made the bulb outs and replace them with easily removeable bollards.
There is no way in “H” Man is going to eliminate hurricanes or inland floods or forest fires.
EVEN IF Man has made such events “more intense” (which is a crock), they are still going to happen.
Hurricanes are one of Earth’s ways of removing extra heat from the oceans.
I don’t know, maybe I’m in a naive optimistic mood, but couldn’t we call off the cancellation of fossil fuels, and the attendant destruction of our economy, by ‘planning’ to use SO2 aerosols IF (and only if) actual negative impacts arise?
No more bird shredders and slaver panel plantations! Since those of us with any common sense know that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY, the ‘need’ will never actually arise. So promise to use aerosols or climate fairy dust for all I care, but stop with the ruinables already!
They want to create sulfuric acid in the upper atmosphere? What mechanism are they going to use to insure it STAYS up in stratosphere?
Maybe the Germans can help?
“Acid Rain: Lessons from Germany’s Black Forest”https://www.gmfus.org/news/acid-rain-lessons-germanys-black-forest
Acid rain was and still is bullshit. It was just an earlier attempt to cripple western civilization by attacking fossil fuels.
2hotel9
Every VEI4 or larger eruption injects SO2 into the stratosphere. On average, it settles out within 2 years.
…which makes it a rather shirty candidate for the job, so:
Are they going to scour the earth for a constant supply of sulpur to float, or are they lying through their filthy politindustrial gobs, and the sulphur is but one ingredient of some hellish concoction, as has become the norm, since Coca Cola and Roundup rewrote the book ob labeling ethics?
Mount Pinatubo’s eruption in 1991, injected enough SO2 into the atmosphere to reduce global temperatures by a little less than 2C, and this effect lasted for about two years, before the SO2 settled out of the atmosphere.
So these Climate Alarmist Geoengineers will have to inject as much SO2 into the atmosphere as Mount Pinatubo did, and do it every two years.
Does anyone think this is possible?
Not to mention the fact that there is no evidence the Earth is overheating in the first place, due to CO2 or any other source, so there is no need to reduce temperatures.
These climate alarmist geoengineers are crazy. Proposing a drastic, impossible solution to a non-problem.
Tom Abbott:
Pinatubo injected about 18.2 million tons of SO2 into the stratosphere, which I agree is an impossible amount.
It caused about 0.45-0.5 deg C of cooling, for about 2 years.
However, a VEI 4 eruption on average, puts about 0.2 million tons of SO2 into the stratosphere, and causes about 0.2 deg. C. of cooling, which might be doable.
Since 1980, satellites have measured the amount of SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere, and their levels have fallen to the point where Earth may begin overheating because of the cleaner air.
In which case, we may be entering a realm where overheating is actually a problem!
This an image of atmospheric SO2 aerosols for 1980.
This is the image for June of this year.
There could be benefit when the sulfur comes back down again.
Generally, plants require about a tenth as much sulphur (S) as nitrogen (N), but sulphur deficiencies restrict plant growth as surely and severely as nitrogen deficiencies. Canola and alfalfa are examples of high sulphur-using crops. Sulphur is not mobile in the plant, so a continuous supply of sulphur is needed from emergence to crop maturity. A deficiency of sulphur at any stage of growth can result in reduced yields.
What these chuckleheads are proposing is continuously producing it, not short periods of it like volcanic eruptions. They want to play games with systems they clearly do not understand. If they did they would know there is no climate crisis to begin with.
It’s like seeding clouds with silver iodide flares….probably completely useless just based on simple high school molar calculations…..but good money in it as a business if you can convince farmers, insurance companies, and politicians….all of whom like to do “good things” with other people’s money….
See, that’s the beauty of the thing. They were against acid rain before they were for it.
“They want to create sulfuric acid in the upper atmosphere? What mechanism are they going to use to insure it STAYS up in stratosphere?”
Either they need another project to stop it from raining or declare that the past scares about “acid rain” were wrong?
I cannot think of a more appropriate application of the truism on the road to hell and good intentions.
Yet, I don’t see these ideas as purely good intent. They are about changing everything about our daily lives whether we like it or not. It is not about science other than using science to justify political acts and policies with an air of authority and knowledge. It is, in reality, akin to putting a lunatic in charge of the asylum.
