Unbelievable!! As if our skies are not already full of space junk, electromagnetic and radio waves, microwave and laser beams, and POISONOUS/TOXIC Chemicals, now they want to fill the air with sulfur dioxide. We already cannot breathe, everyone has allergies, chronic coughs and lung disease. Are we just not dying fast enough for them?
WHEN will everyone realize that scientists have NO CLUE what they are doing. Every time that mess with anything they create disastrous side effects and deadly results. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! They need to be defunded!! They all work on grants, donations and school or government funding. CUT THEM OFF!!! Demand that your tax dollars quit going for “scientific experiments”.
The ABSOLUTE TRUTH IS WE DON’T KNOW what they are putting up into our atmosphere or stratosphere or IONISPHERE. They surely cannot be trusted to tell us the truth. TRUTHFULLY, THEY DON’T HAVE A CLUE what can happen with any of the EXPERIMENTS they are conducting. They are just playing games with our lives and the life of this planet. Even they have to admit, (if they can be honest) that they don’t KNOW what the consequences or side effects will be. SADLY, THAT DOES NOT BOTHER THEM. THEY DON’T CARE!! They are driven to try whatever pops into their maniacal minds.
They ARE KILLING US and DESTROYING THE EARTH. And they blame you and me for their handiwork. Sadly, many people believe them.
By the end of this post.. I hope you are ready to join the fight to stop the madness. Link provided.
Scientists propose controversial plan to refreeze North and South Poles by spraying sulphur dioxide into atmosphere
But a former UK chief scientist backed the plans, telling Sky News that polar warming is now critical – and refreezing the ice could hold back the rise in global sea levels.
The new study was led by Wake Smith from Yale University in the United States.
He warned the plan would treat an important symptom of climate change, not the cause.
“It’s aspirin, not penicillin. It’s not a substitute for decarbonisation,” he said.
Under the plan, a fleet of 125 military air-to-air refuelling tankers would release a cloud of microscopic sulphur dioxide particles at an altitude of 43,000ft (13km) and latitude of 60 degrees in both hemispheres, roughly equivalent to the Shetland Islands in the north, and the Falklands in the south.
The particles would slowly drift towards the poles on high-altitude winds, slightly shading the Earth’s surface beneath.
Just over 13m tonnes of particles released in the spring and summer would be enough to cool the polar regions by 2C, with more moderate cooling at mid-latitudes, according to the research published in the scientific journal Environmental Research Communications.
The plan is controversial, not least because the large number of flights – equivalent to more than two days of global air traffic in 2021 – would release greenhouse gases into the upper atmosphere where they are more damaging.
Other scientists are also cautious about unleashing solar shading because it could have unintended consequences, such as reducing crop yields.
A plan to release particles from a balloon in northern Sweden last year was abandoned after protests from environmentalists. A large-scale release programme would need international agreement.
But the researchers argue only 1% of the human population lives in the target deployment zone. And the £10bn a year cost of the programme would be far less than carbon capture or other means of mitigating or adapting to climate change, they add.
“If the risk-benefit equation were to pay off anywhere, it would be at the poles,” said Mr Smith.
“Any intentional turning of the global thermostat would be of common interest to all of humanity.”
The poles are warming several times faster than the global average, with record-breaking heatwaves reported in both the Arctic and the Antarctic earlier this year.
If the vast Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets reach a tipping point – now seen as likely on current projections of global warming – then sea levels would rise by several metres.
Here’s One Way We Could Refreeze Earth’s Melting Polar Ice
- Scientists believe tanker planes could spray sulfur dioxide aerosol in the upper atmosphere over Earth’s poles to help them refreeze.
- The temperatures of Earth’s poles could be cooled by about 2 degrees Celsius, the study says, costing about $11 billion annually.
- But this proposal comes with risks, and it’s not a final solution to climate change—just a Band-Aid.
These stratospheric aerosol injections (SAI), as the study calls them, offer “a prospective climate intervention that would seek to abate global warming by slightly increasing the reflectiveness of the Earth’s upper atmosphere.”
The concept of SAI is nothing new, but this proposal calls for aerosols to be targeted at the places where melting ice can most dramatically lead to sea-level rise across the entire planet. With greater warming at the Earth’s poles over time, the study calls for “injections of sulfur dioxide (SO2)… which will oxidize into sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and coagulate into liquid supercooled aerosols after a month in the stratosphere.”
