The Evolving Narrative on Global Temperatures and the Danger of Solar Geoengineering

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:

 

Here's a quote from the article with my bolds: 

"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:

As reported in Newsweek in 1975 (thanks to Tony Heller for the link), climate scientists were concerned about global cooling:

"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.

Space Bubbles - The World Economic Forum's Solution to Global Climate Change?

The self-annointed/self-appointed global overlords at the World Economic Forum seem to have a solution for every ill that ails mankind (or, in the words of Justin Trudeau, peoplekind).  In this posting, we'll look at one of the ruling class's more imaginative solutions.

 

Here's a video from the World Economic Forum outlining the use of one type of space-based geoengineering technology that could be used to solve the issue of global climate change:

 

 

Over the past few years, it has become apparent that the braintrust at the WEF has never seen a technological solution that it didn't like.

 

As background, let's look at what the space bubble researchers at MIT have to say about this solution.  In trying to answer this question:

 

"If climate change has already gone too far,what could be our emergency solutions?"

 

....scientists at MIT's Sensable City Lab state that 

 

"Geoengineering might be our final and only option.  Yet, most geoengineering proposals are earth-bound, which poses tremendous risks to our living ecosystem.  They note that "space-based solutions would be safer - for instance, if we deflect 1.8 percent of incident solar radiation before it hits our planet, we could fully reverse today's global warming."

 

MIT scientists are building on the work of Roger Angel who proposed using thin reflective films in outer space; these thin films could be thought of as an umbrella which shades the earth from the sun's energy.  At MIT's labs, scientists have produced stable, solid thin-film bubbles in outer space conditions (0.0028 atmospheres and -50 degrees Celsius) that could be the most efficient thin-film structures for deflecting solar radiation as shown here:

 

 

Currently, the use of silicon-based melts, and graphene-reinforced ionic liquids are being explored along with other potential composites of relatively low density.  In theory, the mass density of the bubble shield would be roughly 1.5 grams per square metre.  These bubbles would be manufactured in outer space at the Langragian point between the earth and sun (the point where the gravitational force of the sun and earth are in equilibrium and are equal to the centripetal force required for the mass to move with them) as shown here where the L1 Lagrange point would be the most effective:

 

The bubbles would be fabricated in-situ inside a production unit, rapidly frozen and then released into zero pressure and low-temperature space.  The bubbles would be assembled into an areally extensive deflective raft that would be capable of deflecting solar radiation back into space.  The bubbles could be deflated once they are no longer needed.

  

Here is a graphic showing the design of a potential bubble raft which would be located approximately 1,500,000,000 meters (932,000 miles) from earth:

 

Here are the technical aspects of the program that are currently being undertaken:

 

Here is a list of the principal investigators, researchers and advisors:

 

Here are the public policy implications of the program as quoted from the MIT press release:

 

"How to get the most synergies between emission cuts and solar geoengineering is a public policy problem that needs careful investigation.  Moreover, research will be done on the following topics: how to overcome political opposition and political fear, how to avoid what has been referred to as moral hazard, how to make the project economically stable and how to open-source the solution design for a widespread engagement."

 

In the next phase, formal analyses and simulations of these topics will be conducted along with further laboratory production experimentation.  

 

Here is a final quote from the press release outlining two key issues; timing and cost:

 

1.) Timing - "In its largest extent...the system could offset 100 percent of the effect of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  We believe that once a technical solution is identified, implementation could happen before the end of the century when the most severe consequences of climate change are currently predicted."

 

2.) Cost - "In terms of cost, an initial estimate was suggested...as approximately 0.5 percent of global GDP over 50 years..."

 

Let's close with one thought:

 

What could possibly go wrong?

Solar Geoengineering

In a recent paper on the WIREs website, a group of scientists have weighed in on their concerns about one technology being considered as a potential solution for global warming.

  

Let's start with this definition:

 

"Albedo is defined as the proportion of light that is reflected from a surface and is measured on a scale of zero to one with zero albedo surfaces generally being darker in colour and high albedo surfaces generally being lighter in colour.  As such, dark-colours surfaces tend to absorb more light."

