Yes, it works, but there is a limit for how much warming it can migitate (if you make the particles larger/more they will just coagulate and precipitate faster)

Yes, it works, but there is a limit for how much warming it can migitate (if you make the particles larger/more they will just coagulate and precipitate faster), and the limit seems to be ~ -2 W/m^2. (It is important to not only consider the short-wave reflective cooling of the aerosol but also the long-wave heating it creates. More sulphur will just coagulate faster. Changing atmospheric circulation patterns mean the aerosol is not distributed equally and can grow and precipiate faster.) (Currently we're already at an estimated +0.6 W/m^2.) Additionally, the atmospheric circulation is disturbed [0]. Interaction with the ozone layer might also be highly problematic. So this is not a solution, only a last-ditch effort if we need to buy some time. With everything else being constant, the injection needs to be repeated for basically forever, a problem for all solar radiation management techniques. Carbon capture on the other hand allows us to stop at some point, it removes the problem instead of only treating the symptoms. There are ideas for enhanced weathering, or storing organic matter (eg as biochar), which are feasible from an energic perspective but still expensive. Whatever we do, it needs to be done on a huge scale, like a massive war effort, with everyone involved and helping, and it will be more expensive than not emitting the carbon in the first place. Also, one method alone will not cut it, and there will be side effects, which are hopefully less severe than the alternative. Don't rely on technology to fix the problem after the fact, push for change now. [0] https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/2769/2018/acp-18-2769-2018.pdf https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/2769/2018/acp-18-2769-201...