The expectation is that this could lower temperatures at the poles by 2 degrees Celsius. That’s enough cooling to help refreeze the polar extremes and bring average temperatures back in line with what they were before the industrial era. The harmful effects of climate change, such as extreme weather and massive flooding, could possibly be slowed.
“Subpolar deployment would quickly envelope the poles as well and could arrest or reverse ice and permafrost melt at high latitudes. This would yield global benefit by retarding sea level rise,” writes lead author Wake Smith in the study. Smith is a lecturer at Yale College and senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School. Unlike previous aerosol plans, which would encompass the entire Earth, the one Smith proposes focuses just on latitudes beyond 60 degrees north and south (think north of Anchorage, Alaska, and south of Patagonia).
“Because the tropopause is considerably lower at high latitudes, aerosols or their precursors would not need to be lofted as high, reducing the engineering challenges relative to a global deployment,” Smith writes.
In order to work, the study determined the aerosol would need to be released at a minimum altitude of 13 kilometers, or 43,000 feet above Earth’s surface—a lower altitude than required elsewhere in the world by other SAI plans. To offset the greatest amount of solar radiation, a specialized fleet of around 125 aircraft would work during the extra-long spring and early summer days of one hemisphere before traveling to the other pole to perform the same tasks.
There’s just one hitch: releasing the necessary payload of aerosol at that altitude is beyond the capability of any current tanker aircraft. The researchers narrowed the potential aircraft down to the Boeing KC-135R, the Boeing KC-46A Pegasus, the Airbus A330 MRTT, the Boeing KC-10, and the Airbus A340F—but all would still need to be modified for the mission. Ideally, a purpose-built “lofter” plane designed by the researchers would be used, called the SAIL-43K, which is based on the SAIL-01 design.
By focusing effort on the poles, the plan would reduce costs radically over other SAI plans, according to the study, with an annual price tag of just $11 billion. That’s significantly less than the projected annual cost of $36 billion to lower the surface temperature by the same degree over the entire Earth instead.
Of course, a less generous disbursement of aerosol also helps with the obvious concerns about dumping particles into the atmosphere. Will the aerosols have an unexpected ecological impact on Earth, if the delivery could lead to further depletion of the ozone? “There is widespread and sensible trepidation about deploying aerosols to cool the planet,” Smith says, “but if the risk-benefit equation were to pay off anywhere, it would be at the poles.” This plan would decrease the risks, with less than one percent of the human population living within those areas.
The concept of stratospheric aerosol injections comes with a host of unknowns. Along with devising the best aerosol to use—the most recent study sticks with a commonly considered sulfur-based aerosols—scientists aren’t certain of the best delivery method or how long the aerosols will provide benefit once released. Could we eventually see giant SO2 rockets that release aerosols over other continents to slow down global warming, like in the futuristic geoengineering-themed novel Termination Shock by Neil Stephenson? Maybe not, but this could be the first step.
Plus, this SAI proposal is by no means the ultimate solution to climate change. “Game changing though this could be in a rapidly warming world, stratospheric aerosol injections merely treat a symptom of climate change but not the underlying disease,” Smith says. “It’s aspirin, not penicillin. It’s not a substitute for decarbonization.”
While it’s still preliminary in concept, the study authors believe the idea warrants exploration. “Given its apparent feasibility and low cost,” they write, “this scenario deserves further attention.”
The plan, which falls under a controversial climate intervention technology called Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), would target only subpolar regions- instead of having a global intervention that most other SIA operations assume, highlights the paper.
The SAIL-43K: A step up from ‘hand-me-down’ military air-to-air refueling tankers
The researchers argue that ‘hand-me-down’ (reused) military air-to-air refueling tankers such as the aged KC-135 and the A330 MMRT don’t have enough payload at the required altitudes- even when modified. They, therefore, submit the SAIL-43K as an efficient candidate for the subpolar mission.
A fleet of 125 of these SAIL-43K tankers would release a cloud of microscopic sulfur dioxide particles, which at an altitude of 43,000 feet (13 kilometers) and latitude of 60 degrees north and south- could loft a payload sufficient to cool the regions by two degrees per year. Areas such as Anchorage, southern Alaska, and the southern tip of Patagonia- could return close to their pre-industrial average temperatures.
Upon slowly drifting towards the poles by ferrying on high-altitude winds, the particles would slightly shade the Earth’s surface beneath.
