Talk:Stratospheric sulfur aerosols

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Environment / Climate change  (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Climate change task force.


Seems that much of this section is redundant with and better discussed (or should be) in the Geoengineering article, needs a major chop. Vsmith (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Geoeng article cannot hope to incorporate every technique in detail - it would clearly breach WP article length limits.Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Strat / Trop[edit]

the cooling effect of sulfur emissions may have offset a significant part of the greenhouse warning in the northern hemisphere during the past several decades. - but that is talking about tropospheric not stratospheric aerosols, so is irrelevant here. The volcanoes might be strat; needs checking William M. Connolley (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I hacked out the whole "indirect geoeng" section. I'm sorry, but this is all trop stuff; nothing to do with strat at all [1]. There seems to be OR going on to try to make a connection: it may be possible to exercise indirect control over stratospheric sulfur aerosols [2] but the ref is nothing to do with strat; it continues However, the main effect envisaged is a change in the reflectivity of clouds due to the sea-level height of gas emissions. However, stratospheric-tropospheric exchange processes [3] but this is nothing to do with sulphate. This is classic OR and is Not Allowed William M. Connolley (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Oliver Wingenter to provide further info and evidence on this.Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't[edit]

Please don't add inline comments like "Please leave the geoeng section relatively comprehensive. Although there's a geoeng and solar radiation management articles, neither consider aerosols in depth " [4], unless you really want to annoy me. Comments like that are for generally useful instructions with some level of agreement. Not for you to try to influence article content. If you have anything like that to discuss, say it on the talk page here.

As you wish: Please leave the geoeng section relatively comprehensive. Although there's a geoeng and solar radiation management articles, neither consider aerosols in depthAndrewjlockley (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

While I'm here, It is also partly based on the great speed with which an effective solution could be delivered is either wrong (using any kind of usual meaning of "great speed" or meaningless (if you're relying on some other definition). Its also pure OR.

No, it's obviously quicker than sequestration as it forces immediately. I've edited to take account of this ambiguity, though.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, Lenton and Vaughan is only just published - we should avoid using anything so new. And you have - to be delicate - misquoted it. It says "By 2050, only stratospheric aerosol injections or sunshades in space have the potential to cool the climate back toward its pre-industrial state". They do *not* say "this technique to be the only viable one for reversing a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere" William M. Connolley (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No-one takes space sunshade particularly seriously as anything other than an academic exercise, but I've made the edit you requested anyway. Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted your axe-edit, and I've taken on board your comments when replacing it. Note L&V already widely reported globally and on WP.Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
NB I've been following the L&V debate, and their conclusion that SSAs are viable has not been questioned. However, other techniques have been seen as been 'downplayed'. Therefore, I've removed any refs. to superlative SSAs, just noting simple efficacy.Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Too chopped?[edit]

Lots of stuff has been removed, and references made to sulfur cycle. This is a short article that's very light on detail. I suggest that much needs to go back in.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


We need to cover trop. aerosols. I suggest we either have a sep. article, or we move both topics to Atmospheric sulfur aerosolsAndrewjlockley (talk) 11:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe just sulfur aerosols?Andrewjlockley (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Title change to sulfate?[edit]

The correct term is sulphate/sulfate aerosols not 'sulphur' aerosols. (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

effect on the biosphere[edit]

Coming to this article having no expertise in the topic, I have to wonder whether surely there have been authoritative and citeable articles discussing the effects of acid rain, and its runoff into the ocean where it accelerates acidification there. If so, it might be useful to incorporate some analysis into the text of the article, with counterarguments to the conclusion that "effects on terrestrial ecosystems from deposition is not likely to be significantly harmful." I'm not convinced of the neutrality of such a statement to be left as Wikipedia's summary of the issue. Milkunderwood (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)