  

In the case of the world as a whole, roughly 30 percent of the sun's energy is reflected back into space.  Dark coloured surfaces with low albedo like asphalt and roofing shingles absorb more of the sun's energy, resulting in these surfaces heating up.  In contrast, white surfaces with high albedo like snow cover reflect most of the sun's energy back into the atmosphere and, as a result, do not heat up as much.

  

Solar geoengineering technology proposes to use various methods to reflect sunlight back into space, thereby cooling the earth.  There two of the main technologies that are being considered include:

 

1.) Stratospherical aerosol injection or SAI - this technology is similar to what happens during an eruption of volcanic dust.  SAI technology would inject and aerosol containing small particles which end up in the stratosphere and reflect sunlight thereby cooling the earth's surface.

 

2.) Marine cloud brightening or MCB - this technology would involve the use of marine vessels to spray sea salt into low level clouds located in marine areas to enhance the brightness and reflectivity of the clouds which would result in greater sunlight reflection.

  

Here is a diagram showing how these two methods could be used to increase planetary albedo, thereby reducing earth's temperature:  

 

In 2021, Harvard's Solar Geogineering Research Program under its Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment or SCoPEX was planning to launch a balloon into space from the Swedish Space Corporation infrastructure located near Kiruna, Sweden and inject a small amount of aerosol consisting of calcium carbonate (less that 1 kilogram) at an altitude of 20 kilometres in the stratosphere.  The propelled balloon will then be flown back through the plume to measure the temporal evolution of the perturbation resulting from the plume and study how the aerosol in the plume is developing.  Thanks to significant public backlash, the Bill Gates-backed project was shelved and will take place in 2022 if it takes place at all.

  

Let's close this section with this video:

 

 

With all of this background, let's now look at the recently published document entitled "Solar geoengineering: The case for an international non-use agreement".  Here is a list of the scientists involved and their affiliations:

 

 

Let's look at some key excerpts with my bolds:

 

"Solar geoengineering is mainly discussed as an intervention at planetary scale to lower global mean temperatures in response to global warming. The most prominent proposal is the injection of aerosols in the stratosphere to inhibit the influx of solar energy. Interventions that are more regional or local in intent, such as marine cloud brightening to protect fragile ecosystems such as the Great Barrier Reef, are also conceivable, but they differ significantly in terms of governance, politics, and scale...."

 

"The idea of solar geoengineering is gaining traction in a few industrialized countries. In March 2021, for instance, a report by a committee of the US National Academy of Sciences concluded that the United States should establish, ideally in international collaboration, a research program to assess the feasibility of solar geoengineering as a stopgap measure for addressing anthropogenic climate change. Individual researchers in the United States have called for a globally organized “mission-driven research program” on solar geoengineering  and for a special IPCC report on this topic....

 

Advocates of solar geoengineering research argue, implicitly or explicitly, that international climate governance has been largely ineffective and that the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting global warming to well below 2°C and preferably to 1.5°C is unlikely to be met, given current trends and policies (e.g., Svoboda et al., 2018; Wagner, 2021). Therefore, proponents argue, solar geoengineering should be researched now to better understand its potential efficacy and to have it available, if deemed feasible, as a future option...

 

To us, these proliferating calls for solar geoengineering research and development are cause for alarm, as they risk the normalization of these technologies as a future policy option. So far, the risks and efficacy of solar geoengineering are poorly understood..."

 

The authors' main concern is the lack of a global governance mechanism to oversee the technical, political and ethical risks of these massive solar geoengineering interventions given that such interventions would require complex decisions that would have to be made on a global scale.  They believe that the potential benefits and risks of such a program would be unevenly spread, particularly negatively impacting people of the global south who are living in the poorest nations on earth where a change in climate could have a dramatic negative impact on their lives.

 

Here is another excerpt:

 

"...any global decisions on the details of the deployment of solar geoengineering are unlikely to find consensus. Disagreements about some parameters—for example, the degree of cooling, the duration of deployment, or the specific latitudes and distribution of aerosols—will inevitably occur. Such situations would require clear and reliable decision-making procedures for solving these disagreements....In short, the deployment of solar geoengineering at planetary scale would require entirely new international organizations with convincing means of democratic control and unprecedented enforcement powers. Such organizations do not exist."

