3 ms·
Since almost all life on earth derives from photosynthesis, reducing insolation is very risky. Anyone that confidently asserts how it works suffers from not bei
by throwaway5752 3y ago
Since almost all life on earth derives from photosynthesis, reducing insolation is very risky. Anyone that confidently asserts how it works suffers from not being informed enough to be worried. If humanity start doing releasing SO2 to reduce insolation, but not reducing atmospheric greenhouse gas levels, then the climate would be a coiled spring. CO2 sequestration operates on decade or century timeframes and SO2 released into the upper atmosphere is removed from the atmosphere in weeks to years. If humanity kept releasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases at current rates, but couldn't continue releasing SO2 for some reason, speaking plainly, we would be all be truly fucked in a very short period of time.
It is immoral and and a bad idea. We can get to carbon targets to solve this issue instead like scientists dedicated to this problem have been consistently saying for decades, but the USA's wealth derives from oil and excessive driving. So we are lied to and told that it isn't feasible.