An operation would be equivalent to more than two days of global commercial air traffic
Still, the paper highlights that such an operation would be equivalent to more than two days of global commercial air traffic in 2021, or about two-thirds of the annual flights departing New York’s Kennedy Airport.
The SIA operation would tap into the healthy number of pre-existing commercial airfields in the Northern Hemisphere that could serve as operational bases for a polar SAI operation. Anchorage, for example, has three runways longer than 10,600 feet, and whilst located at 61.2°N latitude—this would be close enough for the purpose.
For the southern hemisphere, it’s a little more complicated. 60 degrees of the south pole touches nowhere on land and is inhabitable. The closest significant airfields are in Chile and Argentina at the southern tip of Patagonia. As sub-optimal bases here may be relative to the 60°S target, the researchers reveal they will have to serve.
Additionally, the paper highlights that the ground infrastructure for any pre-existing base would need to be greatly enhanced to accommodate the program.
Costs are less than one-third of alternative climate responses aiming to cool to the same 2°C extent
According to the paper, the costs of the subpolar SIA program are estimated at 11 billion dollars annually. This is less than one-third the cost of cooling the entire planet by the same 2°C extent proposed by other climate responses such as mitigation, adaptation, or carbon capture and sequestration.
Nevertheless, to compare the newly proposed SIA operation with the alternatives mentioned above would be like comparing apples and oranges, admits the researchers.
A subpolar mission using highly controversial technology
Whilst subpolar in nature, using the airspace of no more than a dozen countries, it still stands that the program is controversial.
The governance and legitimacy challenges that would confront such a program include not knowing the unintended consequences of releasing sulfur particles into the atmosphere, such as reducing crop yields.
A short while ago, a similar SIA plan in Sweden by a Harvard research project had to be abandoned due to environmental protests. In this case, scientists proposed using balloons to release the particle and further consolidate the need for international agreement.
Still, the researchers behind the newly proposed program argue that their SAI program would entail deployment directly overhead of far less than 1% of the world’s population and nearly none of its agriculture. Given its apparent feasibility and low cost, this scenario deserves further attention.
Regardless of the outcome, the current study still provides a boost in understanding the costs, benefits, and risks of such climate intervention measures at latitudes of thousands of feet. Who knows, perhaps such tools could prove helpful in saving the cryosphere near the poles and delaying global sea level rise.
After all, the poles are warming several times faster than the global average. It was only last year that we saw record-breaking heatwaves reported in both the Arctic and the Antarctic.
Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) is a prospective climate intervention technology that would seek to abate climate change by deflecting back into space a small fraction of the incoming solar radiation. While most consideration given to SAI assumes a global intervention, this paper considers an alternative scenario whereby SAI might be deployed only in the subpolar regions. Subpolar deployment would quickly envelope the poles as well and could arrest or reverse ice and permafrost melt at high latitudes. This would yield global benefit by retarding sea level rise. Given that effective SAI deployment could be achieved at much lower altitudes in these regions than would be required in the tropics, it is commonly assumed that subpolar deployment would present fewer aeronautical challenges. An SAI deployment intended to reduce average surface temperatures in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions by 2 °C is deemed here to be feasible at relatively low cost with conventional technologies. However, we do not find that such a deployment could be undertaken with a small fleet of pre-existing aircraft, nor that relegating such a program to these sparsely populated regions would obviate the myriad governance challenges that would confront any such deployment. Nevertheless, given its feasibility and potential global benefit, the prospect of subpolar-focused SAI warrants greater attention.
We can’t reverse global warming by triggering another catastrophe
Crutzen is, as you would expect, a brilliant man. He was one of the atmospheric chemists who worked out how high-level ozone is formed and destroyed. He knows more than almost anyone about the impacts of pollutants in the atmosphere. This is what makes his omission so odd.
This month, he published an essay in the journal Climatic Change. He argues that the world’s response to climate change has so far been “grossly disappointing”. Stabilising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, he asserts, requires a global reduction in emissions of between 60% and 80%. But at the moment “this looks like a pious wish”. So, he proposes, we must start considering the alternatives, by which he means re-engineering the atmosphere in order to cool the earth.
He suggests we use either giant guns or balloons to inject sulphur into the stratosphere, 10km or more above the surface of the earth. Sulphur dioxide at that height turns into tiny particles – or aerosols – of sulphate. These reflect sunlight back into space, counteracting the warming caused by manmade climate change.