Exhibit #1 Antonio Guterres (Global boiling… quite possible – at near vacuum pressure, that is)
Exhibit #2 The media, prime example: Waffen BBC
World breaches key 1.5C warming mark for record number of days
15 minute cities: How they got caught in conspiracy theories
And if you aren’t sure…
“….scientists say that there is no doubt that the particularly rapid climate change seen over the past century is caused by humans.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24021772
I thought it started around 1950?
Before long, as with everything else climate, if you are against such insane ideas as “geoengineering” you will no doubt be classified as a conspiracy theorist.
Geoengineering is about bilking millions for doing extensive research and developing schemes which will ultimately never be implemented. But it will make a lot of “geoengineers” rich, so there will be lots of hairbrained ideas proposed in pursuit of study grants.
Are you sure they have good intentions?
I don’t see these ideas as purely good intent.
These stupid ideas will never become actions – it would start WW3
Look no further than the Middle East at the moment.
The Middle East has been in almost non stop war for millenium.
By 1970, various technologies were developed. By 1980, cloud seeding etc was well understood. By 1990, there were at least 47 teams at it in the US alone. By 2000, 57 countries were recognised as running geoengineering ” research”. By 2010 someone bragged about the US military steering a hurricane. I do not dismiss that rumour.
What do you think they can do today?
Is there nothing the eeeeeeevil US military can’t do in your fevered mind cilo?
The US needs to hit the Mad Mullahs of Iran with a hurricane or two.
1) Pick up their radioactive scrap metal after playing soldiers.
2) Reverse the death and suffering caused by their polluting battlefields with radioactive scrap metal.
3) Stop shooting radioactive bullets at women and children.
4) Take responsibility for the millions bombs scattered by their cluster munitions.
5) Pick up their unexploded ordinance from the fields and gardens in places like Laos and now Ukraine.
I could carry on about things the US Army cannot do…
I’d like to see somebody steer a hurricane. I cannot imagine the energy it takes to do that. Perhaps it’s proof of the butterfly effect?
Even if they had the technology to do so, I wouldn’t trust the US military to be able to steer a paddle boat, let alone a hurricane!
A hurricane releases about 10 megatons of TNT from the ocean every 20 minutes.
Me neither, but apparently that HAARP installation in Alaska was built on top of a gas field…It was the winning proposal looking for some use for said energy without the cost of transport.
The idea that someone can steer a hurricane is one of the nuttiest things you have claimed so far.
You MUST get out mommy’s basement, boy! I explicitly stated it is a rumour, one I don’t dismiss, because I know about things like HAARP.
Insulting people you don’t agree with, is a stupid, bothersome habit. Grow up.
The Feds are looking hard at this dangerous nonsense:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/07/01/1055324/the-us-government-is-developing-a-solar-geoengineering-research-plan/
Brilliant. World spends ages negotiating a reduction in the sulphur content of oil used to power ships to “improve air quality, preserve the environment and protect health” which finally came into effect in January 2020 and now they want to spray sulphuric acid into the stratosphere.
Did they not realise that the ship emissions had an overall cooling effect?
Excellent point, well made.
It’s much like the health lobbies, one minute eggs can cause coronaries and the next they are full of protein and goodness….
eggs are the perfect food!
I don’t know that they think through any of their suggestions, in that area intellectually challenged doesn’t cover it.
Much like demanding coal fired thermal plants close down to reduce regional haze in order to more clearly see the forests of wind turbine marring the mountain front vista.
Dave Andrews
“Did they not realize that the ship emissions had an overall cooling effect?”
Apparently not. Low sulfur shipping fuels are now mandated.
You’d think an alarmist would see these fossil fuels as the perfect energy source… Cheap, and help to cool the earth.
Does this remind anyone of the ‘COVID Problem’?
Millions have died from COVID-19. About 4.6 million more die every year from the cold compared to around 500,000 dying from heat. The cold causes blood vessels to constrict to conserve heat, this raises blood pressure and causes increased strokes and heart attacks in the cooler months.
This “geoengineering” proves one thing — That people can be counted upon to be their own worst enemy.
And that researchers will “study” anything for which they can get grant funding.
________________________________________________________________________________
The only problem with fossil fuels is that they are a finite resource. They won’t all run out on some future Tuesday afternoon they will slowly become more and more expensive. The replacements are nuclear, wind, solar (continue below) ….
