2 ms·

29.5 billion pounds is about 13.3 million tonnes. Global air cargo is 63 million tonnes, so that's a lot, but not a physically unfeasible amount, even if you ha

29.5 billion pounds is about 13.3 million tonnes. Global air cargo is 63 million tonnes, so that's a lot, but not a physically unfeasible amount, even if you have to airlift into the stratosphere. Say 600 flights of a planes with 60 tonnes of payload per day. 300 per day per pole. That's "only" a large-ish airport's worth of flights each (about the same as Paris Orly, or half of JFK or Heathrow), and they'd presumably be fairly short-range so you'd maybe only need a few dozen planes doing Berlin Airlift-style load-fly-reload operations. If it came to it and it was the only way, it's not that astronomical and would probably cost less than dealing with a single major weather disaster or crop failure. Maybe it's a terrible idea for other reasons (though I would be surprised if the acidity even really registered next to existing sulphur and CO2 emissions, but then again it's all concentrated in a few places), but the cost isn't a slam-dunk "yeah, no, that's literally impossible" conclusion.

brucethemoose2 3y ago
The article (and paper) go into this. Theoretically the lift capacity is not that high, but practically the costs are amplified because existing airframes are inefficient at the job. Also, the effects are bad enough that the habitability in the aerosol zone for the "1%” of the human population living in there is a concern. That can’t be good for the local wildlife...
- adhesive_wombat 3y ago
  If this actually became necessary, I would assume we're already in a world where sea ice has been gone for a decade or more, polar wildlife is a write-off already and humanity is facing regular catastrophic climate events (storms, floods, and fires), mass migrations and famines. My point isn't that it's an amazing idea, or even a good one, just that it's eminently within the realms of physical and economic possibility. Hell, SAC probably flew a comparable number air miles than that for decades at a time, just circling nuclear weapons near the USSR.

brucethemoose2 3y ago

The article (and paper) go into this. Theoretically the lift capacity is not that high, but practically the costs are amplified because existing airframes are inefficient at the job. Also, the effects are bad enough that the habitability in the aerosol zone for the "1%” of the human population living in there is a concern. That can’t be good for the local wildlife...

adhesive_wombat 3y ago
If this actually became necessary, I would assume we're already in a world where sea ice has been gone for a decade or more, polar wildlife is a write-off already and humanity is facing regular catastrophic climate events (storms, floods, and fires), mass migrations and famines. My point isn't that it's an amazing idea, or even a good one, just that it's eminently within the realms of physical and economic possibility. Hell, SAC probably flew a comparable number air miles than that for decades at a time, just circling nuclear weapons near the USSR.