One of the crueller paradoxes of climate change is that it is being accelerated by reducing certain kinds of pollution. Filthy factories cause acid rain and ill health, but they also help to shield us from the sun, by filling the air with particles. As we have started to clean some of them up, we have exposed ourselves to more solar radiation. One model suggests that a complete removal of these pollutants from the atmosphere could increase the world’s temperature by 0.8C.
The virtue of Crutzen’s scheme is that sulphate particles released so far above the surface of the earth stay airborne for much longer than they do at lower altitudes. In order to compensate for a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations (which could happen this century), he calculates that we would need to fire some 5m tonnes of sulphur into the stratosphere every year. This corresponds to roughly 10% of the sulphate currently entering the atmosphere.
Crutzen recognises that there are problems. The sulphate particles would slightly reduce the thickness of the ozone layer. They would cause some whitening of the sky. Most dangerously, his scheme could be used by governments to help justify their failure to cut carbon emissions: if the atmosphere could one day be fixed by some heavy artillery and a few technicians, why bother to impose unpopular policies?
His paper has already caused plenty of controversy. Other scientists have pointed out that even if rising carbon dioxide levels did not cause global warming, they would still be an ecological disaster. For example, one study shows that as the gas dissolves in seawater, by 2050 the oceans could become too acid for shells to form, obliterating much of the plankton on which the marine ecosystem depends. In Crutzen’s scheme, the carbon dioxide levels are not diminished.
It would also be necessary to keep firing sulphur into the sky for hundreds of years. The scheme would be extremely expensive, so it is hard to imagine that governments would sustain it through all the economic and political crises likely to take place in that time. But what I find puzzling is this: that by far the most damaging impact of sulphate pollution hasn’t even been mentioned – by him or, as far as I can discover, any of his critics.
In 2002 the Journal of Climate published an astonishing proposition: that the great droughts which had devastated the Sahel region of Africa had been caused in part by sulphate pollution in Europe and North America. Our smoke, the paper suggested, was partly responsible for the famines that killed hundreds of thousands of people in the 1970s and 1980s.
By reducing the size of the droplets in clouds, thereby making them more reflective, the sulphate particles lowered the temperature of the sea’s surface in the northern hemisphere. The result was to shift the intertropical convergence zone southwards. This zone is an area close to the equator in which moist air rises and condenses into rain. The Sahel, which covers countries such as Ethiopia, Sudan, Chad, Niger, Burkina Faso and Senegal, is at the northern limits of the zone. As the rain belt was pushed south, those countries dried up. As a result of the clean air acts, between 1970 and 1996 sulphur emissions in the US fell by 39%. This appears to have helped the North Atlantic to warm, allowing the rains to return to the Sahel in the 1990s.
Since then, several studies – published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Geophysical Research Letters and the Journal of Geophysical Research – have confirmed these findings. They show that the 40% reduction in rainfall in the Sahel, which has “few if any parallels in the 20th-century record anywhere on Earth”, is explicable only when natural variations are assisted by sulphate aerosols. We killed those people.
I cannot say whether or not Crutzen’s scheme would have a similar outcome. It is true that he proposes to use less sulphur than the industrialised nations pumped into the atmosphere, but does this matter if the reflective effect is just as great? Another paper I have read lists seven indirect impacts of aerosols on the climate system. Which, if any, will be dominant? What will their effects on rainfall be?
Crutzen suggests that in order to keep the particles airborne for as long as possible they should be released “near the tropical upward branch of the stratospheric circulation system”. Does this mean that they will not be evenly distributed around the world? If so, will they shift weather systems around as our uneven patterns of pollution have done? I don’t know the answers, but I am staggered by the fact that the questions are not even being asked.
I am not suggesting that they have been deliberately overlooked. It seems more likely that they have been forgotten for a familiar reason: that this disaster took place in Africa. Would we have neglected them if the famines had happened in Europe? The story of industrialisation is like The Picture of Dorian Gray. While the rich nations have enjoyed perennial youth, the cost of their debaucheries – slavery, theft, colonialism, sulphur pollution, climate change – is visited on another continent, where the forgotten picture becomes ever uglier.