 

For many reasons, not all of which are covered in this posting, the authors of the paper are calling for a "Non-use Agreement on Solar Engineering" which would included the following five core prohibitions and measures:

 

1.) The commitment to prohibit their national funding agencies from supporting the development of technologies for solar geoengineering, domestically and through international institutions.

2.) The commitment to ban outdoor experiments of solar geoengineering technologies in areas under their jurisdiction.

3.) The commitment to not grant patent rights for technologies for solar geoengineering, including supporting technologies such as for the retrofitting of airplanes for aerosol injections.

4.) The commitment to not deploy technologies for solar geoengineering if developed by third parties.

5.) The commitment to object to future institutionalization of planetary solar geoengineering as a policy option in relevant international institutions, including in assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

  

This group of scientists are not the only scientists that are concerned about solar geoengineering.  The Union of Concerned Scientists has also expressed its concern about the use of solar geoengineering as quoted here:

 

"To date, research to scope the risks and potential of solar geoengineering has mostly been conducted through computer-based modelling and natural observations.

 

Proposals and plans to expand research in solar geoengineering now include initiatives to conduct small-scale atmospheric experiments in the US and in Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Even small-scale experiments with limited environmental and societal risk deserve significant public scrutiny and debate as they accelerate attention and legitimate concern about the potential for larger-scale, potentially riskier experiments, and possible deployment.

 

Because solar geoengineering has global implications, its consideration as a climate response requires effective international governance. Sound governance would need to be sustained for a very long time. Even uses intended to be “temporary,” such as deploying stratospheric aerosols to limit peak warming while we aggressively reduce emissions, would likely need to be sustained for a half-century or more."

 

The Union also notes that scientists currently have some idea regarding the impact of volcanic eruptions on the global atmosphere but that level of knowledge is insufficient to understand a sustained program of geoengineering.

 

Let's close with this press release dated March 25, 2021 from the United States National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine:

 

Here's a quote from the press release: 

  

"The report says the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) should lead the effort to establish and coordinate a solar geoengineering research program across federal agencies and scientific disciplines, with funding in the range of $100 million-$200 million over the first five years. USGCRP would enable oversight and governance of research activities, including ensuring peer review, coordinating budget proposals and requests, periodically assessing progress, and defining program goals. Funding should be set aside specifically for implementation of governance and public engagement efforts.

 

The research agenda should encompass 13 specific areas of research, which can be grouped into the following three broad areas of investigation:

 

1.) Context and goals for solar geoengineering research, including research on the goals and social context for solar geoengineering research, developing modeling scenarios, strategies for decision-making under uncertainty, and the capacity needed for all countries to engage meaningfully on this issue.

2.)Impacts and technical dimensions, including the properties of injected reflective particles and their interactions with clouds and atmospheric processes, possible climate outcomes and subsequent impacts on ecological and societal systems, technical requirements for advancing these technologies, and advancing monitoring and attribution capabilities.

3.) Social dimensions, including research on public perceptions of and engagement with solar geoengineering; domestic and international conflict and cooperation; effective governance of solar geoengineering; and integration of justice, ethics, and equity considerations."

As you can see, some scientists are very concerned about the prospect of the use of solar geoengineering technology to mitigate climate change and its potential long-term negative impact on the entire world.  Since the science is still in its infancy, their concern is valid.

 

Let's close with this thought on solar geoengineering:

 

What could possibly go wrong?

Solar Geoengineering and Its Links to the World's Richest

While the vast majority of humanity living in the Western world is distracted with all things "COVID" and "vaccine", a potentially ground-breaking experiment is moving forward, thanks to funding from one of the world's foremost, untrained climatologists.

  

Here is the announcement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science or AAAS:

 

According to the author of the news item, Paul Voosen, Harvard University is proposing a June 2021 test flight of a research balloon and gondola over Sweden (the location of the Esrange Space Center located in Kiruna) that is ultimately designed to drop small amounts of calcium carbonate and observe its effects on the world's stratosphere.  This particular experiment is being used to review the gondola's horizontal and vertical control systems as well as its power, navigation and communication systems.  The SCoPEx experiment is part of a larger and controversial plan of solar geoengineering, processes that could potentially be used to reduce the impact of global climate change. 

