By now, many of my readers may have heard about the United Kingdom's plan to fund certain climate-based experiments through its Advanced Research + Invention Agency (ARIA). According to the Agency's website, the group has the following core beliefs about "Future Proofing Our Climate and Weather":
The goal of ARIA is to "gather critical missing data and answer fundamental scientific questions on approaches that could help prevent humanity from experiencing climate tipping points" and to "explore whether approaches designed to delay, or avert, climate tipping points could be feasible, scalable, and safe."
ARIA claims that it is committed to responsible stewardship, transparency, accountailbilty and good governance and states the following about its funded research:
1.) Deliver valuable knowledge that can address the most pressing critical scientific questions surrounding these approaches
2.) Minimise risk by design
3.) Engage with, and respect local communities
4.) Be transparent, open and honest at programme and project level
5.) Communicate proactively
6.) Remain cognisant of the broader implications of research
7.) Be willing to adapt to lessons learned
8.) Adhere to our well-defined framework for responsible research.
The programme's independent oversight committee, made up of international experts, is designed to strengthen the governance of the programme.
Basically, ARIA wants to fund geoengineering technologies that are designed to responsibly and artificially cool the earth.
According to the Guardian, the U.K. government through ARIA will fund £50 million ($66.65 million USD) of geoengineering, most particularly solar geoengineering also known as solar radiation management:
"UK scientists are to launch outdoor geoengineering experiments as part of a £50m government-funded programme.
The experiments will be small-scale and rigorously assessed, according to Advanced Research and Invention Agency (Aria), the UK government agency backing the plan, and will provide “critical” data needed to assess the potential of the technology. The programme, along with another £11m project, will make the UK one of the biggest funders of geoengineering research in the world."
Here is a graphic showing five methods for solar radiation managemen from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or NOAA:
While the prospect of sun-dimming technology is rather frightening given that the negative repercussions could be catastrophic, a look back in time to 1975 shows us just how unscientific climate science really is:
"There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically.
The evidence in support of these predictions (drop in global temperatures that have led to a shortening of the growing season) has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard pressed to keep up with it.
The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earths climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."
...a study released last month by two NOAA scientists noted that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3 percent between 1964 and 1972."
My how things have changed over fifty years. In the mid-1970s, apparently climate scientists were extremely worried about global cooling and were looking at solutions like melting the arctic ice caps to increase the world's temperatures and stated that if planners delayed, it would be more difficult to cope with that particular version of climate change. Now, five decades later, climate scientists are grasping at technological straws in an attempt to cool the planet down by experimenting with the earth's atmosphere to reduce solar radiation.
Perhaps, it would be best if mankind just let nature act as it always has; unpredictably and in cycles. Rather than trying to control nature, it would be wise to let the climate change as it has for millennia (and much longer) without interfering with natural processes by using technology with unknown short-, medium- and long-term consequences. Unfortunately, the decision makers that are funding these experiments with our tax dollars have no clue whatsoever about climate science...or any science for that matter.