The only responsible way to tackle climate change is to reduce the amount of climate-changing gases we emit. To make this possible, we must suppress the political and economic costs of the necessary cut. I think I have shown how this can be done – you will have to judge for yourself when my book is published. But what is surely clear is that there is no uncomplicated short cut. By re-engineering the planet’s systems we could risk invoking as great a catastrophe as the one we are trying to prevent.
· George Monbiot’s book Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning is published next month by Penguin
Scientist: Inject Sulfur into Air to Battle Global Warming
(Image credit: USGS/Dave Harlow)
The burning of fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. It also releases sulfur that cools the planet by reflecting solar radiation away from Earth.
Most researchers say the warming effect has been winning in recent decades.
Injecting sulfur into the second atmospheric layer closest to Earth would reflect more sunlight back to space and offset greenhouse gas warming, according to Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen from the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Germany and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California at San Diego.
Crutzen suggests carrying sulfur into the atmosphere via balloons and using artillery guns to release it, where the particles would stay for up to two years. The results could be seen in six months.
Nature does something like this naturally.
When Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in1991, millions of tons of sulfur was injected into the atmosphere, enhancing reflectivity and cooling the Earth’s surface by an average of 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit in the year following the eruption.
“Given the grossly disappointing international political response to the required greenhouse gas emissions, … research on the feasibility and environmental consequences of climate engineering of the kind presented in this paper, which might need to be deployed in future, should not be tabooed,” Crutzen said.
This proposal is detailed in the August issue of the journal Climatic Change.
Other Offbeat Solutions
More to Explore
- Video: Goldilocks and the Greenhouse
- Global Warming or Just Hot Air? A Dozen Different Views
- Baffled Scientists Say Less Sunlight Reaching Earth
- Scientists Clueless over Sun’s Effect on Earth
- All About Global Warming
Sulfur Dioxide Effects on Health
The Halema’uma’u plume in Kilauea Crater at Hawai’i Volcanoes NP contains extremely high levels of sulfur dioxide, about 500-1,000 tones/day. The NPS sulfur dioxide advisory program alerts the public and park staff if air quality conditions reach unhealthy levels. Visitors viewing the plume coming off lava lak Halema’uma’u.
What is sulfur dioxide?
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, reactive air pollutant with a strong odor. This gas can be a threat to human health, animal health, and plant life.
The main sources of sulfur dioxide emissions are from fossil fuel combustion and natural volcanic activity. Hawai’i Volcanoes National Park (NP) is unique in the national park system because it sometimes has extremely high concentrations of sulfur dioxide — far higher than any other national park, or even most urban areas.
How can sulfur dioxide affect your health?
Sulfur dioxide irritates the skin and mucous membranes of the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs. High concentrations of SO2 can cause inflammation and irritation of the respiratory system, especially during heavy physical activity. The resulting symptoms can include pain when taking a deep breath, coughing, throat irritation, and breathing difficulties. High concentrations of SO2 can affect lung function, worsen asthma attacks, and worsen existing heart disease in sensitive groups. This gas can also react with other chemicals in the air and change to a small particle that can get into the lungs and cause similar health effects.
Who is at risk?
People sensitive to sulfur dioxide include:
Hawai’i Volcanoes NP visitors, residents, and park staff downwind of the volcanic SO2 emissions can be exposed to unhealthy levels of pollution. Since it is not possible to control volcanic activity, the National Park Service created a sulfur dioxide advisory program, which gives out warnings to let people know when unhealthy levels of this pollutant are present. Advisories encourage people to limit their exposure when necessary.
How can I avoid unhealthy exposure?
You can take simple steps to reduce your exposure to unhealthy air. First, visit the Current Conditions Website to find out about current sulfur dioxide conditions and the health advisory level.
When possibly unhealthy sulfur dioxide pollution happens, your chances of being affected increase with high levels of activity and the length of time you are active outdoors. If your planned activity has long or heavy physical exertion and the sulfur dioxide levels are high, you may want to limit or stop your activity. For recommended ways to protect yourself at high levels of sulfur dioxide, consult the Health Advisory Table.
What are the NPS sulfur dioxide health advisories?
A SO2 air pollution advisory program was created at Hawai’i Volcanoes NP to deliver timely information about possible unhealthy air pollution conditions that could affect the health of visitors, island residents, and park personnel. Using the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) air quality index, the NPS SO2 health advisories for Hawai’i Volcanoes NP help you understand what local air quality means to your health. The air quality index is divided into six levels of health concern:
Understanding Sulfur Dioxide Health Advisory Levels
The SO2 and weather data used in this program are collected by the National Park Service at the Jaggar Museum and Kilauea Visitor Center monitoring sites. The SO2 concentrations measured at the monitoring sites are reviewed every 15 minutes and one of six advisory levels of health concern are assigned for that 15-minute period for each site.
