Injecting sulfer into atmosphere

[zoeyann]

Has anyone heard of this source, is it reliable? It's an interesting theory, but in all honesty the fact that someone would consider this is concerning. I honestly don't know what the negetive reprocusions could be, but I sure it could backfire somehow

http://www.livescience.com/environment/ ... ulfur.html

[x-y-no]

This isn't a new idea.

The big problems with this are that it would take an enormous amount injected into the stratosphere to have a significant effect, and because the lifetime of sulphur particulates in the stratosphere is only on the order of a year or two, it would have to be an ongoing thing.

Furthermore, unless we significantly curb our greenhouse gas production, one would need to be injecting more and more as time goes by.

I suppose it's worth doing a cost analysis on, but I have to think this would be a heck of a lot more expensive than reducing our GHG production.

[Aslkahuna]

There IS a negative consequence. The SO2 ejected into the stratosphere, did a real number on the Ozone Layer already having problems due to CFCs. The Ozone depletion levels in the years immeidately following the Pinatubo eruption were the highest ever observed.

Steve

[zoeyann]

Thanks for answering some of my questions. It just seems to me that anything that involves weather or earth in general the first things veryone always told me is that things are in constant flux, things balance themselves out, and that when you mess with nature it fights back. It just seems to me that these quick fixes (ie dynomat) for weather are either an ineffectual waste of money or could make things worse. It almost reminds me of Futurama when they combated global warming by continuously filling the oceans with more and more ice.

[Aslkahuna]

The saying "It's not nice to mess with Mother Nature" is very applicable in weather.

Steve