Will pumping SO2 into the stratosphere to curb global warming a good idea?

It can be, but it certainly shouldn't be. SO2 also causes acid rain and health problems.

Plus plants need sunlight, so causing global dimming is a poor way to slow global warming.

Plus it would be difficult to know how much SO2 to pump into the atmosphere, and if we continue to emit more and more CO2, we would have to pump more and more SO2 into the atmosphere.

It's simply not a good solution. A far better one would be to simply decrease our greenhouse gas emissions. We need to end our addiction on fossil fuels anyway because they're a finite resource and we're approaching peak oil production.

It's not too smart to do something difficult to reverse to try to fix this. Other ideas include launching millions of reflectors to deflect solar radiation, which is also reckless and difficult to reverse.

The best idea I've seen so far is to plant more trees as carbon sinks. Another idea worth study is seeding the ocean with iron sulfide to stimulate algae and phytoplankton growth. The new algae and plankton then consume CO2. Both of these are reversible in case AGW advocates are wrong and we're actually going into a cooling phase.

Let's not even start talking about peak oil. Wait, someone already did. The Athabasca Tar Sands in Alberta, Canada contain more petroleum than has been pumped from the ground since the dawn of history. Guess who's opposed to accessing that oil? The usual suspects, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and the Rainforest Action Network. They want us to run out of oil and they wanted this long before the AGW scare began.

No offense, yet this must be between the main retarded concepts of all time. SO2 (and SO3) is tightly regulated via fact it motives acid rain like this is going out of style. that they had an incredible style of problems with acid rain in the quicker aspects of the business revolution earlier they discovered what substitute into going on and commenced regulating it. something you may look into is particulate count number (PM). this is nevertheless a quite wild concept devoid of the glaring drawbacks.

Playing along with the crowd,it's not really a feasible solution.To emphasize the other suggestions,one could say the same about; nuclear power,fish farming,fertilizer for agroculture...etc.All of these have/had a negative environmental impact potential.Land based pollutants are more detrimental then CO2,because the effects are almost immediate and long lasting.If you totally destroy an ecosystem,it has no chance to recover from a slight warming trend.

No.

Trying to oppose one huge man made change with another is not a bright idea.

Instead we should reduce our impact by reducing our production of greenhouse gases.

"If the Earth came with an operating manual, the chapter on climate might begin with a caveat that the system has been adjusted at the factory for optimum comfort, so don't touch the dials."

I don't believe we should mess with the weather. Right now it's doing what it always does.... leave it alone.

Heck.... look at the stupid move that we have made with ethanol. A classic example of a knee-jerk reaction to a make believe problem.

we could. it has been proposed as a last ditch measure to stop global warming but it has many problems. such as acid rain and a study linking sulphide aerosols and low rain fall.

Let's see now,how can the 'deniers' claim that man has no power to control the weather or destroy the atmosphere with excess CO2,but yet claim that man can put more gunk in the atmosphere to fix it? Kinda lacks deep thought! Sort of like the old nursery rhyme about getting a cat to get rid of the mice,a dog to get rid of the cats,and so on...

Trade acid rain for global warming?

See - these are the problems that happen when "solutions" are proposed to problems where we don't have enough information.....

read michael crighton's state of fear novel.