How does sulfur dioxide affect national parks?
Hawai’i Volcanoes NP is significantly impacted by sulfur dioxide because the high levels create a human health concern. Sulfate particles can also create haze and reduce visibility at Hawai’i Volcanoes NP and other national parks. Sulfur dioxide can convert to acids in the atmosphere and come down from the atmosphere in rain, snow, or fog, or as dry particles. This atmospheric deposition can damage vegetation, affect soils, acidify lakes and streams, and ruin memorials, buildings, and statues at our national cultural monuments.
What are the effects of sulphur oxides on human health and ecosystems?
A secondary effect is the formation of sulphates (and nitrates), in the form of aerosols or very fine airborne particles, which can comprise a significant proportion of the particulate matter and have been linked to increased asthma attacks, heart and lung disease and respiratory problems in susceptible population groups. 
A third effect can occur further away from the emission source where the sulphur oxides will have converted to acids by aqueous phase reactions in the atmosphere. These acidic aerosols are eventually precipitated as acid rain, snow, sleet or fog but only when they encounter the right meteorological conditions. In the absence of man made pollution rain water would be slightly acidic, around pH 5, due to the presence of carbonic acid from the interaction of water vapour and naturally occurring levels of CO2. Acid rain on the other hand has been measured with pH levels below 3 corresponding to vinegar. 
The effects of acid deposition depend on the fragility of the materials, plants, soils and waters involved. In those instances where there is not the natural alkalinity to neutralise this acidity or alternatively the capability to withstand such attack, acid deposition has been linked with the acidification of ground and surface water, deforestation, reduction – even elimination – of aquatic life and building decay. The exposed surface of limestone (CaCO3) used for the fabric of many historical buildings turns to gypsum (CaSO4), which has a lower density and is more water soluble, hence suffers from spalling). The impacts on the natural environment can cause further problems for example, acidic water leeches out heavy metals. Soil no longer bound by tree roots, may be washed away, leaving a denuded landscape and potentially adding to the flood risk downstream where this soil is subsequently deposited as silt. 
In their 2009 joint proposal to the IMO, the USA and Canada stated that by designating the eastern and western seaboards of North America an Emissions Control Area, “as many as 8,300 lives will be saved and over three million people will experience relief from acute respiratory symptoms each year”. It was also stated “an ECA will result in a 19 per cent reduction in excess [sulphur and nitrogen] deposition in south-western British Columbia and it will eliminate excess deposition over about 13,500 km2 across Canada”. , , 
To assess long-term effects on respiratory lung function, 8 beagle dogs were exposed over a period of 13 mo for 16.5 h/day to 1-microm neutral sulfite aerosol with a particle-associated sulfur (IV) concentration of 0.32 mg m (-3) and for 6 h/day to 1.1-microm acidic sulfate aerosol providing an hydrogen ion concentration of 15.2 micromol m (-3) …
While human health impairment has been attributed to pollution by sulfur dioxide ( SO2), data from inhalation studies in animals show that its oxidation products are more irritating. Population surveys in which suspended sulfate was a co-variant suggest that certain health parameters are associated more strongly with sulfate than with SO2. Recent work with biological models indicate that the sulfates and sulfuric acid act on the lung through the release of histamine and the degree of release is related to the specific cation present. Attention should be given to sulfates and specific cations in atmospheric monitoring.
REDUCED SULFUR EMISSIONS COULD CAUSE CLIMATE SHOCK
When we talk about emissions these days, we typically talk about cutting them back for the good of the environment. However, the climate system is a complex beast, and one we’re still learning to understand.
As it turns out, cutting back on emissions may have unexpected or undesirable effects. Some scientists are concerned that cuts to human-induced sulfur emissions may actually be warming the Earth.
WHAT’S THE DEAL WITH SULFUR EMISSIONS?
Much work has been done over past decades to cut down on sulfur emissions. This has taken many forms, but often comes down to targeting fossil fuel sources. The European Union, United States, and many other jurisdictions have legislated lower sulfur levels in diesel fuels. This has led to cleaner engine designs with emissions control devices that rely on lower sulfur levels to work. Similar efforts have been made to cut sulfur levels in marine fuels as well. Many coal plants have also cut down on emissions of sulfur dioxide, through the use of flue-gas desulfurization hardware.