  

The experiment is called the Stratospheric Controlled Perburbation Experiment or SCoPEx and has been designed by a group headed by Harvard's Frank Keutsch, the Stonington Professor of Engineering and Atmospheric Science and a Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard.  

  

Let's look at the SCoPEx experiment.  Here is a YouTube video that explains the process and the rationale being the experiment:

 

 

According to Keutsch's FAQ page, the SCoPEx experiment is designed to gain and understanding of stratospheric aerosols and how they could be relevant to solar engineering.  Here is an explanation of the experiment:

 

"At the heart of SCoPEx is a scientific balloon, fitted with repurposed off-the-shelf airboat propellers. The repurposed propellers serve two functions. First, the propeller wake forms a well mixed volume (roughly 1 km long and 100 meters in diameter) that serves as an experimental ‘beaker’ in which we can add gasses or particles. Second, the propellers allow us to reposition the gondola to different locations within the volume to measure the properties of the perturbed air. The payload can achieve speeds of a few meters per second (walking speed) relative to the surrounding air, generally for about ten minutes at a time.

The advantage of the SCoPEx propelled balloon is that it allows us to create a small controlled volume of stratospheric air and observe its evolution for (we hope) over 24 hours. Hence the acronym, Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment. If we used an aircraft instead of a balloon, we would not be able to use such a small perturbed volume nor would we be able to observe it for such long durations. 

 

We plan to use a high-altitude balloon to lift an instrument package approximately 20 km into the atmosphere. Once it is in place, a very small amount of material (100 g to 2 kg) will be released to create a perturbed air mass roughly one kilometer long and one hundred meters in diameter. We will then use the same balloon to measure resulting changes in the perturbed air mass including changes in aerosol density, atmospheric chemistry, and light scattering."

 

Here is a graphic showing the key parts of the equipment used in the experiment:

 

Here's what the future holds for the SCoPEx project:

  

"In the future, if a science flight is approved by the independent Advisory Committee, we plan to release calcium carbonate, a common mineral dust. We may also release other materials such as sulfates in response to evolving scientific interests."

 Here is the answer to the questions about the potential hazards of the experiment:

"The test will pose no significant hazard to people or the environment. Calcium carbonate is a nontoxic chemical commonly found in nature, for example as limestone, and sub-micron precipitated calcium carbonate particles like the ones we will use are a common additive to consumer products such as paper and toothpaste. In general, the amount of materials to be released (less than 2 kilograms for calcium carbonate) will be very small compared to other routine releases of material into the stratosphere by aircraft, rockets, or routine balloon flights. For example, the release of experimental materials will be small compared to the release of the iron filling ballast that are commonly released to control the altitude of stratospheric balloons. Additionally, if we test sulfate in this experiment, the amount we would use would be less than the amount released during a one minute of flight of a typical commercial aircraft. Aircraft release sulfates due to residual sulfur content of aviation fuel."

  

Here is a followup video showing why the world's first solar engineering test is so controversial:

 

 

With that background, let's look at who is funding this project.  Here is a screen capture from a Geoengineering Brief dated November 2017:

 

 

Here is a screen capture from Harvard's Solar Geoengineering Research Program showing its funders:

 

Like flies swarming on a dead carcass, once again we find Mr. Bill Gates and his seemingly unlimited pile of money funding the use of technology to solve the world's problems as he explains here:

Given that Gates lives in a 66,000 square foot home and flies around the world using a Bombardier Global Express private jet because his time is just so valuable and has just entered a bid for an investment in one of the world's largest private fixed base operator for private jets through his Cascade Investment (which already owns 19 percent of the company, Signature Aviation) as shown here:

...wouldn't you think that he would know that he has a carbon footprint that is far larger than the vast majority of human beings or at least see the irony in his climate proclamations?  But I guess when you are that man that brought us Windows Vista, you can get away with pretty much anything.

Update March 31, 2021

Here is a recent announcement from the Swedish Space Corporation:

It looks like it's back to the drawing board for Bill Gates.  Apparently, Sweden was not for sale to one of the world's richest men.