I had to stop typing right there because it occurred to
me that the dim bulbs pushing H2SO4 sprayed into
the atmosphere would impact one of their pet solutions
to their non-problem. Dimming the sun is stupid.
… hydro, geothermal and maybe some others. Of course our good friends on the left don’t like nuclear power as those are being decommissioned along with the fossil fueled power stations.
Some time ago this appeared on the internet:
Nuclear fuel will last us for 4 billion years
Well anyway, all forms of geoengineering and CO2 sequestration in order to save the planet are without merit. CO2 is up over 50% since 1850 and essentially nothing has happened as a direct result except the greening effect because CO2 is a necessary component of photosynthesis. You can read about that here and here. and of course, so is sun light.
So the climate crusade wants to dim the sun, reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, and ban nitrogenous fertilizers. The fertilizer ban is based on the phony GWP Number for nitrous oxide.
Is the left trying to restrict water too? They have been decommissioning dams read about that
here and they don’t like farms that access natural aquafers read about that here.
The Duck Test says the left is conducting a war against humanity.
Here’s Wikipedia on decommissioning nuclear power stations – LINK
Duh! LINK
Just this week I saw a short video of a WEF humanoid garbling threats at the useless eaters.I quote from memory:
” We taught people about the climate, but it’s a complex subject, which they cannot understand. Then, with covid, we tried again, but did everybody get vaccinated? Noooo!!
But water? Everybody understands water. A small child plays football, he gets thirsty, he understands about water.”
At the same time, my wife comes from the city, breathlessly telling me they are having not only scheduled power outages, but water rationing too. We await the purge on private wells…probably when they come to gas the chickens and shoot the dogs.
it is time everybody apologise for calling it a conspiracy theory, and ridiculing those warning us.
Reminds me of a few years back when people were spreading white plastic tarps over glaciers to keep them from melting.
“You can’t fix stupid.” – Ron White
Pictures are worth more than words
Vids too. Here’s what I guess to be Michael Mann’s wife showing the devastation of climate induced floods.
I recall a local ski resort using cloud seeding back in the late ’60’s early ’70’s. It worked
real well, the snow was great. They were forced to stop after a legal dispute from some
ag producers to the east that suffered losses being in the shadow and not getting the
snow required for their winter wheat. Doing the same on a global scale is crazy.
“lower the global average temperature would favor agricultural production in the tropics…”
Why? The Tropics are highly productive because they are hot and wet. Global warming won’t change that, and they are not less productive than they were in the 19thC
Meanwhile, a cooler world will see the rainbelts move equatorwards, bringing back drought to the Sahel, India and China, just as happened during the LIA and the global cooling of the 1970s
Yeah, but destroying all temperate farmland, will concentrate farming in the tropics, thus:
Politicians hardly ever lie in public, they just use words in ways we tend to misunderstand, because we coloured their syntax with our expectations, not their aims.
This is the secret of Doublespeak.
There are two possible explanations for this geoengineering nonsense:
a) Religious fanatics trying to alter our atmosphere so their gods can feel at home (again).
b) They are deliberately polluting our air, for which they should be prosecuted.
There are no other arguments, and we all know which of these two is the more logical.
“Not one of the 11 climate change or climate intervention scenarios we analyzed benefits everyone,” said Brendan Clark, …”
What are some alternatives to “No Shit Sherlock”? : r/AskReddit
How many tax dollars did this grand insight coast?
We should be looking at mitigation in this case not prevention. When agriculture worldwide collectively starts to fail then there is a possible need to intervene. As usual this is a catastrophically arrogant attitude to take…..that humans at this time of evolution can do a better job than nature – I doubt it big time – the proof is in our futile attempts against nature in the past. Apart from that the sheer size of the atmosphere and the oceans compared to our almost insignificant contribution beggars the question whether anything we do could actually make a significant difference. The political side seems to be hell bent on spending trillions of dollars solving a non problem with dubiously ‘safe’ methods – we should be very afraid of the meddling rather than the predictions!
