Atmospheric Sulphur Injections

[Gray-Wolf]

Both German and American scientists are seriously considering the effects of using sulphurs albedo , when injected into the stratosphere, to help counteract the worst effects of global warming. The 1991 eruption of mt. pinotubo was used as a model for the new research. What'd ya think?

Personally I think its a little too much like the little old lady who swallowed a fly..........

[The PIT]

Well this suggest to me we're still within a natural swing of things

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm

[Anti-Mild]

Well this suggest to me we're still within a natural swing of things

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm

The only thiing about those tables is that the data only goes up to 1950 and it can be suggested that most of the warming has occurred in the last 20-30 years.

[Gray-Wolf]

The only thiing about those tables is that the data only goes up to 1950 and it can be suggested that most of the warming has occurred in the last 20-30 years.

In fact global cooling had started to be felt by 1950 (as early as 1944 for W.europe courtesy of the flying fortress raids!) so the tail end of the data is 'skewed'. The increase of global temps since the 80's is the true measure and , obviously, you would need more than 25yrs data if you wish to compare the 'new' regime with the old.

[Paranoid]

Also, if we used volcanic material in general, we'd have a period of cooling, followed by a period of warming due to the greenhouse gases volcanoes release. I'm not sure if sulphur is one of them though.

[Gray-Wolf]

Also, if we used volcanic material in general, we'd have a period of cooling, followed by a period of warming due to the greenhouse gases volcanoes release. I'm not sure if sulphur is one of them though.

Sulphur is released in great quantities during eruptions (in case you haven't smelled any vulcanicity recently ) and ,through reactions in the stratosphere, aids cooling. I'm sure that the knock on effects down the line (downstream?) are not as welcome though. I do not think that man has proved a great sucess when seeking to 'change' his environment as we always seem (post event) to have been ignorant of one or more important bits of info that generally lead his tinkerings to disaster.

[Snowly does it]

Sulphur would certainly appear to be an effective counterpoint to CO2 going by global temperatures following volcanoes . I assume the downside would be the acid rain we all learned to fear in the 1980s?

Still, its something to consider for sure. You can guarantee that they would effect this just before a major erupton of Kraktoa intensity of course, just to make us shiver and long for more CO2 emissions.

[Paranoid]

Personally i think we should just leave it. If we try to cool down the planet, then i'm sure something would happen (like a krakatau scale eruption) that would make things worse.

[Essan]

Sulphur would certainly appear to be an effective counterpoint to CO2 going by global temperatures following volcanoes . I assume the downside would be the acid rain we all learned to fear in the 1980s?

Yes, one of the reasons for the recent upsurge in warming is that sulphur emissions form power stations etc were curbuing any oincrease during the mid 20th century. It was only when we stopped these emission because of acid rain that tmeps began to rise.....

So, co2 induced GW or sulphur induced acid rain?

Sulphur is not an answer.

[Snowly does it]

Yes, one of the reasons for the recent upsurge in warming is that sulphur emissions form power stations etc were curbuing any oincrease during the mid 20th century. It was only when we stopped these emission because of acid rain that tmeps began to rise.....

So, co2 induced GW or sulphur induced acid rain?

Sulphur is not an answer.

I guess the answer is the easy bit, its the political, economic and social cost that is the bitter pill most would not care to swallow.

[summer blizzard]

Yes, Sulphur Dioxide when released into the amosphere, reacts with water vapour to form Sulphuric Acid, which then reflects sunlight back into space causing some amazing sunsets, the side effect of course being acid rain.

[Stratos Ferric]

Also, if we used volcanic material in general, we'd have a period of cooling, followed by a period of warming due to the greenhouse gases volcanoes release. I'm not sure if sulphur is one of them though.

You need to visit Iceland, open your nostrils / turn the hot taps on, remember you're standing / sitting on the world's only non continental landmass and directly astride the separation zone of the american and eurasian plates, and then remind yourself that you were wondering whether sulphur was a volcanic constituent.

Anyone caught very close to an erupting volcano is likely to be suffocated to death before they are burned to death.

As SB suggests. S, and its airborne oxides, SO2 in particular, are important aerosols - an important role of which is to act as hygroscopic seeds for the coalescence of water molecules in cloud formation. Not sure whether SO2 was used, but the americans and russians, and I think the chinese, have intermittently messed around trying to seed clouds using mineral crystals. As others on here have said, our intermittent forays into planned atmospheric forcing haven't amounted to much.

In any case, if you suspend judgement for a moment and consider the amount of activity that is being required to bring about unplanned forcing at present, then the effort that would be required for a planned attempt to counteract this becomes clear. Never say never, but it would never work.

Edited August 29, 2006 by Stratos Ferric

[Hiya]

Putting sulphur into the atmosphere would just be silly, the overall aim is to get the atmosphere back to the way it was before, not change it.

Modern chemistry could create a molecule that could do the idea of putting sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere, but then again u don't want to be doing that either cause its fraut with danger.

[Guest Mike W]

Or a more easy and cheaper option but still massively contoversial would be to scrap the clean air act basically. Of course the only way they could do that without causing controversy is not tell anyone that they have or are doing that.

Edited August 29, 2006 by Mike W

[Cheviot]

Any tampering with natural (shifting) balance is dangerous.

A good example of utilising chemistry to impose our needs on the weather this way is cloud seeding; silver iodide is released into the atmosphere. China has tested this recently, in an attempt to remedy a worsening drought condition in one of its provinces. The area where seeding occurred benefitted, but other surrounding areas suffered flash floods and extensive surface erosion. More distant areas, including Tibet and Nepal subsequently reported much reduced rainfall, and they wasted no time in blaming China for their reduced cropping at harvest time.

Pump S into the almophere and our limestone buildings will dissolve!

[Guest Mike W]

Did any limestone buildings dissolve in say the 50's or 60' to the early 80's though when we were still emmiting alot of SO2 and soot. This is not me saying we should emmit sulphates BTW.

[Cheviot]

There has been some surface damage to limestone buildings/ statues that were built by the Victorians. Granted, the impact is not worthy of flag waving or hysteria, but the insidious erosion will ruin any fine limestone masonry over time.