Cuts to sulfur emissions have been made with good intentions. SO2 and other oxides of sulfur (SOx) are harmful to human health. High levels of sulfur oxides in the air can harm plant growth, and these emissions also have a habit of causing acid rain, too.
However, as it turns out, sulfur emissions tend to help create sulfur-based aerosols that end up in the stratosphere. These aerosols actually increase the amount of sunlight reflected away from Earth. In this way, they have a cooling effect on the planet – quite the opposite of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane.
Overall, the efforts to cut down on sulfur emissions have been successful. Over time, more and more countries have switched to cleaner low-sulfur fuels, and the maritime industry has been proactive in following suit. In particular, sulfur emissions from the shipping industry have dropped 80% worldwide since 2020. The effect has only been compounded by the abrupt drop in shipping activity experienced in the first year of the coronavirus pandemic.
SO WHAT’S THE PROBLEM?
The problem is that the aerosols produced by sulfur emissions were probably doing good work cooling the Earth. As our greenhouse gas emissions have continued to ratchet up over the years, the cooling effect of our sulfur emissions may have hidden some of the damage being done.
With such a rapid reduction in sulfur emissions, we may face something called an “aerosol shock” or “termination shock.” This is where the Earth’s climate rapidly heats up once the production of cooling aerosol is terminated. This can have rapid and catastrophic impacts on the climate, or at the very least, unexpected ones.
Unfortunately, our understanding of aerosols is limited at this stage. Models show that the impacts of reduced sulfur emissions could be unmeasurable, or could be serious and severe warming on a regional or even global scale. That’s a wide range of options, showing that we need to better understand the problem before we can be sure.
Acid rain is just one of the many negative effects of sulfur emissions. Thus, reducing sulfur emissions is necessary, but may not be without consequences. Credit: Nino Barbieri, CC-BY-2.5
However, we do have some measurements that indicate there may be a real problem here. Comparing 2014 to 1750, the estimated cooling effect of aerosols on the Earth was to cut roughly 1.3 watts of solar energy per square meter (W/m2). By 2019, that had dropped by 15%, to just 1.1 W/m2. That’s a significant amount.
There’s some correlation in data from past decades, too. As Europe began to cut sulfur dioxide emissions from the 1980s, it has seen an uptick in temperatures. Correlation does not equal causation, of course, but it’s an area worthy of further investigation.
It’s part of a broader trend in Earth’s albedo, the amount of light it reflects back to space. Less aerosols and less ice on Earth are both making the planet less reflective. That means the Earth absorbs more heat, leading to higher temperatures. It’s feared that rising temperatures could push further change to albedo as glaciers and ice sheets melt, locking in a runaway increase in temperatures beyond our control.
CAN’T TURN BACK THE CLOCK
Of course, this isn’t to say we should ramp up sulfur emissions to cool things down. That would cause harm to health, likely dampen crop yields, and increase incidents of acid rain, among other negative effects.
Plus, aerosol shock is a primary reason many say we shouldn’t intentionally use aerosols to cool the climate. If we relied on aerosol production to counteract global warming from greenhouse gases, we’d be in big trouble we had to stop all of a sudden. Whether due to politics, mechanical failure, or some other cause, we’d be exposed to sudden ramp up in temperatures that would play havoc with the climate.
The fact that sulfur aerosols may have counteracted some warming effects is notable, but by no way a solution for the problem of climate change. Instead, it should serve as further incentive to drastically cut back on greenhouse gas emissions. We may just have to work harder than expected in order to account for the fact that sulfur-based aerosols may have been obscuring the worst consequences of our excesses.
[Headline image: “Sulfur Fumarole” by USGS.]
ACID PRECIPITATION: EFFECTS OF SULFUR DIOXIDE AND SULFATE AEROSOL PARTICLES ON HUMAN HEALTH
Coffin, D. AND J. Knelson. ACID PRECIPITATION: EFFECTS OF SULFUR DIOXIDE AND SULFATE AEROSOL PARTICLES ON HUMAN HEALTH. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA/600/J-76/067 (NTIS PB268139).