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/10/08/settled-science-shock-earth-temperatures-rise-ahead-of-co2-emissions-say-scientists/
Forget all that alarmism and nut zero connery – CO2 doesn’t drive global temps and its a good gas to boot, the gas of life (as we realists always knew)
No one, no individual, no government, no NGO or combination thereof, has the authority or right to alter the climate in any way. It’s pathetic enough that the Colorado River doesn’t reach the ocean because its water is siphoned off to irrigate lawns in Arizona. Attempts to deliberately change the climate would have effects, probably unpredictable, on people and countries over a wide area. It could only be done through coercion and force, the usual technique psychopathic monsters use in attempting to impose their will on others. The US committed a crime against humanity in its detonation of atomic weapons in both research and combat, as have others. Research and development of “weapons of mass destruction” such as diseases are instant grounds for conventional attacks, as has been the case in the past. Pretending to be the “good guys” is no justification.
Most of that water is taken for agriculture, As to the use of nuclear weapons in war, that saved lives. As to the test explosions, would you care to explain why you believe those to be a crime against humanity? Are you one of those people who are convinced that even minuscule amounts of radiation are dangerous?
I recall in The Matrix how mankind scorched the sky to block the solar energy used to power the machines. Look how that turned out.
Read Neal Stephenson’s “Termination Shock”: a rogue billionaire decides to inject sulfur to save the planet. Need I say there are complications?
Not a scientific treatise but a fun read.
Forget all that CO2 in the air stuff and river flow nutrients Peter Ridd showed wasn’t a detectable problem for the GBR. It’s the underground stuff you can’t see so send more grants folks-
Major new threat to Great Barrier Reef identified (msn.com)
Let’s go the math:
The mass of the Earth’s atmosphere is about 5.15×10^18 kg. We know that atmosphere doesn’t mix very well across the Intertropical Convergence Zone that exists near the equator, so let’s just assume that we want to inject the SO2 only into the NH, where most of the world’s population of humans (about 90%) live.
“Sulfur dioxide is found on Earth and exists in very small concentrations in the atmosphere at about 15 ppb.”
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide
So, let’s say the objective of the geoengineering proposed in the above article is to double SO2 concentration in just the northern hemisphere. Assuming no chemical or biological breakup of the atmospheric SO2 over time, that doubling would require 0.5 * 5.15×10^18 * 15×10^(-9) = 3.9×10^10 kg of SO2.
The world currently releases about 26 million tonnes (2.4×10^10 kg) of SO2 annually into the atmosphere, primarily as the side effect of the burning of fossil fuels that contain sulfur, such as coal or oil, in power plants and other industrial facilities.
Therefore, to just double the atmospheric SO2 concentration currently in the NH via intentional geoengineering over a period of, say, 5 years “someone” would have to produce, transport into the stratosphere, and inject each year about 33% of the amount that is currently emitted annually as waste product from humans burning fossil fuels and from other smaller activities.
Moreover, the cheapest pure SO2, purchased in large bulk quantities is currently running about $0.70 USD/kg. Thus, 3.9×10^10 kg of SO2 would cost about $27 trillion USD. And, BTW, that cheap SO2 is produced and sold by Red China.
Quite simply, such geoengineering as proposed in the above article would be ridiculously expensive, is totally impractical and basically ineffective, and thus will never happen!
Ooops . . . slipped up on the cost numbers . . . the estimated cost would “only” be $27 billion USD, not $27 trillion USD as I mis-stated in my previous post.
ToldYouSo:
You are making the mistake that it is necessary to increase the CONCENTRATION of SO2 in the atmosphere to induce global cooling.
SO2 aerosols do NOT work that way. Their cooling effect is because they are reflective, and reduce the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface.
A VEI4 volcanic eruption will, on average, inject 0.2 million tons of SO2 into the stratosphere, and cause ~0.2 deg C of cooling, for about 2 years.
So, the cost of the proposed geoengineering would be far less than what you have suggested.
There would always be the risk, however, that a volcanic eruption might cool things down more than intended.
BTW, cooling the Earth by 2 deg.C., as you suggest, would put us into another Ice Age!
Errr . . . NO! The above WUWT article clearly states that it is climate alarmist geo-engineers that propose increasing the concentration of SO2 in Earth’s atmosphere.
I do not believe such is either credible or feasible, and I think my post above made that abundantly clear (refer to my last sentence in that post).
With your inability to correctly read (moreover, understand) what I write, it would be useless for me to further respond to you regarding whatever else you comment on.
ToldYouSo:
I was commenting on YOUR imperfect analysis, not the WUWT article.
