Should the world ban solar geoengineering? 60 experts say yes.

[rangerrebew]

Should the world ban solar geoengineering? 60 experts say yes.
They say the technology poses an “unacceptable risk.”
sunrise
 

Published
    Jan 21, 2022
 
 

Last weekend, an underwater volcanic eruption covered the island nation of Tonga in ash. It sent tsunami waves surging across the entire West Coast. And it also released a cloud of sulfur dioxide, a chemical that, in large enough quantities, reflects the sun’s rays and cools the planet.

Scientists quickly determined that, unlike Mount Pinatubo’s eruption in 1991 — which cooled the planet by around 1 degree Fahrenheit for several years — the Tonga volcano hadn’t released enough sulfur dioxide to alter global temperatures. But the eruption illustrated a question that has been dogging scientific and climate experts for decades: If the world got unbearably hot, should scientists and governments opt to put sulfur dioxide or similar chemicals into the atmosphere to slow the rate of global warming? Is it ethical to even research such technologies?

In an open letter published Monday in the journal WIREs Climate Change, more than 60 researchers from around the globe offered a resounding “no” to both questions. They called for an “international non-use agreement” on so-called solar geoengineering technologies, which would cool the planet by releasing sun-reflecting chemicals into the atmosphere. The authors want governments to ban outdoor experiments and deployment of solar geoengineering, prohibit national funding agencies from providing financial support, and refuse patents for such technologies. The signatories included many prominent climate scientists, as well as the writer Amitav Ghosh and Sheila Jasanoff, an expert on science policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

Solar geoengineering technology, they say, poses an “unacceptable risk” to the planet’s environment, climate, and most vulnerable people. “Governments and the United Nations need to take effective political control and restrict the development of solar geoengineering technologies before it is too late,” they wrote.

https://grist.org/climate-energy/

[The_Reader_David]

Actually, we took our contribution of SO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels out when we required low sulphur motor and jet fuels and and banned burning high sulphur coal (not that this last wasn't good for anyone living near a power plant).  A massive program to put SO2 into the atmosphere would probably be a bad idea, but going back to using old high sulphur jet fuels on all routes that go over the arctic would probably be a good idea. 

The warming is concentrated in the arctic, which is why I favor soot and other light-absorbing particles in the cryosphere as the main driver, rather than CO2 or any solar phenomenon -- coal burning and agricultural activity that kicks up dust, along with the mismanagement of forests in California are all concentrated in the northern hemisphere, and thus influence the arctic far more than the antarctic -- neither CO2 nor solar influences will explain record cold in continental Antarctica and a warming arctic.