While human health impairment has been attributed to pollution by sulfur dioxide (SO2), data from inhalation studies in animals show that its oxidation products are more irritating. Population surveys in which suspended sulfate was a co-variant suggest that certain health parameters are associated more strongly with sulfate than with SO2. Recent work with biological models indicate that the sulfates and sulfuric acid act on the lung through the release of histamine and the degree of release is related to the specific cation present. Attention should be given to sulfates and specific cations in atmospheric monitoring.
ACID PRECIPITATION: EFFECTS OF SULFUR DIOXIDE AND SULFATE AEROSOL PARTICLES ON HUMAN HEALTH
Record Type: DOCUMENT ( REPORT )
I’ve been sharing my work primarily on my YouTube channel and my Facebook page. However, with coming censorship, I’ve established a new, safe and secure platform on SubscribeStar. I will be transitioning to this page more and more. I suggest you visit my SubscribeStar page, bookmark it, join and get familiar with it now, before anything happens to my present platforms.
3 years, 2 months ago
Steve Milloy, part of the Trump transition team for the EPA, joins David Knight to look at whether the newly confirmed EPA Director Wheeler
3 years, 6 months ago
10 months, 1 week ago
It seems that a continuous cloud of Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is drifting to Asia, as long as the eruption continues the SO2 cloud will continue. Here is the question, the experts say do not worry, but what if the eruption lasts for years? The grand solar minimum is intensifying, so should the eruptions. As we saw in the Late Antique Little Ice Age 535 AD, SO2 was a main driver for respiratory problems in the N. Hemisphere. These experts by the way telling us not to worry are the same ones in the IPCC which have given us not so accurate reports on what would happen with our climate.
ADAPT 2030 on PayPal paypal.me/adapt2030
4 years, 1 month ago
Scientists promote environmental warfare technique of spraying sulfur dioxide into atmosphere
September 20, 2022 | ZeroGeoengineering | Link To Harvard_Solar Geoengineering_Funding_Chart
Sulfur aerosol injection is not new, the plan to deliberately release harmful contaminants into the atmosphere, such as sulfur dioxide (SO2).
In fact, in the 1975 DARPA report titled, “SOVIET DEVELOPMENTS IN WEATHER MODIFICATION, CLIMATE MODIFICATION AND CLIMATOLOGY,” Environmental Warfare was listed as a topic of investigation. The report stated:
“..within a few decades world heat production could rise from the present level of 0.2%, of the received power of the Sun to a level of 2%, thus causing a 1-1.5 C mean global temperature increase. Such a potentially harmful warming trend could, in principle, be checked by artificially increasing the planetary cloud cover.” -p83
“…method of moderating planetary warming trends by temporarily increasing the concentration of sulfate aerosol particles in the lower stratosphere and thereby reducing global radiation.” -i
If this narrative sounds familiar, it’s because it is, the same story that has been perpetuated for decades by academic grant dependent ‘researchers,’ military, and government agencies. This ‘scientific technological elite’ engage in planning and operations of environmental warfare techniques such as Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI), with complete disregard for life on Earth, because there is endless funding, an absence of applied ethical or moral standards and furthermore, there are no laws preventing the use of our atmosphere as a physics lab.
President John F. Kennedy called for a ban on atmospheric research testing in the same 1961 speech where he announced proposals for international weather prediction and weather control. –Link To Full Speech Quote @ 22:02
To learn more about advocating for a ban on Geoengineering, email: email@example.com or
19 September 2022 | By Thomas Moore | SkyNews
“A fleet of 125 military air-to-air refuelling tankers would release a cloud of microscopic sulphur dioxide particles”
Scientists have outlined a controversial plan to refreeze the North and South Poles, and dial down the global thermostat.
They say high-flying jets could spray microscopic aerosol particles into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight and cool the melting icecaps.
Around 175,000 flights a year would be needed, releasing millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide.
But a former UK chief scientist backed the plans, telling Sky News that polar warming is now critical – and refreezing the ice could hold back the rise in global sea levels.
The new study was led by Wake Smith from Yale University in the United States.
Link To Read Full Article HERE
“Studies of alternative lofting concepts such as balloons, rockets, guns, or tethered hoses conclude that at 20 km, the most efficient and reliable lofting technology would be fixed-wing, self-propelled, air-breathing jets” Link
Wake Smith et al 2022 Environ. Res. Commun. 4 031002
Link To Full Document_Stratospheric Aerosol Injection_Smith_2022_Environ._Res._Commun._4_031002