4 ms·

Never. SO2 is an environmental pollutant, is a major cause of acid rain, and is toxic for human, animal, and plant health. You don't mention the problems that t

Never. SO2 is an environmental pollutant, is a major cause of acid rain, and is toxic for human, animal, and plant health. You don't mention the problems that this might solve (less incoming solar radiation, maybe?), but purposeful exposure to sulfur dioxide is much worse.

ceejayoz 3y ago
That's why the proposals are to put it in the stratosphere, and one of the big benefits of SO2 versus other chemicals is the planet naturally does the same thing during big eruptions; we thus have some significant experimental evidence on how it degrades and affects ecosystems. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab94eb https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab94eb posits that moving off coal as an energy source drops SO4 in the atmosphere so precipitously that geoengineering would largely just keep it at the current baseline (Figure 1).
- selimthegrim 3y ago
  Do you like having an ozone layer?
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Again, Figure 1 claims levels would remain at current levels, due to the reduction in coal use. We'd have the same ozone layer we have today.
    - selimthegrim 3y ago
      Then how would we get any temperature reduction?
      - selimthegrim 3y ago
        Ok I got it the comparison is to ozone stability at current sulfur inputs from shipping emissions etc.
alexose 3y ago
Weighing all things, though, is it worse? Would an increase in acid raid outweigh the myriad health concerns over wildfire smoke? I'd rather not pollute the atmosphere on purpose, but I find that there's a moral hazard in not considering all possible mitigation strategies. Keeping in mind that those of us posting on Hackernews are among the least affected and least vulnerable people on the planet.
perihelions 3y ago
The amounts of *stratospheric* SO₂ aerosols needed to alter the climate are a very small fraction of extant *tropospheric* SO₂ pollution. None of those effects would be significant.

ceejayoz 3y ago

That's why the proposals are to put it in the stratosphere, and one of the big benefits of SO2 versus other chemicals is the planet naturally does the same thing during big eruptions; we thus have some significant experimental evidence on how it degrades and affects ecosystems. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab94eb https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab94eb posits that moving off coal as an energy source drops SO4 in the atmosphere so precipitously that geoengineering would largely just keep it at the current baseline (Figure 1).

selimthegrim 3y ago
Do you like having an ozone layer?
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  Again, Figure 1 claims levels would remain at current levels, due to the reduction in coal use. We'd have the same ozone layer we have today.
  - selimthegrim 3y ago
    Then how would we get any temperature reduction?
    - selimthegrim 3y ago
      Ok I got it the comparison is to ozone stability at current sulfur inputs from shipping emissions etc.

alexose 3y ago

Weighing all things, though, is it worse? Would an increase in acid raid outweigh the myriad health concerns over wildfire smoke? I'd rather not pollute the atmosphere on purpose, but I find that there's a moral hazard in not considering all possible mitigation strategies. Keeping in mind that those of us posting on Hackernews are among the least affected and least vulnerable people on the planet.

perihelions 3y ago

The amounts of *stratospheric* SO₂ aerosols needed to alter the climate are a very small fraction of extant *tropospheric* SO₂ pollution. None of those effects would be significant.