You obviously do you not even understand what you wrote!
We used to get SO2 pumped into the atmosphere for free from power plants burning high sulfur coal. Then the gubbermint made them install scrubbers to remove the SO2. Now the same gubbermint wants to pay more money to do it.
From the article: “Depending on where you are in the world, this geoengineering could be a boon or a disaster. For instance, while places like Canada and Russia might see a boost in crop production, other areas might suffer.”
Now, how would cooler temperatures be a boon to crop production in Canada and Russia?
If the objective is to quickly reduce the earth’s global mean temperature by 2C in less than a decade’s time — and to do it regardless of the environmental risks — then solar geoengineering using SO2 injection will do the job, and it will do it at an easily affordable cost financially in comparison with Net Zero, which is impossible in any case.
In his comment above, Mr. ToldYouSo notes that the world currently releases about 26 million tonnes (2.4×10^10 kg) of SO2 annually into the atmosphere, primarily as the side effect of the burning of fossil fuels that contain sulfur, such as coal or oil, in power plants and other industrial facilities.
Therefore, to just double the atmospheric SO2 concentration currently in the NH via intentional geoengineering over a period of five years, someone would have to produce, transport into the stratosphere, and inject each year about 33% of the amount that is currently emitted annually as waste product from humans burning fossil fuels and from other smaller activities.
Mr. ToldYouSo calculates a rough cost of $27 billion USD annually for a doubling of SO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the northern hemisphere — which is peanuts compared to the worldwide costs of Net Zero.
Last spring, I attended a talk by a well-informed geotechnical scientist concerning solar geoengineering. In good detail, he went through the science, the technology, and the economics of solar radiation modification (SRM) using SO2 injection.
His analysis of SRM is that it is well within the means of current science and technology to inject enough SO2 into the atmosphere to effect a quick reduction in global mean temperature. His analysis of SRM economics is in rough alignment with that done by Mr. ToldYouSo.
The Chinese are said to be giving serious consideration to unilaterally pursuing solar geoengineering through SO2 injection, doing it from their own territory at a cost of roughly $100 billion USD annually, thus reducing global mean temperature by 2C in a decade’s time or less.
An annual cost of $100 billion USD is miniscule compared to the yearly cost of pursuing Net Zero worldwide. There is every possibility that SRM-based solar geoengineering could quickly reduce the earth’s global mean temperature at a financial cost the world can afford — assuming we are willing to accept the considerable environmental risks of trying it.
Which is why alarm bells are now being raised in many quarters concerning the prospect that solar geoengineering using SRM might eventually become a reality.
All good and well . . . but my calculations were clearly stated to be on the basis of only doubling the current concentration of atmospheric SO2 from 15 parts per billion to 30 parts per billion.
Would just this increase of 15 ppb SO2 create any meaningful reduction in Earth’s global temperature over a period of, say, 5 years or more? . . . I HAVE NO IDEA.
The figure used in the scientist’s presentation was 80 million tons of SO2 injected annually to produce a reduction of 2C in global mean temperature.
His rough calulation was that an expenditure of $100 billion USD annually would buy those yearly 80 million tons including capital, operating, and maintenance costs.
Even if the cost were $200 billion USD annually for 80 million tons, the cost is still miniscule compared to the cost of Net Zero.
The costs of unforeseen consequences is, by definition, unforeseeable.
There are sure to be unforeseen consequences from geoengineering by intentionally injecting MASSIVE quantities of SO2 into Earth’s atmosphere. Equally, there are sure to be unforeseen consequences from attempting to achieve Net Zero on the scale of the USA, let alone on a global scale.
Therefore, any talk of estimating the total cost of either, on absolute or relative scales, is pure poppycock.
Everybody outside the tropics needs warmed houses, warmed transportation, warmed workplaces, and warm clothes and shoes for most of the year.
We are only a degree or two above the temperatures at the end of the Little Ice Age.
The Sun is going into a Grand Solar Minimum and will be dimming, on its own. NOAA forecasts that the Sunspot Number will start dropping, starting in 2025, and keep dropping until it hits zero in 2040 when their forecast ends. The last time this happened it got quite cold and millions died of famine.
We’ve just spent over 40 years removing SO2 from the atmosphere and it warmed. How much of that warming was CO2 vs SO2?
son of mulder
ALL of it was SO2